The Focus Illusion

“In your life expect some trouble; when you worry it makes things double.” —Bobby McFerrin, singing “Don’t Worry; Be Happy”

“The Focus Illusion can be summed up in a single sentence: Nothing in life is as important as you think it is when you are thinking about it.” —Nobel Prize-winning psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman

Bobby McFerrin is philosophizing, and Daniel Kahneman is summarizing empirical data, but both are addressing a practical problem we all face about when to focus on problems—in effect making them double—and when to ignore them, bringing them back to their real size.

Kahneman’s findings need a little explaining as their implications are many, for delight as well as worry.

The Shrink-Wrap Effect: Anticipating something wonderful is invariably more exciting than having it. We overestimate the joy of acquiring something because we overestimate how much attention we’ll give it once we have it. Focusing on its arrival, all shrink-wrapped, attention-grabbing, thrilling, and new makes it seem more important than it will be once we come to take it for granted.

The Shrunk-Life Effect: Conversely, anticipating a setback, our focused attention causes us to overestimate how long it will disappoint us. We forget that we’ll adjust to the setback. For example, people tend to overestimate how shrunk paraplegics’ lives will be a year after the accidents that put them in their wheelchairs. We overestimate how much paraplegics think about their condition and underestimate how much they will adjust to their lives and come to take their setback for granted. This is McFerrin’s point: Because worry focuses your attention, when you worry, it makes setbacks double.

The Focus Illusion exaggerates all polling results, inflating our strong opinions in opposite directions. The light of our focused attention makes the highs look higher and the lows lower. When the pollster points your attention at something, you’ll make a bigger deal of it than you’ll make once your attention shifts to other matters.

Above is a figurative graph, not based on real data but illustrating how the Focus Illusion works. In the “no focus” area, incremental changes in circumstances make for incremental changes in your feelings about your circumstances. But once your situation catches your attention, changes in your circumstances have an exaggerated effect on your mood.

In light of the Focus Illusion, how then should we live? Obviously, focus on the positive; ignore the negative. In other words, don’t worry, be happy. That way, you go from thrilling to fine, not thrilling to awful.

But before we leave it at that, a little reality check. First, we don’t have full control over where we focus our attention. Second, it’s often good that we don’t because attention to what’s bad is the spur that motivates us to make things better.

Indeed, focusing on the thrilling and the awful are two sides of the same self-mobilizing coin. We experience them not in isolation, but in comparative contrast to each other. Feeling awful about your situation, you’re in effect saying, “Wouldn’t it be thrilling to experience the opposite of this?” Feeling thrilled about your situation, you’re in effect saying “Wouldn’t it be awful to experience the opposite of this?” In this sense, the Focus Illusion doesn’t describe three states but two: Focusing on a contrast between what is and what could be versus not focusing on the contrast between what is and what could be.

Appreciating the good mobilizes you to protect and preserve it. When you appreciate the contrast between what you’ve got and the awful alternatives, you’ll work harder to defend the status quo. Yes, this can cause problems. Fanatical partnership can make you needy, clingy, and desperate. Fanatical patriotism can make you belligerent, prickly, and obnoxious. Still, to be thrilled about what’s worth preserving often puts the right fire in your belly.

And McFerrin’s right that worry makes things double, but wrong that the prescription “don’t worry, be happy” necessarily follows from it. Worry that makes things double can be very useful. To focus on what’s bad exaggerates its badness. The spur gets bigger, perhaps big enough to spur you to action sufficient to overcome inertia, to get over the hump and hump harder for true improvement. Fanatically disappointed partners can be nagging, unappreciative whiners. Fanatically unsatisfied protesters can be tedious pests. Still, to focus intensely on what’s worth changing often puts the right fire in your belly to make changes.

Focusing on the thrilling and the awful motives campaigns for change that if successful will tend toward the anti-climatic. The thrilled will discover that preserving the status quo wasn’t worth as much as they thought it would be when they were focused on preserving it. Life goes back to normal, and the shrink-wrap effect shrinks. And those who focused on their awful situation until they improved it will discover the shrink-wrap effect shrinking too. The improvement will only be thrilling at first, before they come to take the improvement for granted. Then the thrill is gone.

