By Tom Chatfield

How many other things are you doing right now while youre reading this piece？ Are you also checking your email， glancing at your Twitter feed， and updating your Facebook page？ What five years ago David Foster Wallace labelled “Total Noise”— “the seething static of every particular thing and experience， and ones total freedom of infinite choice about what to choose to attend to”1—is today just part of the texture of living on a planet that will， by next year， boast one mobile phone for each of its seven billion inhabitants. We are all amateur attention economists， hoarding and bartering our moments2—or watching them slip away down the cracks of a thousand YouTube clips.

If youre using a free online service， the adage3 goes， you are the product. Its an arresting4 line， but one that deserves putting more precisely： its not you， but your behavioural data and the quantifiable facts of your engagement that are constantly blended for sale， with the aggregate of every single interaction （yours included） becoming a mechanism for ever-more-finely tuning the business of attracting and retaining users.

Consider the confessional slide show released in December 2012 by Upworthy， the “website for viral content”， which detailed the mechanics of its online attention-seeking. To be truly viral， they note， content needs to make people want to click on it and share it with others who will also click and share. This means selecting stuff with instant appeal—and then precisely calibrating5 the summary text， headline， excerpt， image and tweet that will spread it. This in turn means producing at least 25 different versions of your material， testing the best ones， and being prepared to constantly tweak6 every aspect of your site. To play the odds， you also need to publish content constantly，in quantity， to maximise the likelihood of a hit—while keeping one eye glued to Facebook. Thats how Upworthy got its most viral hit ever， under the headline “Bully Calls News Anchor Fat， News Anchor Destroys Him on Live TV”， with more than 800，000 Facebook likes and 11 million views on YouTube.

But even Upworthys efforts pale into insignificance compared with the algorithmic might of sites such as Yahoo！—which， according to the American author and marketer Ryan Holiday， tests more than 45，000 combinations of headlines and images every five minutes on its home page. Much as corporations incrementally improve the taste， texture and sheer enticement of food and drink by measuring how hard it is to stop eating and drinking them， the actions of every individual online are fed back into measures where more inexorably means better： more readers， more viewers， more exposure， more influence， more ads， more opportunities to unfurl the integrated apparatus of gathering and selling data.7

Attention， thus conceived， is an inert and finite resource， like oil or gold： a tradable asset that the wise manipulator auctions off to the highest bidder， or speculates upon to lucrative effect.8 There has even been talk of the world reaching “peak attention”， by analogy to peak oil production， meaning the moment at which there is no more spare attention left to spend.

This is one way of conceiving of our time. But its also a quantification that tramples across other， qualitative questions—a fact that the American author Michael H Goldhaber recognised some years ago， in a piece for Wired magazine called “Attention Shoppers！” （1997）. Attention， he argued， “comes in many forms： love， recognition， heeding， obedience， thoughtfulness9， caring， praising， watching over， attending to ones desires， aiding， advising， critical appraisal， assistance in developing new skills， et cetera. An army sergeant ordering troops doesnt want the kind of attention Madonna seeks. And neither desires the sort I do as I write this.”

For all the sophistication of a world in which most of our waking hours are spent consuming or interacting with media， we have scarcely advanced in our understanding of what attention means. What are we actually talking about when we base both business and mental models on a “resource” that， to all intents and purposes， is fabricated from scratch every time a new way of measuring it comes along？

In Latin， the verb attendere—from which our word“attention” derives—literally means to stretch towards. A compound of ad （“towards”） and tendere （“to stretch”）， it invokes an archetypal10 image： one person bending towards another in order to attend to them， both physically and mentally.

Attending is closely connected to anticipation. Soldiers snap to attention to signify readiness and respect—and to embody it. Unable to read each others minds， we demand outward shows of mental engagement. Teachers shout “Pay attention！”at slumped11 students whose thoughts have meandered， calling them back to the place theyre in. Time， presence and physical attentiveness are our most basic proxies12 for something ultimately unprovable： that we are understood.

