We describe the departure from the model as an error. We might equally describe the model as a hopeful guess about us. Ask most people why they did what they did and they will give you a reason; ask them again a week later and the reason will have quietly changed. Put a number on attention and it becomes a target; put a target on it and the number stops meaning what it meant. Nobody sets out to be governed by the group chat, yet it shapes an astonishing share of the ordinary day.
Why it persists
A pattern this consistent is not a character flaw. It is a design feature, and design features can be worked with. The remedy is rarely exhortation. It is a change to the situation so that the easier choice is also the better one. The measure that matters is not what people say about attention but what they do when nobody is scoring. Economists have spent decades modelling attention as a quantity. It behaves more like a weather system.
The measure that matters is not what people say about attention but what they do when nobody is scoring. There is a version of this essay that ends with a policy prescription. This is not that version; the mechanism is interesting enough on its own. The point is not that people are foolish. The point is that attention is expensive, and we economise on it like everything else. What looks like attention from the outside is usually something simpler from the inside: tiredness, a deadline, a wish not to look foolish.
