Laboratory-defined attention was designed for instrumental task selection from the start.

Evidence

Since that kind of attention was literally defined as the capacity to “select for a task.” It was pre-stressed for cybernetic instrumentalization of the human. Reclaiming it would simply equip us to select for other tasks. — The Friends of Attention, Attensity!, 134

Categorization

Category: Definitional Content

• XREF: Complements the ‘attention span’ origin point: both show the construct’s instrumental construction.

Related

• Cognitive neuroscience officially defines attention as selection for a task (similarity 0.88)
• The dominant scientific definition of attention as task-selection is the foundational lie. (similarity 0.88)
• Recovering the cybernetic version of attention would only refit people for task-selection (similarity 0.87)
• Attention can be defined beyond action and receptivity (similarity 0.87)
• Attention science defined attention as visual, durational, and cybernetic to fit its funders’ tools (similarity 0.85)
• The measured attention of lab science was defined by duration and person-machine coupling. (similarity 0.83)
• Modern ‘attention’ is a narrowed, instrumentalized construct far removed from lived human attention. (similarity 0.83)
• The modern measured notion of attention poorly captures lived human attention. (similarity 0.83)
• Defining attention as action-catalyzer reduces attentional life to a cascade of incitements (similarity 0.83)
• Industrial attention research served military, advertising, and factory needs only (similarity 0.82)
• Attention is learned rather than innate, always and for everyone (similarity 0.82)
• Laboratory attention studies are structurally blind to relational value (similarity 0.82)
• Most people equate attention with screen-based task focus (similarity 0.81)
• Attention can be deliberately wielded, not just reclaimed (similarity 0.80)
• Attention is not an organ or substance but a dynamic state of cognitive unison (similarity 0.80)