Gaia: Knights & Maidens of the Roundtable - Economics - Attention as a currency

Attention as a currency

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:10:01 -0000

Ron mentioned on a previous board his interest in Attention as currency and since i happen to be thinking about the points of convergence between the old way (or existing capitalist model) and a better way i'd like to share this and invite feedback.

Mission that has inspired much of my work: "Developing work that shares informed insight into the impact on the social and business landscape when unique attention and awareness as expressed in exclusive products which represent creativity as an asset within a re-envisioning of the capitalist framework that embraces radical inclusion in a philosophical and economic approach."

I find it interesting that the board dialogues, in this pod especially, reveal that many of us see the same problems and have similar ideals that help determine our paths to solutions. And although i know that our work may seem confusing to some, the bottom line is that it is an endeavor into how to create the infrastructure to accomplish/support many of the kind of projects people are promoting within the zaadz community. Futhermore, we're interested in how to do this and remove the need for startup money and still be able to get what you need to launch your enterprise. Each Cultural Fusion project is a component (most likely several of them) in the model and explores concepts or ideas that have emerged in our research.... In addressing the philosophical issues my understanding of how a new economy can work becomes clearer and that includes how to shift my attention from critic of the old and to envisioning and construction of the new.

One question that has come up for me is what is the relationship between trust and attention as a currency...do we pay more attention to what we trust?

Does trust mean onging attention isn't required while attention goes to that which we don't trust because there is a feeling that one needs to keep an eye on it?

Ron, is this akin to the example we discussed about attention going to the victimizer instead of the victim as part of the Pain equation?

Also, what do you see in terms of creativity as an expression of applied Attention? or would you even describe it that way?

Business:Trust

CrossOver

SoulFood:Ingredient

All three Attention, Money and Trust are one and the same energy, seen from different perspectives (bilocality of Business:Consumer and Business:Creator).

In the game of Business, Money and Trust are a Attention:Bilocality. If you pay me then i do not have to trust you.

In the game of Grow_Yourself, Attention is the Money and Money is the trust.

Also there is an inner world and and outer world in Business.

- Within the inner world there are Collaborations going on, and the currency is Trust.

- Outside this area there are Products and opportunities, and the currency is Money

some more ideas to work out

- Investment strategies for money - how do they apply in trust and attention?

- Gambling strategies for money , applied to trust in relationships.

Re: Attention as a currency

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:47:16 -0000

In the game of Business, Money and Trust are a Attention:Bilocality. If you pay me then i do not have to trust you.

I've been thinking about this idea and i think it needs to be revised. My experience is that trust is required even when i pay someone....looking at the company i'm working with on the Hotel Infinity site for example.

Although they are being paid in money, there is also a trust (attention) transaction that preceded the deal. Furthermore, without trust in the company the deal would not be satisfactory so perhaps it is that less trust is required because money acts as "insurance"? Payment can be withheld or a refund requested if what is delivered is not what was ordered.

Your thoughts?

Re: Attention as a currency

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:36:56 -0000

Yvette,

Trust and attention are already part of "social currency". I love the mission statement, as it illuminates one of the key components of our collective economic future - creativity as asset. I believe that it is and will be the only asset.

I do believe that there are social currencies that we use every day and those include attention, trust, love, and the opposites of each. I even believe that there are markets for groups that will provide these to others as a service. I do not believe that you can replace money conceptually as a form of currency. Apply spiral dynamics or Maslows hierarchy to any one person or system and you can agree that it would be an extremely volatile market. (It is humorous to think of someone self actuallized radiating freely what others need to pay for, but it happens every day)

I don't believe that a new exchange method or new economic model is needed at this time. Market forces will drive us to sustainability and many of the other goals outlined in the rest of the pod. What IS happening and happening right now here as a part of the Zaadz experiment is new systems are evolving to cultivate change outside economic systems. This is compelling, and you can see similar efforts springing up across industries and continents.

It makes me happy to be part of such a group.

Warmest regards,
Wiseman

Re: Attention as a currency

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:09:16 -0000

I find both money and attention have their own space in economics ; these systems are complementary rather than competing. While money is a batch oriented system, attention has far more quantum like aspects.
See also Pay On Demand : the analogue way of doing business
Best regards, Ron

Re: Attention as a currency

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:46:57 -0000

Wiseman, you sound fairly sure of yourself when you state you can't see us adopting a new exchange method or economic model. I'm not so sure myself. Maybe "money" won't go away, but the way it's created and managed might need to be re-visited.

But I do feel, as you state, our market forces will resolve many of the issues we presently face and this is more an "evolutionary" thing . . . of which we're a part of. Yes, extra-market forces are beginning to put some in quite a bind. Prime example would be politics and the introduction of the blogosphere.

