Attention theories have long split attention into automatic and intentional spheres

Evidence

In reality, we realize that most analyses of attention have from time immemorial situated it across two levels, illustrated in Condillac’s fable of the statue whose senses are reduced to the sense of smell and who then has various flowers passed under its nose: ‘passive attention, coming from the sense of smell, will be all about the present smell of the rose, and active attention, coming from memory, will be split between the memory that remains of the smells of the rose and the carnation’. From Condillac’s ‘passive’ and ‘active’ attention to Daniel Kahneman’s systems 1 (intuitive) and 2 (reasoned), the categorizations have varied widely, but we find a similar distribution of attention over two spheres, with one relating to automatic functions and the other to intentional efforts. — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 359

Categorization

• XREF: The Condillac-to-Kahneman lineage is a genealogy the reader can cite when arguing that platform capture exploits the automatic layer Kahneman formalized. — connects to: Unconscious automatic attention makes brand messages imprint without our awareness — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 362; Automatic attention is sedimented past attention and belongs in any attention ecology — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 373; Attention is a superimposition of entangled mechanisms rather than a single faculty — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 360 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Automatic attention is sedimented past attention and belongs in any attention ecology #complicates (0.85) — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 373
• Attention is a superimposition of entangled mechanisms rather than a single faculty #expands (0.80) — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 360