The best teachers， one hopes， dont shout at their students—because they are skilled at wooing13 as well as demanding the best efforts of others. For the ancient Greeks and Romans， this wooing was a sufficiently fine art in itself to be the central focus of education. As the manual on classical rhetoric Rhetoricaad Herennium put it 2，100 years ago： “We wish to have our hearer receptive， welldisposed， and attentive （docilem， benivolum， attentum）.” To be civilised was to speak persuasively about the things that mattered： law and custom， loyalty and justice.

Underpinning this was neither honour nor idealism， but pragmatism embodied in a five-part process. Come up with a compelling proposition， arrange its elements in elegant sequence， polish your style， commit the result to memory or media， then pitch14 your delivery for maximum impact. Short of an ancient “share” button， the similarities to Upworthys recipe for going viral are impressive. Cicero15， to whom Rhetoricaad Herennium is traditionally attributed， also counted flattery， bribery， favour-bargaining and outright untruth among the tools of his trade. What mattered was results.

However， when it comes to automated systems for garnering attention， theres more at play than one person listening to another； and the processes of measurement and persuasion have some uncannily16 totalising tendencies. As far as getting the world to pay attention to me online， either I play by the rules of the system—likes， links， comments， clicks， shares， retweets—or I become ineligible17 for any of its glittering prizes.

Theres a similarly reductive exaltation in defining attention as the contents of a global reservoir， slopping interchangeably between the brains of every human being alive.18 Where is the space， here， for the idea of attention as a mutual construction more akin to empathy than budgetary expenditure—or for those unregistered moments in which we attend to ourselves， to the space around us， or to nothing at all？

We watch a 30-second ad in exchange for a video； we solicit a friends endorsement19； we freely pour sentence after sentence， hour after hour， into status updates and stock responses. None of this depletes our bank balances. Yet its cumulative cost， while hard to quantify， affects many of those things we hope to put at the heart of a happy life： rich relationships， rewarding leisure， meaningful work， peace of mind.

What kind of attention do we deserve from those around us， or owe to them in return？ What kind of attention do we ourselves deserve， or need， if we are to be “us” in the fullest possible sense？ These arent questions that even the most finely tuned popularity contest can resolve. Yet， if contentment and a sense of control are partial measures of success， many of us are selling ourselves far too cheap.

Are you still paying attention？ I can look for signs， but in the end I cant control what you think or do. And this must be the beginning of any sensible discussion. No matter who or what tells you otherwise， you have the perfect right to ignore me—and to decide for yourself what waits in each waking moment.

你在閱讀這篇文章的同時(shí)還在進(jìn)行多少件其他的事情？你是否也在查看你的電子郵件，瀏覽你的Twitter信息，更新你的Facebook頁(yè)面？五年前，戴維·福斯特·華萊士所說(shuō)的“全面的噪音”——“每一件事物、每一個(gè)經(jīng)歷所帶來(lái)的無(wú)處不在的滋滋噪音，以及人們對(duì)于究竟關(guān)注什么擁有無(wú)限選擇的全面自由”——如今只是在這個(gè)星球上生活的一部分。到明年，這個(gè)星球的70億居民每個(gè)人都將擁有一部手機(jī)。我們都是業(yè)余的注意力經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，囤積和交換我們的時(shí)時(shí)刻刻——或者看著它們?cè)谝磺€(gè)YouTube視頻的裂縫中溜走。

常言道，如果你在使用免費(fèi)的線上服務(wù)，那么你就是產(chǎn)品。這是句很吸引人的話，但這句話還可以說(shuō)得更準(zhǔn)確一些：你并不是產(chǎn)品，產(chǎn)品是你的行為數(shù)據(jù)和你的行為中可量化的事實(shí)，它們不斷被處理整合等待出售。每一次互動(dòng)（包括你的在內(nèi)）的總和成為一種通過(guò)更加精細(xì)的調(diào)整來(lái)吸引與留住用戶的機(jī)制。