Oops! Just not the same any longer!!! Completely new world today!

Re: Attention as a currency

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:44:51 -0000

Keith,

I do indeed believe that the way we manage money will evolve and change as much as how we make it in the long run. I believe that we are in complete agreement on this point. In regards to my conviction that market forces will drive us to sustainability, it's simple: When the cost of doing business in old and destructive ways exceeds the cost of doing business in new and sustainable ways, the market will force the hands of all of those that want to play. Conscious investors are starting to evaluate things like carbon footprint before they invest. People are waking up. It is up to individual consumers and investors to act on their beliefs and the markets will move accordingly, such is the benefit of a market driven system. We continue, for example, to buy petrol/gas at the pump: Until this changes, and the consumer demands new alternatives none appear. (they are starting now, GM is manufacturing a 100% electric car for retail next year I believe).

Certainly variables change and conditions change, that's why the free market economy/capitalist system of most of the world is so wonderful. It adapts to all sorts of cirucumstances in a way that only markets can.

To further the discourse, I suggest we begin to articulate how attention translates in current economic terms. Coaching and Psychological counseling are great examples of attention being directly converted to currency. I think it would be productive to start to flesh out how attention is currently paid for and how it translates. I think we need to be specific though and be sure to separate attention from knowledge.

Warmest regards,
Wiseman

Re: Attention as a currency

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:47:35 -0000

Spot on, Wiseman!!

Here's a dialogue we had about exactly these points. As it is from last year, it has clearly informed our work. Pehaps you can share your thoughts on this.

How does attention fit into the transaction equation?
Submitted by Ronald Wopereis on Sun, 2006-04-30 19:58.

Axiom :
attention and money are both carriers of social energy - also known as currencies.

Proposition :
a full description of any transaction includes both currencies.

- - now where is the proof of the pudding?

Demonstration :
each transaction has two parts.
one is in the outer world of reality - known as "value for money" - this is the business part
one is in the inner world of attention - "value for attention" - this is the appreciation part
both parts add up to the full transaction.

Corollary :
Hence it follows that there is an exchange ratio between attention and money.
Payment is therefore partly in attention and partly in money.
If i want to make money , i need to refuse payment in attention (appreciation)
In business this is the rule of : system is first , ego is second ==> money versus attention

Scholium:
Sandler Sales training teaches how to leverage the money part by decreasing the need for attention by the salesrep.

In the extreme case where the salesrep has no need for attention, they can focus ALL of their attention to the best of the buyers interest. Basically this is what makes a great sale.

In the extreme case where the salesrep has a huge need for attention, the roles are reversed and the buyer says something like "well mister consultant, please explain to us how you would solve our problem"

Formula :
(a) value (product/service) = amount X of money + amount Y of attention
(b) X = 1 - Y

Questions:
- (1) if this theory holds, then my financial wealth is a function of my need for attention
- (2) what are the factors that determine my need for attention?
- (3) what are the factors that determine the value on the left side of the equation?

Last remark for now : if my need for attention is high , yet i assume a zero to nothing value for my own product or service , how will i ever make money?

In a recent poll on Ecademy, i asked if rich people need less attention than poor people. There were 205 views and 78% said no.

Can you shed a light? I am asking for your personal observations - no right or wrong, but a dialogue.

Best regards, Ron

Context Makes All the Difference in Value

Submitted by ydubel on Wed, 2006-05-03 10:21.

First, let me thank you for this post. I had written in my notes a last week that I wanted what you posted and then you just gave it to me. I love it when you do that! Thank you very much, Ron.

I'll start with your Questions:

- (1) if this theory holds, then my financial wealth is a function of my need for attention

- (2) what are the factors that determine my need for attention?

- (3) what are the factors that determine the value on the left side of the equation?

I think the amount of attention required to produce the product/service effects how much has to be returned in the form of attention vs. money.

There is an agreement about value between the provider and the customer, and this is where the shift in defining the customer will emerge.

Taken from our dialogue about CRM at ecademy :

Why in my mind does the consumer feel wrong? Typically marketing seems to operate on the a piori that the consumer is a thing that exist to be used. Marketing and related activities in those cases encourage mindless devouring of goods based on the assumption of lack or imperfection.

On the other hand a customer is a human being who is trusting a business to help them solve a problem. It is a relationship that has a basis that feels closer to....until I have a new word for this relationship that is the one I'm working with because it does acknowledge the personhood of an individual.

