What a new theory of attention says about consciousness

In all fairness, my comment is a bundle of hypotheses, but I tend to think they are true. In my previous comment I was less nuanced about it since I wanted to be brief. But to test that they are true requires a lot of experiments. And also note: these processes may be different to other people. I can't focus in coffeeshops, for example. I'd rather be alone.

Moreover, upon thinking about this more deeply, I forgot the imitation aspect of social control. I'm not going into that, this thing is long enough to write.

In any case to go back to my previous comment, there are 3 processes: (A) social control (a word that I invented on my own), (B) classical conditioning and (C) operant conditioning.

(A) Let's start with the easiest: how does social control play a role for you to focus a very long time when working in a coffeeshop versus working alone at home?

(1) When you're alone at home, nobody is watching you.

(2) You feel more free to do whatever you want because of it. Want to take a nap? Go for it! Want to work in your underpants? You can. Want to take a break and play video games/watch youtube/<insert favorite entertainment>? Yep, all possible.

These things are less possible in a coffee shop. Even when it comes to entertainment: you need wear headphones. You might be embarrassed on laughing out loud publicly. You don't feel as relaxed.

In other words, because other people being there in the room that are silently judging you on your behavior (i.e. social control), you won't feel as compelled to just chill in your own idiosyncratic way.

Yes, you can find ways around it. Yes, you can hack it and find counter examples. But it won't be as accessible compared to doing it at your own house. So one feels less compelled to do so.

(B) How does classical conditioning play a role for you to focus a very long time when working in a coffeeshop versus working alone at home?

Recap on classical conditioning: bell --> food --> salivation, the learning then became bell --> salivation.

In this case: a biological potent stimulus (e.g. coffee), is being paired with a previously neutral stimulus (e.g. the atmosphere). Which then results in learning: coffee shop atmoshpere is cofee high.

So: atmosphere --> coffee --> coffee high, therefore: atmosphere --> coffee high.

What does a coffee high do? It makes you feel more alert. Does that makes you feel more focused? Not necessarily, but it helps. Therefore, it plays a role.

(C) How does operant conditioning play a role for you to focus a very long time when working in a coffeeshop versus working alone at home?

Recap on operant conditioning: the strength of a behavior is modified by rewards (technical term: reinforcement) and punishment. Example: a child learns to open a box to get the sweets inside.

The social control that I described earlier is a form of operant conditioning as one might anticipate a punishment for acting out of line (e.g. lying on the couch to sleep, something you can do in your house, not in a coffeeshop).

You getting work done gives you a feeling of accomplishment. So if the first couple of times of working in a coffee shop went well for some reason, you tend to associate a coffee shop with a place where you get work done? Sounds obvious, I suppose, but that's what operant conditioning can mean.

Drinking coffee at a nice cafe can be seen as a reward in itself, and you only get to go there if you focus and work there.

---

Obviously, there are more processes at play. But the article is about how our brain suppresses the information flow of certain stimuli. You happen to experience in coffee shops that you tend to focus better, in other words that your brain suppresses information flow better than at home.

I simply describe a couple of hypotheses of why this might be. The theories that I use have been validated by psychologists for decades and also by game-designers who actively use them in casual games. So their theoretical underpinning in that it works (and to some extent how it works) is quite strong.

Only in your second comment, below mine do you make clear what your implicit hypothesis in the first comment was "there really is something to trying to tune out distractions which converts to laser focus as a net effect." Putting your PFC in overdrive might indeed be a thing. I wouldn't know.