考慮一下“病毒式傳播內(nèi)容網(wǎng)站”Upworthy于2012年12月發(fā)布的自白幻燈片展示，該展示詳細(xì)介紹了其吸引網(wǎng)上注意力的機(jī)制?；脽羝赋觯嬲龅讲《臼絺鞑?，內(nèi)容需要讓人們?cè)敢恻c(diǎn)擊并與他人分享，而這些人也會(huì)繼續(xù)點(diǎn)擊、分享。這意味著選擇具有即時(shí)吸引力的內(nèi)容——然后精確地校準(zhǔn)出將會(huì)有助于傳播的摘要文本、標(biāo)題、節(jié)選、圖像和推文。這意味著要將你的素材做出至少25種不同的版本，測(cè)試出最好的，并準(zhǔn)備不斷調(diào)整網(wǎng)站的各個(gè)方面。為了加大勝算，你還需要不斷發(fā)布大量?jī)?nèi)容，以最大限度地提高點(diǎn)擊率——同時(shí)也要盯著Facebook。這就是Upworthy如何做出史上傳播最廣的，即標(biāo)題為“惡霸罵新聞主播胖，新聞主播在電視直播時(shí)滅了他”的內(nèi)容。該條內(nèi)容有超過(guò)80萬(wàn)個(gè)Facebook“贊”和1，100萬(wàn)的YouTube播放量。

但Upworthy的努力，與Yahoo！等網(wǎng)站的算法威力相比，就顯得微不足道了。根據(jù)美國(guó)作家、營(yíng)銷人瑞安·霍利戴的說(shuō)法，Yahoo！在主頁(yè)上每五分鐘測(cè)試超過(guò)4.5萬(wàn)個(gè)標(biāo)題和圖像的組合。就像企業(yè)通過(guò)測(cè)量人們停止進(jìn)食某種食物和飲用某種飲料的難度來(lái)逐漸改善食物和飲料的味道、質(zhì)地與吸引力那樣，每個(gè)在線用戶的行為都會(huì)被反饋到“更多”總是意味著“更好”的測(cè)評(píng)中：更多讀者、更多觀眾、更多曝光度、更多影響力、更多廣告、更多機(jī)會(huì)來(lái)展現(xiàn)收集和銷售數(shù)據(jù)的綜合機(jī)制。

注意力，如果從這個(gè)角度看，是一種惰性的、有限的資源，就像石油或黃金一樣：這是一種可以交易的資產(chǎn)，機(jī)敏的操縱者將其賣給出價(jià)最高的競(jìng)價(jià)者，或者被用來(lái)投機(jī)倒把大賺一筆。通過(guò)類比石油峰值產(chǎn)量，甚至有人說(shuō)世界達(dá)到“注意力峰值”，指的是沒(méi)有更多多余的注意力可分的時(shí)刻。

這是理解我們時(shí)代的一種方式。但這也是一個(gè)踏著其他質(zhì)性問(wèn)題的量性問(wèn)題——這是美國(guó)作家邁克爾·H. 戈德哈伯幾年前就認(rèn)識(shí)到的一個(gè)事實(shí)，發(fā)表在《連線》雜志一篇名為《注意力購(gòu)物者！》（1997）的文章中。他認(rèn)為，注意力“有多種形式：愛(ài)、認(rèn)可、聆聽(tīng)、順從、沉思、關(guān)愛(ài)、贊美、注視、關(guān)注某人的欲望、幫助、建議、批判性評(píng)估、協(xié)助開(kāi)發(fā)新技能等等。一位給軍隊(duì)發(fā)號(hào)施令的軍士并不需要麥當(dāng)娜所追求的那種注意力。而我在寫這些文字時(shí)也不需要這種注意力?！?/p>

