Once again, this class seems to come full circle. In our discussions of alternate cognitions, we land on ADD/ADHD, and come once again to the topic of attention in the brain. One particular aspect that has caught my eye this time around is the idea of "deep" attention versus "hyper" attention, as explained in the Hayles article. The former is the ability to focus on one particular stimulus to the exclusion of all else for long periods of time; absorption in the latest Harry Potter novel, for instance. The latter is the ability to switch focus rapidly between many different stimuli; for instance, your typical multi-tasking modern college student. (I personally must confess that I have 3 tabs open on my internet browser unrelated to this blog post, as well as Duke Ellington and his All Star Road Band playing in the background.)
What particularly fascinates me is how our society has changed over the centuries in what kind of attention it prefers. Earlier on in human history, when hunting for food and then fighting for territory were of prime importance, we favored hyper attention. The recent series Percy Jackson and the Olympians explains the ADHD of many modern demigods in this fashion. With brains that are hard-wired for the intense stimulation of combat, Percy and many like him just lose interest in the modern classroom.
As we moved on and built aristocracies and monarchies, the focus shifted to deep attention. To be able to pay attention to only one thing for hours at a time, especially literature, art, or music, was a luxury reserved for the upper classes. Boredom even more so: what the bored mind can create became one of the prevailing themes of the German Romantic. As Hayles discusses, deep attention eventually took over: our schools and systems of higher education revolve around this type of attention, requiring it of our students if they are to succeed.
And the wheel continues to turn: with technology becoming so pervasive in modern society, we return to hyper attention. Ever-present computers, radios, televisions and digital music players bombard people with a constant barrage of stimulation. This barrage has become so normal to recent generations that it has reached the point of being a security blanket: how many people every day do you see walking around campus with their earbuds in or their headphones on? Tired of the stimulation of the natural world, we have been spurred on to create unnatural stimulus and have come to prefer it.
Is it possible to unite these two kinds of attention? Hayles brings up the example of video games: a very stimulation, interactive environment, but one that you can immerse yourself in for hours. To connect back to the combat example above, I have found a similar synergy of attention when fencing or performing for marching band: my world reduces to those stimuli useful to me, shrinking down to the fencing strip or the space from goal line to goal line. All three of these activities require quick reaction time and close attention, and offer rewards in return: whether it's beating the level, winning the bout, or performing a show without being an inch out of place. I believe that attention, like so many other things, will find its best use through balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment