You Are Not a Pawn: Reclaiming Attention in a Wired World

Gloria Mark (attention expert, author of Attention Span and The Future of Attention Substack) challenges the reigning cultural narrative that tech giants have completely hijacked our brains. Debating those she calls "techno-determinists," Mark pushes back against the viral idea that users are merely helpless pawns to the addictive algorithms of TikTok and YouTube. While she freely acknowledges that big tech shares some of the blame, she brings a data-driven defense of human agency, showing how quickly mindless habits can form, but also how successfully they can be rewired. Rather than prescribing a hopeless path of total digital abstinence, she outlines a liberating framework of intentional reframing, showing us how to reclaim our free will and transform our devices from endless dopamine traps back into simple, purpose-driven tools

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee : [00:00:00] When We Disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. When you cut someone off in traffic, you likely have a very good reason. Perhaps you're late for a crucial meeting, or there's a family emergency, or you just didn't see the other driver.

But when someone cuts you off, they're a selfish jerk at best and a homicidal maniac at worst. This double standard is at the heart of David Foster Wallace's beautiful This Is Water speech, where he talks about the innate selfishness and ego protection of what he calls our default mode networks. It's also called attribution theory and explains why the exact same action can seem either justified or unforgivable depending on who's doing it.

Developed by Fritz Heider, attribution theory explains how we make sense of behavior by assigning it internal or external causes. We tend to blame others' mistakes on their personality or character [00:01:00] while blaming our own mistakes on stress, context, or circumstances. These patterns shape every interpersonal conflict.

In happy relationships, for example, partners might make charitable attributions. Bad behavior is seen as a result of being overwhelmed or overworked. In distressed relationships, this is reversed. Good behavior is seen as having an ulterior motive, while bad behavior is seen as proof of a fundamental character flaw.

These different attribution styles can fuel our political divisions. Is poverty the result of laziness or lack of opportunity? Is success a matter of merit or systemic advantage? Transforming a conflict often begins with changing our attributions. Before attacking someone's character, ask ourselves, "What would I have to believe about their circumstances to understand this behavior?"

Recognizing that an action might be a symptom of a situation rather than a sin of the soul can change the entire climate of a disagreement. I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication [00:02:00] and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston. Our guest today on When We Disagree is Gloria Mark.

Gloria is Chancellor's Professor Emerita at the University of California, Irvine, and she has spent her career studying how people use technology in their everyday lives with a focus on attention and multitasking. Her latest book is called Attention Span, and her popular Substack is called The Future of Attention.

Gloria, tell us an argument story. 

Gloria Mark : So thanks, Mike, for having me. My, my story, It relates to how people use technology. And this story actually has happened more than once. And it typically happens when I'm on a podcast or in the interview, and I'm gonna talk about one particular time.

The basic disagreement is that there's one view that our [00:03:00] difficulties, our challenges that we have with technology, which means we can scroll for hours it's hard for us to pay attention. We switch our attention rapidly, which is what multitasking is. All of that, according to this one argument, should be blamed on tech companies.

Tech companies are responsible for it because the way they design features of the tech the algorithms, which are really quite sophisticated, they capture our attention. But the idea is that tech companies are solely responsible for our inability to pay attention. 

Michael Lee : And what's your position? 

Gloria Mark : So my position is that there are many reasons why [00:04:00] people can't pay attention.

And I should say, on the one hand, people have trouble paying attention especially when it's important, like work or for students, schoolwork. But the other hand-- on the other hand, people can stay glued to a screen for a very long period, for example, watching TikTok or watching YouTube.

So it's more about people's inability to control attention. Okay. That's what's being blamed on tech companies. My position is that there, there are many forces that can explain our inability to control our attention. 

One of those is just the fact that we are social creatures.

We live in a social world. People around us are using tech, and it's really [00:05:00] hard to pull away from it when everyone around you is using tech to communicate. 

Michael Lee : And so in this context- spooling these arguments out in my head, and I'm curious to hear you deepen and populate these sets of arguments. We have, on the one hand, a kind of view of these insidious tech companies as insinuating themselves into your lives and making sure that our devices are necessary for everything we do.

