Written by Other than the bits and pieces I’ve read in various places, and other than what I learned from the related Wikipedia site, I don’t know a whole lot about “Attention Economics.” However, the Herbert Simon quote below that I got from the Wikipedia site resonates with my current (probably mostly personal) concern:
…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it (Simon 1971, p. 40-41)
You see, I’m smack in the middle of reading “Everything is Miscellaneous,” one of the many books I have on my personal and professional summer reading list. I think it’s a really important book, but I can’t shake this feeling that it could have been written in about 15 pages. I get the main ideas; I really do. But, to me, there’s a lot of filler material that may be interesting to some, but not so much to me. Yes, Universal Product Codes (UPC) were an important way of coding and categorizing products, but do I need to know the whole history of UPCs? I suppose Linnaeus was an interesting guy, but I don’t feel a need to know his whole life history. Etc.
It’s very possible that this is just me and my own personal reaction to the book, but I fear that having immersed myself in this whole Learning 2.0 paradigm, I’m cheating myself. I’ve become what Will Richardson called a “nomadic learner…I graze on knowledge. I find what I need when I need it.” That such learning is possible and that I can find what I need when I need it is awesome (and one of the main points of Everything is Miscellaneous. But, have I become so nomadic that I don’t stay and graze in any one place for long enough to really, truly learn? Am I compelled to just nibble here and there without really digesting what I’m taking in?
Perhaps this is all part of my compulsion to understand what learning really is and means. I’ve said elsewhere that in my next lifetime, I will be a learning scientist. For now, though, I believe that learning has something to do with the collection and/or accumulation of data, the processing of it into information, and, finally, the logical sequencing and application of that information to form knowledge. If that’s learning, I fear that I’ve become too concerned with data collection; that I need to spend more time data processing. In Simon’s terms, maybe I’m not allocating my attention efficiently.
Could you write those 15 pages and save me the trouble of reading it? It is also on my list sometime down the line and I would much prefer not to know about the history of UPCs.
Have you seen “Is Google Making us Stupid?” in this month’s Atlantic? Here is the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google – It sort of relates to what you are talking about here.
I’m only halfway through the book, Justin, so when I’m done I’ll give you the Cliffs Notes version. But, for now, just know that “Everything is Metadata” would have been just as good a title. I also haven’t seen any discussion about how all of this “DISorder” is possible because of the power of (relational) databases. Maybe I’ll get there…
Justin,
Good article to read, had to make sure I did not skip through it. I have started to read (books)less and blog more. The more I blog the less time I have to read. What a circle. I also notice that reading a book is comfortable and engaging. When I read on line it does not have the same sensation. I can not feel the pages as they are turned, the smell of paper, the thickness of the volume, the book held at various angles. I did not realize what those senses while reading meant in engaging me to devour the book.
I do see myself involved in attention economy. Need to pick up more books now that I am more aware.
Tina, interesting comment, especially in light of a post by John Hendron on his blog here: http://www.johnhendron.net/digest/2008/06/17/on-the-romanticism-of-books/
I’m more in agreement with John. I don’t think Google is making us stupid or that books are better. I think things are changing and we may need to break up with books and cite irreconcilable differences. (-:
Jon,
Read the above ‘romanticism -of-books’ Good reading also.
I do not think that Google is making us stupid, and I do think books are better in certain situations. I like to use my computer for certain reading and informational tasks. I like to read a book for types of reading and information. Let the reading situation denote the reading aparatus. I do think young children enjoy a book for tactile reasons, and that might be linked to the person helping them read enjoying the book also. I like to think that a book is to reading as a beginning artist is to oil and canvas. Later the artist develops the need to go to computers as a medium but starting with the oil and canvas holds a worth while experience, and will always continue to be so. Hope we always have the choice.