If a person thrives, not simply when loved, but when given the opportunity to Give love, then the implications point towards the value of Social_Capital. Again noting the problem of using pre-existing terms and butting heads with the preconceptions they conjure. Can I put that problem aside for a second? A human being is a complete organism and nothing can be added to make it more human or more whole so marketing activities need to shift towards engagement informed by that awareness. From my experiences it seems we humans are most aware of our wholeness when we GIVE the best of ourselves.

For example, in the model most accept today if your products are plastic spinning tops that can be mass produced you require virtually no attention, and the value per item may be very little, but you can sell millions of them to build wealth or attract money. If there are no conditions put on how the money is made, such as will your manufacturing process harm the environment, are the people working in the factory happy with the work conditions and pay, are your tops as safe as they could be for the children that enjoy them?

But if you have a service that comes from a personal talent AND you have conditions on how it is delivered then those conditions act as filters and I think it may alter exactly what money means or represents. Because if it represents wealth then it's out of sync with the business/economic models widely accepted today.

So in order to attract money in today's world as is....you'd need to create a context for your product that helps bridge it with what is emerging. Perhaps a new word for currency is on the horizon, but for now it is needed that projects that can feature the value of your product will assist customers in understanding the value of it.

Also, perhaps there are different types of customers. Some that will operate within an emerging system where Social_Capital is a desired result and is seen as part of the profitability equations and others who just want a solution to their problem. Like the the project I'm working on with Kerry and Irena.

There are the customers who enter training to get free access to services, in exchange they help staff the center and can get trained in the areas that interest them. Because they get the services for free and then teach what they've learned for free to other center members/visitors and then provide the services for a fee to businesses/organizations....it factors into the profitability equations by addressing the staffing issue which is key to keep operating cost down and then there's the individuals need to earn money to support themselves. So that even the businesses who just want to buy X are supporting the project's concept.

And because the project is based on equality, Kerry's expertise about the customer base is just as valuable as yours about attention because without either one the whole is fragmented....but what is becoming clear is that there are different kinds of customers who "pay" with different currencies so that is the need for the context that can bridge the old and the emerging. So the project creates the context for highlighting or even establishing the value of various expertise from a traditionally commercial perspective.

It's the same with my expertise which is creating projects that bridge the old and the new, but only someone interested in building the new will fully appreciate that and see the value of my services...until they see an expample that idenfities an application that relates to a problem they'd like to solve.

Can it be that you need a contextual placement of your product/service to attract money and create wealth?

Only the best,

Yvette

"Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best." -- Henry Van Dyke

Re: Attention as a currency

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:03:11 -0000

I would like to comment on the motto at the end of the quoted dialogue (Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best) and use it to hint at a fundamental element of true personal freedom:

Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that are paid for singing.

What if you have a talent but the products you create by exercising that talent have no economic value, i.e. they are not "marketable"?
You can use that talent only in the time you can spare from "making a living". And if "making a living" takes up most of your, time the "forest" will be largely devoid of your "song".

So there, this is my first promotion pitch for a next evolutionary step in society:

Unconditional guaranteed subsistence income. The details can be explored in a new thread.

Re: Attention as a currency

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:44:33 -0000

"What if you have a talent but the products you create by exercising that talent have no economic value, i.e. they are not “marketable”?
You can use that talent only in the time you can spare from “making a living”. And if “making a living” takes up most of your, time the “forest” will be largely devoid of your “song”."

What does "True personal freedom" mean? If it means the freedom to spend your time doing things with no value to human society it is solipsism. "Economic value" and "marketable" are another way of saying "something that other people want" or "something that other people, or society as a whole, find value in". Now it may be that someone can make beautiful spoons of wood. Chances are that person will be able to sell some of her spoons, maybe enough to buy more wood to make more spoons. Probably she will have to spend more time growing food and maintaining her dwelling and getting in fuel wood, maybe making other wood products to pay her property tax. She can live mostly separate from the mainstream economy, but she will have to discover a way to acquire units of exchange (money, barter "dollars" whatever) to buy the items she cannot produce herself. But she may not be able to do it only with her spoons. Why should she be able to? Or maybe a person has a talent for something which no one else wants or finds value in, why should the rest of any society support a "valueless" talent. If there truly is a real value in the talent then support will be found. In "simpler" societies people were valued for their contribution to the welfare of the social unit — tribe, clan, village, whatever — I would also believe that the range of talents that were viewed as having value may have been broader but that most people had to be multifaceted, and/or some things were specialties: the shaman (probably would be sent to a therapist today) would also do the tattooing and body piercing because it had a ceremonial significance (=value to the society), but my guess is individuals were given limited tolerance if they insisted on doing something that had value only to themselves. This is the original meaning of "idiot": someone concerned only with their own affairs.