So I'm on my phone in traffic, I'm on my phone to bank, I'm on my phone for social media, I'm on my phone for mindfulness practices, I'm on my phone for podcasts like this one, and so forth. Then I think we have an- another view that's related, if I'm understanding this correctly, another view that's more techno-determinism, that our attention is structured by dopamine-heavy reward cycles that we get through pings and messages and likes and notifications, and [00:06:00] that we are then accustomed as these kind of dopaminically seeking animals to go back and back and back and back.

And then finally, there is a more, perhaps more nuanced view. There is a social and an individual context in addition to these tech companies and in addition to the structural technological determinants. So I see it, see it as a three-part dispute. How do you, how does that land for you?

Gloria Mark : I w- I would say that the blame on the tech companies for designing the features- ... designing the algorithms- 

... 

Gloria Mark : That leads to what you're calling this dopamine reward cycle. So those two arguments are very connected. Gotcha. The opposing argument is the idea that people do have agency, that it's not a- all tech companies, but that people do have agency to be able to control their behavior, to be able to make decisions, to be able to act intentionally.

[00:07:00] Now there's a big in-between area, as you can imagine. 

I I don't wanna say that tech companies play no part. Certainly they play a part. But the extremist view is that they are solely to blame. The idea is that if tech companies were to change their practices, that all of a sudden people would have their attention back.

They would be able to pay attention without disruption. They could pay attention to anything they want. I don't think that's the case. I think that a lot of Our a lot of our practice of paying attention has to do with our own choices, our own agency, and our own intentionality 

Michael Lee : I will admit that as a consumer and sometime teacher of literature like this, that [00:08:00] some of the recent documentaries, some of the recent books that have come out that talk about the hijacking of American attention can make it seem like resistance is futile, that in the face of these algorithms, in the face of these machines that have been designed by the folks that, helped consult on slot machines in Vegas and so forth, that really there's no point in resisting.

The drug is just too addictive. The company's power is just too strong. You're on the other side of that to some extent, saying you do have agency. What are the kinds of specific arguments you make that have inspired, as you say, the extremists to come after you? 

Gloria Mark : First of all, there are many people that don't succumb to technology.

There are many people who do purposeful activities without technology. There are people who are able to maintain meaningful connections with other individuals without technology, or they [00:09:00] might use technology as a way to coordinate interactions. The difference is that is people who use technology as an end in itself.

The technology is what they use to get their rewards. It's what they use completely for entertainment versus using technology as a tool to achieve an end that may not involve technology. So that's how I see the difference. Now, I want to clarify I do agree that tech companies do share some of the blame.

We cannot deny that technology companies have not, have designed features that are capturing our attention, that... And, algorithms are very powerful. I've tested them out myself with TikTok, and I completely agree it's very hard. But we do [00:10:00] have agency. It's not tech companies alone 

Michael Lee : What gives you so much faith in our agency?

In other words I'm the podcaster here, and so it's my job, of course, to, to come after you for these. So- Of course ... just playing devil's advocate for just a moment. These all-powerful companies have weaponized our own attention systems against us, and we can take mindfulness Sundays or tech-free Mondays, or we can unplug for a week, but that just gives us the illusion of control, or that gives us small breaks, the same as if I was an alcoholic and I took Sundays off, but I drink six days a week.

Does that m- mitigate my consumption of alcohol? Partially, yeah. But is the rest of my week still solely controlled by alcohol and alcohol consumption? Also true. What's your response to that? 

Gloria Mark : Yeah, so I, again, I have seen so many [00:11:00] cases of people who are able to find purpose and meaning in their lives without using technology.

So they, they are able to- ... of their own free will be able to do things in their lives without without choosing to use technology. And I think what it comes down to is the argument of whether people are just simply pawns to, to the big machine, which is, which are tech companies, or whether people have free will- where they can make a choice where they have the power to be able to act, 

Michael Lee : On their own. Yeah, now we're getting into the deep waters here with free will and determinism and so forth. So you've done tons and tons of experiments on attention, on multitasking, on technology, et cetera.