盡管在這個(gè)復(fù)雜的世界，我們大多數(shù)醒著的時(shí)間都花在消費(fèi)媒體或是與媒體互動(dòng)上，但對(duì)于“什么是注意力”的理解我們幾乎沒(méi)有進(jìn)步。當(dāng)我們將商業(yè)和心理模型都建立在一種每次只要有新的衡量方式出現(xiàn)就要從頭開(kāi)始制造的“資源”基礎(chǔ)上時(shí)，我們實(shí)際上是在談?wù)撌裁矗?/p>

在拉丁語(yǔ)中，動(dòng)詞attendere——“attention”一詞來(lái)源于此——從字面上來(lái)說(shuō)意思是向前伸展。作為ad（“朝”）和tendere（“伸展”）的合成，這個(gè)詞喚起了一個(gè)原始的畫面：一個(gè)人為了在身體和精神上注意到另一個(gè)人，彼此都彎向?qū)Ψ健?/p>

注意與預(yù)期密切相關(guān)。士兵立正表示做好準(zhǔn)備與尊重——并將其體現(xiàn)出來(lái)。由于無(wú)法閱讀彼此的思想，我們需要精神活動(dòng)的外在表現(xiàn)。老師對(duì)那些癱坐著的神游到九霄云外的學(xué)生大喊“注意”，讓他們回到他們所在的地方。時(shí)間、在場(chǎng)和身體上的注意是我們對(duì)某件最終無(wú)法證明的事情的最基本的替代：這件事就是我們被理解了。

人們希望，最好的老師不會(huì)對(duì)學(xué)生大吼大叫——因?yàn)樗麄兩瞄L(zhǎng)說(shuō)服他人并要求他人做出最大的努力。對(duì)于古希臘人和羅馬人來(lái)說(shuō)，這種激勵(lì)本身就是一種足夠好的藝術(shù)，足以成為教育的核心焦點(diǎn)。正如古典修辭學(xué)手冊(cè)《修辭學(xué)：獻(xiàn)給赫倫尼厄斯》在2，100年前所說(shuō)的那樣：“我們希望能夠讓聽(tīng)者虛心接受、心懷友善和保持注意（docilem， benivolum， attentum）?！彼^教養(yǎng)就是要能令人信服地談?wù)撝匾氖虑椋悍膳c習(xí)俗、忠誠(chéng)與正義。

支撐這一點(diǎn)的既不是榮譽(yù)也不是理想主義，而是體現(xiàn)在五個(gè)步驟的實(shí)用主義。提出一個(gè)令人信服的論點(diǎn)，按優(yōu)雅的順序排列其中的元素，給風(fēng)格潤(rùn)色，將成品記在腦子里或是媒體上，然后大聲傳播出去以獲得最大的影響力。除了古代沒(méi)有“分享”按鈕，這與Upworthy的病毒式傳播方法十分相似。一般認(rèn)為《修辭學(xué)：獻(xiàn)給赫倫尼厄斯》是由西塞羅所著，西塞羅也將奉承、賄賂、討價(jià)還價(jià)和徹頭徹尾的謊言作為他修辭學(xué)的工具。重要的是結(jié)果。

但是，就吸引注意力的自動(dòng)系統(tǒng)而言，則不僅僅是一個(gè)人聽(tīng)另一個(gè)人說(shuō)話，而衡量和說(shuō)服的過(guò)程有一些難以解釋的趨同趨勢(shì)。如果要讓全世界在網(wǎng)上關(guān)注我，我要么遵守系統(tǒng)規(guī)則——點(diǎn)贊、鏈接、評(píng)論、點(diǎn)擊、分享、轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)——要么就沒(méi)有資格獲得任何閃閃發(fā)光的獎(jiǎng)品。

把注意力定義為一個(gè)全球水庫(kù)中的內(nèi)容，在每個(gè)活著的人的大腦之間可以倒來(lái)倒去，也是一樣的簡(jiǎn)單粗暴。在這個(gè)定義中，有沒(méi)有位置留給把注意力當(dāng)做一種更類似于共情而非預(yù)算支出的由雙方互相構(gòu)建的想法？——或者留給那些我們關(guān)注自己，關(guān)注周圍的空間，或者什么都不關(guān)注的“下線”時(shí)刻？