Re: Attention as a currency

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:19:00 -0000

So basically, if someone wanted to not work or market their "talents" they could try to live off of a menial citizen's income? And where would this citizen's income come from? Taxes? i do say, i agree with Curmudgeon in that if someone in a small village had a talent, they'd only be able to exercise it if in some way or another it eventually had value to the village. otherwise, someone whose talent or work ethic is stronger is doling out goods or taxes to allow someone with an "unmarketable" talent to live. That's another thing - everything can be marketable - unless you have some belief that holds you back, like that you "shouldn't have to" market your product to live. I think people seem to have the idea that living is their "right" when it is not - it is a gift. And if someone has the audacity to look at their life as something that others have to protect, no matter how useless they are, then they do not deserve the gift of living, since their not really living with deep satisfaction anyway.

I know what I just said may be slightly controversial, but it will only be viewed that way because I said it over a computer, in writing. Try reading it as if I said it objectively, not with loads of attitude. ;)

Re: Attention as a currency

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:28:06 -0000

Katrina and Carmudgeon,

Please bear with me if I do not respond to the points in your post directly. This is because it seems that they are based on the assumption that children enter this world as destitute paupers while society owns the resources/property which these children in adulthood will have to acquire in return for a useful working life.

Advocates of Citizens' Income (CI from here onward), on the other hand, claim that each child is born an "aristocrat", so to speak, with her or his own share of the nature-given riches of the earth that are the basis of all economic success.

I really hope that this does not sound patronizing or evasive.

In my experience a dialogue that does not proceed from shared assumptions leads to miscommunications, misunderstandings, and failure to "unearth" insights which are seen as relevant by all participants.

The modern version of CI (the idea goes back at least as far as Thomas Paine's Rights of Man) claims to definitely address the most fundamental flaw of the current version of capitalist economies. This is the well documented fact that the capitalist economic system is very good at creating wealth (goods and services) but it singularly fails in its equitable distribution (I am not implying here the socialist's thesis). In other words production is the proper function of economics, but the distribution of the surplus wealth (the surplus that reamains after the factors of production take their due rewards or rent, wages and profits) it creates is largely a socio-political issue.

We are right at the heart of a non-Marxist critique of capitalist economies here. This is why I suggested at the end of my post that we transfer the dialogue to its own thread.

Could you please look at that new thread with the suggested structure for discussing CI?

I hope that this does not kill your interest in a subject that actually goes to the very heart of the most basic human right, the right to life and to the means of physical life.

Again, please, please, I do not want to sound patronizing when offering a reminder to the objective in front of this group evolutionaries: ... to subdue the (roughly) ten thousand year old conspiracy of a minority to dominate and exploit the surplus labour of the majority.

Re: Attention as a currency

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:17:12 -0000

Okay, i have to take Katrina and Curmudgeon to task here. First off, i'd agree that if someone only made a resource that had value only to themselves then yes, it would be quite useless. But i have to ask if a 10,000 year old hunter-gatherer analogy is even useful here? The complexity of our modern nation states is staggering.....Personally, i pay 8-10 grand a year in taxes and i'm quite happy to have that money go in re-investment in infrastructure ( a great thing about capitalism) and also to pay for our universal type health-care etc. What i do find offensive is when my money goes to bulding the fifty-five thousand and first nuclear weapon!
Here's a scenario for all you hard -core if you can't pull yourself up by your bootstarp capitalist's; then please, stop being a drain on society and please leave the planet (hey, we'll even help you leave by selling you our Heroin). Say you are a young man or woman who was 25 and not much useful good to society but extremely brilliant; she/he needs to have a rather inexpensive operation that will save her/his life. She/he can't pay for it and will die if the operation is not performed. At 52 this person comes up with one of the astonishing discoveries that could solve untold misery on this earth......

In my world he/she gets the operation paid for by society..........And, we're the better for it....

Peace, Andrew.....

Re: Attention as a currency

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:06:36 -0000

Oh yeah, (can't seem to shut-up today)...
That heroin pusher i mentioned is valued much more under this economic system then the modern day sage who thinks it's far more beneficial to count the leaves on his/her ficus tree...
Houston, we have a problem here..........

Re: Attention as a currency

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:11:32 -0000

Isn't that the reason for all our media, marketing and ads are continuously clamoring for our precious little attention so we are programmed subconsciously to think and behave in certain ways and never venture out of the box named 'free market'.

Now where should we put our attention matters enormously...i say we need to put our attention on the very dysfunctional and fraudulant way money or currency system operates right now.

This is why e the citizens need to think about where the system is failing and why and how we can create a sane and sustainable system that works for all.

cheers
mita
http://www.seek2know.net/money2.html

also check out this shocking side of FREE market