“Don’t worry, be happy” applies fruitfully to awful but hard to change situations. If you find yourself focused on a bad but seemingly unimprovable situation, try to find some distraction strong enough to shift your focus elsewhere. Given the Focus Illusion, maybe the situation is not as importantly bad as you think it is when you focus on it.

At minimum, “Don’t worry, be happy” is a good strategy for testing your motivation to change things. If at first you don’t succeed, try to ignore. If you don’t succeed at ignoring, then focus, exaggerate, and spur yourself to action—try, try, trying again to make the changes you overestimate will make a big difference, but even overestimated, might well be worth making.

Originally published on Mind Readers Dictionary.

Author

  • Below is a message from Philip Hefner from Chicago in response to Edward Davis, who reviewed James Gilbert's book REDEEMING CULTURE (University of Chicago Press, 1997) in Meta 158 last week. Hefner argues that Davis has misrepresented Gilbert's book with regard to chapter twelve in particular and to the legacy of Ralph Burhoe, IRAS, and Zygon.

    Hefner notes in closing that there were two article length reviews of Gilbert's book in the March 1998 issue of ZYGON. For those of you who do not already know, ZYGON can now be accessed online at <http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/Static/online.htm>. The only caveat here is that online access is restricted to the Internet domains of college and university, whose libraries subscribe to ZYGON. So for instance, I can access ZYGON online when logged on through my <@temple.edu> server, but not through my <@voicenet.com> server.

    -- Billy Grassie

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    From: [email protected] (philip hefner) Subject: Davis's review of REDEEMING CULTURE

    I feel compelled to comment on Professor Davis's review of James Gilbert's book, REDEEMING CULTURE. I was disappointed by the review and the ways in which I think it does not do justice to Gilbert's book. I will deal only with Davis's brief comments on the work of Ralph Burhoe and Zygon, which occupy chapter twelve of the book.

    First of all, Davis neglects to point out that the sentence he quotes at the end of his review is about Zygon, not about IRAS or Shapley or Burhoe. Gilbert asserts that while Burhoe and Shapley did not achieve their lofty goals and although their vision was at point flawed, their movement was significant, worthwhile, and not without effect. In the very next sentence after Davis's quote, Gilbert writes, Yet IRAS and Zygon maintained the conversation between liberal theologians and an important wing of the scientific community. They staked out space for the claims of religion for relevance in a scientific society and provided a way for religion and science to engage each other as equal partners in an age when the pressures to choose one side or the other were growing rapidly. But a meeting of science and religion, like the ever-receding goal of religious ecumenism, evaded Burhoe and Shapley even as they succeeded in making small conquests and conversions (page 295).

    More provocatively, let me say that Gilbert uses the term pantheism to refer only to Shapley's personal religious perspective, and never uses it, as Davis asserts, to refer to Burhoe, IRAS, or Zygon. Anyone with first-hand knowledge understands very well that they do not represent a pantheistic position. Only by manipulating his quotes does Davis bring Zygon and IRAS into relation with pantheism.

    I would note the seriousness with which Gilbert discusses the effort of Burhoe, Shapley, and their colleagues in both mainstream science and mainstream religion, to offer a rational version of Christian faith that could coexist with science on an equal basis. Davis's commitments to the contrary notwithstanding, that effort is both well established in the history of Christian thought and a compelling response to the intellectual and spiritual circumstances of our time. It certainly is not wholly adequate, and it is but one such response among many, but there is no reason to distort it, as Davis may be doing.

    In March 1998, Zygon published two article-length discussions of Gilbert's book: by Richard Busse (Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, and James Miller (Coordinator of the AAAS Program for Dialogue between Science and Religion).

    Philip Hefner=<[email protected]> Fax: 773-256-0682 Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago Chicago Center for Religion and Science Tel.: 773-256-0670 Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 1100 East 55th St. Chicago, IL 60615-5199 U.S.A.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

    Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

    Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science . Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Similar Posts