Can you spool out a little bit y- your faith [00:12:00] in free will, in agency as it relates to our consumption of technology? 

Gloria Mark : Yeah. A lot of what people do on their devices is habitual, and it's very easy to form a habit. In fact I just saw a study that showed that people can develop habits of getting glued to TikTok in as short a time as 35 minutes.

And so you know, habits can form very fast. But people can also unlearn habits, and I've seen that. I've had people tell me in many cases of how they've been able to rewire habits. So instead of devoting their time toward TikTok, it's about replacing a tech-related activity like TikTok with another activity that provides them with more happiness, right?

TikTok gives [00:13:00] quick thrills. Quick thrills don't last. But I've spoken with many people who talk about replacing time on TikTok with other activities that provides happiness that's longer lasting, that's enduring. Things like passion projects, playing music, doing art going for walks, having f- having connections with other people.

So people who are able to replace tech with other activities have done so successfully. 

Michael Lee : And the folks that you're facing down, these extremists, the kind of techno determinists or folks who are so aggressive about these companies and their control over our lives, when you're debating with them or when they hear you make arguments like that about free will, et cetera, do you think that they think that you are just letting them off the hook?

That you're not being aggressive enough in [00:14:00] your criticism of the techno industrial, attention industrial complex? Or is it a more substantive critique about you perhaps misunderstanding our agency in a world controlled by technology? 

Gloria Mark : Yeah. I think they are being too extreme. I think that they're not understanding the nuance that there, there are many forces that can affect how we pay attention.

And I feel that the view that it's solely caused by technology, that technology is controlling, determining our lives- ... it's it doesn't allow space to consider all the other forces that are going on in our lives that can affect how we act. 

Michael Lee : Okay. As we close then let's role play a scenario.

I, Michael Lee, am a phone addict. My name is Mike and I'm a phone addict. And I have [00:15:00] come to the clinic of Gloria Mark, and she's gonna help me rescue my attention span and reclaim my life of purpose and meaning, hopefully by limiting, if not eliminating, my phone addiction. What are some a- pieces of advice that you would give me on my detox journey?

Gloria Mark : Yeah. So first Mike I would wanna find out what gives you f- fulfillment in your life? What gives you purpose? So I would explore that with you. What gives you... What brings you the most happiness? So I know for myself, it's it's friendships with other people. And so what I would do is I would talk with you about investing your time, your energy, your agency in those things that are going to deliver to you the kind of happiness that that you're looking for.

We're not gonna find it through tech. Tech is a [00:16:00] tool. Tech- tech is neutral, right? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply a tool, and it's neutral, and I would want you to understand that. And for... I, I'm not telling you to give up tech. Absolutely the, the horse has left the barn. We can't go back.

But what I would want is for you to reframe your thinking about tech so that you can use it to pursue that thing that that can give you a sense of reward and fulfillment. So I would want to make you, to work with you to make you realize that. 

Michael Lee : This is about reframing, not abstinence. 

Gloria Mark : It's about reframing, exactly.

It's about learning how to integrate technology in our lives so that we can be more balanced. And I want to also emphasize that [00:17:00] there's nothing wrong with hedonic short-term happiness. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's good to be happy in the moment, right? It's good to laugh. The problem is that technology has shifted the balance s- such that we spend too much time focusing on these kinds of short-term, quick thrills, sensationalism, things that bring out our basic emotions.

Shock, anger, fear, things that you find on social media, TikTok, YouTube. And I want us to shift the balance toward things that are have more meaning for us. We can't neglect those other things that are really important in life. 

Michael Lee : So what you're telling me, Doc, is that I don't have to give up my phone.

I just can't make it the only thing in my life. 

Gloria Mark : That's right. It... And as you pointed out, it is about [00:18:00] reframing it. It is about viewing the phone as a tool rather than as an end in itself. To bring you satisfaction. 

Michael Lee : Gloria Mark, thank you so much for being on When We Disagree. 

Gloria Mark : My pleasure. 

Michael Lee : When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee.

Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com.