我們以觀看30秒的廣告作為代價(jià)才能看到視頻；我們渴求朋友的點(diǎn)贊；我們毫無(wú)顧慮地將一個(gè)句子接一個(gè)句子、一個(gè)小時(shí)接一個(gè)小時(shí)倒進(jìn)狀態(tài)更新和毫無(wú)新意的回復(fù)中。以上任何一件事情都不會(huì)耗盡我們的銀行賬戶。然而，其積累起來(lái)的成本，雖然難以量化，卻會(huì)影響到許多對(duì)于幸福生活所必需的核心事情：豐富的人際關(guān)系、有益的閑暇、有意義的工作、心靈的寧?kù)o。

我們應(yīng)該從周圍的人那里得到什么樣的注意力，又或是欠他們什么樣的注意力呢？如果我們要成為真正意義上的“我們”，我們自己應(yīng)該得到什么樣的注意力，或者需要什么樣的注意力？這些問(wèn)題即使是經(jīng)過(guò)最精細(xì)的調(diào)整的人氣比賽也不能解決。然而，如果滿足感和控制感是成功的部分衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么我們中的很多人都以太低廉的價(jià)格把自己賣了。

你還在付出注意力嗎？我可以找尋跡象，但最終我無(wú)法控制你的想法或者行為。這必須是任何理智的討論的開(kāi)始。無(wú)論是誰(shuí)或者什么告訴你不同的意見(jiàn)，你完全有權(quán)忽視我——自行決定自己在每個(gè)醒著的時(shí)刻要干什么。

1. David Foster Wallace： 戴維·福斯特·華萊士（1962—2008），美國(guó)小說(shuō)家，著有《無(wú)盡的玩笑》等作品。他在文學(xué)上極富造詣。內(nèi)容上，他一直以巨大的好奇心關(guān)注這個(gè)物質(zhì)的世界，以及生活在這個(gè)世界的人們的感受，尤其是那些生活在20世紀(jì)末的美國(guó)人；形式上，與20世紀(jì)80年代流行的簡(jiǎn)約主義不同，華萊士非常熱愛(ài)繁復(fù)的長(zhǎng)句子，并且喜愛(ài)甚至比正文更綿長(zhǎng)的腳注和尾注，這成了他作品的顯著標(biāo)志之一；seething：無(wú)處不在的；static： 靜電干擾產(chǎn)生的噪音。

2. hoard： 積聚，囤積；barter： 物物交換。

3. adage： 諺語(yǔ)，格言。

4. arresting： 引人注意的。

5. calibrate： 定標(biāo)，校準(zhǔn)。

6. tweak： 稍稍調(diào)整。

7. incrementally： 遞增地；enticement： 誘惑；inexorably： // 不可阻擋的，不容變更的；unfurl： 展開(kāi)；apparatus：// 裝置，儀器。

8. inert： 惰性的，不活潑的；auction off： 拍賣；lucrative： 獲利多的，賺錢的。

9. thoughtfulness： 沉思默想。

10. archetypal： 原型的。

11. slump： （因睡著或昏迷等）彎著身子坐。

12. proxy： 替代。

13. woo： 爭(zhēng)取，努力說(shuō)服。

14. pitch： 推銷，爭(zhēng)取支持。

15. Cicero： 馬庫(kù)斯·圖留斯·西塞羅（Marcus Tullius Cicero，前106—前43年），古羅馬著名政治家、演說(shuō)家、雄辯家、法學(xué)家和哲學(xué)家。

16. uncanny： 奇怪的，費(fèi)解的。

17. ineligible： 無(wú)資格的，不合格的。

18. exaltation： 提升，頌揚(yáng)；slop： 倒出，使?jié)姵觥?/p>

19. endorsement： 公開(kāi)的支持，認(rèn)可。