Ideas vs. Eyes

The “Attention Economy” has reshaped politics and challenged the value of viewpoint diversity

Each morning, once I’ve turned off my alarm, rubbed my eyes, and processed that I am awake and alive, I grab my phone. It varies from morning to morning; sometimes texts are the first things that grab my attention, sometimes X, sometimes ESPN, but my attention is immediately commanded. In today’s digital world, where information is infinite and knowledge can be attained in whatever form one desires, attention is a hot commodity to be bought and sold, and this has led to the downfall of the free market of ideas. 

When information is abundant, there is a scarcity of attention, causing our online interactions to be determined by algorithms that want to maximize our engagement. Humans are hardwired for interpersonal, face-to-face communication, something that is cheapened by online cycles of stimulation. This skewed prioritization of importance, caused by a deflation of truth or ideas and a hyperinflation of the value of attention, leads to social media environments where exposure to novel issues or debates is hard to find because it doesn’t generate clicks. Social media is the prime example of this. If I am scrolling X or Instagram – according to the theory of confirmation bias – I will be most likely to engage and appreciate posts that I agree with. Because of this, these algorithms will show me more and more of this content until my feed is curated to be exactly what I want to see. 

The unfortunate fact about this morning routine is that it is entirely instinctual. I don’t reach for my phone because of a conscious decision to do so, I reach for it because my mind has been conditioned to crave the stimulation it provides. 

The very architecture of our devices perpetuates this cycle. Red-bubble notifications, infinite scrolling, and algorithms don’t just respond to our preferences, they shape them. Over time, this constant flow of dopamine erodes our tolerance for boredom and quiet, the very things that allow us to think, reflect, and encounter ideas and opinions on our own. Phone use isn’t just a habit, it is a gateway into an attention economy where our impulses are simultaneously nudged, reinforced, and monetized. When I start scrolling before I’m even fully awake, I am participating in a system that prioritizes engagement over everything else. This means that I’ll never get exposed to ideas that challenge me, force me to think deeply, or make me uncomfortable, setting the stage for the narrowing of opinion that results. 

The problem with this, as many people are starting to realize, is that we can easily become entrenched in our beliefs. Additionally, there is an economic value to amplification, meaning that content with more shock value is going to be more highly profitable. Because of this, the ends of the political spectrum (far-left and far-right) occupy our attention much more than the majority of people who fall in the middle. This problem is heightened in the age of AI, because we can feel reinforced in our beliefs without ever interacting with another human. 

The scariest thing about this problem is that researchers have discovered that increasing exposure to opposing ideas doesn’t seem to have any effect. The National Academy of Sciences conducted a study in which they prompted conservatives and liberals to follow Twitter bots that would retweet posts and articles from the opposing side (e.g. a conservative would see more posts from Democrat politicians and vice-versa). They found that, instead of serving as a moderating force, this experience served as reinforcement for previously held beliefs, particularly among conservative participants. What does this mean? It means that even if you are making a conscious effort to engage with ideas that are different than your own, you probably aren’t taking them seriously, furthering your polarization and heightening resentment towards challenging ideas.

So, what can we do? I think it is important to note that the internet and social media are not accurate representations of America. The majority of Americans hold traditional social and political views, and these are “boring” by social media standards; they don’t get promoted to the same level. 43% of Americans self-identify as Independent; political independence doesn’t often generate clicks or engagement because it is too ‘normal.’ It is crucial that we remember to engage with views that we might not naturally gravitate towards. I’ve found that, when I’m looking for perspectives from both sides of the aisle, Ground News is a good place to start. Additionally, most Americans are not dominated or defined by their politics, which is encouraging to remember when it can sometimes seem like our division is more universal than our unity. 

Increasing the value of viewpoint diversity requires changing incentives. If attention continues to be bought and sold on a purely algorithmic basis, the best arguments will routinely lose out to the loudest ones. The legal right to speak does not equal an equal opportunity to be heard, and that depends on how attention is allocated. In the attention economy, truth isn’t bankrupt, it’s just priced out of the market. It is important to ensure that a marketplace of ideas continues to thrive in our digital society. 

“The media environment has changed in ways that foster division…[social media sites] make it easy to encase oneself in an echo-chamber…leading conservatives and progressives into disconnected moral matrices backed up by mutually contradictory informational worlds.” 

– Jonathan Haidt

Silas McLellan is a 25/26 Trinity Fellow and Think Again's Communication Director.