Understanding Attention

Find a therapist to help with ADHD

What we say we want from our feeds often conflicts with what captures our attention.

Engagement reflects actual behavior, not consciously stated preferences.

Negative and extreme content wins because human attention is threat-sensitive.

No algorithm can eliminate the tension because it reflects conflicting human goals, not a technical flaw.

Scroll X (née Twitter) for long enough and you’ll see a familiar complaint: Algorithms have ruined the feed. Users lament that posts no longer appear in a simple chronology and bristle at how often negative or disturbing news rises to the top. The usual solution quickly follows—calls for the algorithm to work differently, to show less of this and more of that (with “this” and “that” changing from post to post).

What often gets missed in these complaints is a simpler point: Algorithms' goal is to keep users engaged. They do that by showing content people reliably interact with. In that sense, they aren’t fundamentally different from other systems that adapt to human attention—whether that’s news outlets emphasizing negative stories because they draw clicks [1] or grocery stores optimizing what catches the eye on the shelf.

So why do algorithms, in particular, rub us the wrong way? I argue that our discomfort with them arises from a familiar mismatch: What we say we want from our information environment doesn’t always line up with how we actually behave when we’re immersed in it. Here's why that mismatch persists.

Are We All Just Hypocrites? It's Not So Simple

When people complain about what shows up in their feeds, it’s tempting to frame the issue as hypocrisy: You say you don’t want this, but you keep clicking on it. There’s a grain of truth there, but it’s also a lazy explanation. What’s really going on is less about dishonesty and more........

© Psychology Today