Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Difference between focus and concentration?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is there a difference between the volitional act of 'Focus' and the act of 'concentration'?

I'm inclined to say that there is, yet I'm unable to pin down the exact distinction.  I appreciate any help with this.

The way I look at it is like this:

One needs focus in order to concetrate. Concentration is on ONE thing, focus is needed first in order to gain concentration.

Interesting question though....It definately made me think.

~Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at it is like this:

One needs focus in order to concetrate.  Concentration is on ONE thing, focus is needed first in order to gain concentration.

Yes, this is about the same level of understanding that I have reached.

Using an analogy of focusing one's eye has also helped me to grasp my own understanding. In order to look at something you first need to open your eyes and focus them, thus the volitional act of focus is primary. Only after you do this can you decide to look any anything in particular and then choose to stare at that something, as one does when once chooses to concentrate on something.

I was just wondering if anyone has anything to add to this or provide a better explanation than a mere analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a difference between the volitional act of 'Focus' and the act of 'concentration'?

I'm inclined to say that there is, yet I'm unable to pin down the exact distinction.  I appreciate any help with this.

Yes, there certainly is a difference. We had a thread on HBL years ago that touched on this. Here is how I worded the difference.

"This 'directing one's attention at something' is what concentration is, which is distinct from focus. Concentration presupposes an already existing level of focus, and is itself a narrowing of one's awareness to give attention to some facts, to the exclusion of others."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is about the same level of understanding that I have reached. 

Using an analogy of focusing one's eye has also helped me to grasp my own understanding.  In order to look at something you first need to open your eyes and focus them, thus the volitional act of focus is primary.  Only after you do this can you decide to look any anything in particular and then choose to stare at that something, as one does when once chooses to concentrate on something.

I was just wondering if anyone has anything to add to this or provide a better explanation than a mere analogy.

Andrew,

I too have been using an analogy to examine this question.

A camera cannot focus on nothing in particular. Nor can the eye focus unless it is on something.

Of course, you are right that one must open one's eyes in order to focus them, or take the lense cap off the camera. So the opening (which is a volitional act) is equivalent to "focus" in this context and the focusing of the eye/camera is equivalent to concentration.

It was not until I joined this board, read through the relevent sections of OPAR about ten times and got into an uncomfortable (for me) discussion about it (with Stephen) that I finally realised that focus is different from concentration. I now "know" this, but I still don't fully understand it.

I wonder if A.D.D. is a lack of ability to focus rather than to concentrate? My son is diagnosed with A.D.D. (and it is supposedly an inherited characteristic....so quite possibly from me!) and he lacks focus and yet is an extremely good competitive chess player, where concentration is obviously paramount.

Further more I am wondering if A.D.D. is an inability to conceive of focus, let alone do it!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

Although I have been trying hard not to ;) I am now apologising for my earlier comments to you on an earlier, similar thread.

I can only say in my defense that I really could not conceive of a difference between focus and concentration at that time.

I can now conceive of it (and you were right, by introspection) but I still do not understand it, or perhaps I have not fully integrated it. I do however, catch glimses of it and its usefulness, and it makes me wonder how I could have functioned (reasonably succesfully)without grasping this fact before!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I can now conceive of it (and you were right, by introspection) but I still do not understand it, or perhaps I have not fully integrated it. ...

So, perhaps your next question should be: What constitutes understanding?

In other words, how will you know when you understand it -- that is, what are the criteria for understanding something?

My answer is that I have two criteria for understanding X:

(1) Knowing the nature of X (its characteristics).

(2) Knowing the cause of X (what makes X the way it is).

In my field, an example would be the American Revolution. A competent historian understands the revolution when he knows what happened (the events) and why it happened the way it did.

Integration with the rest of your knowledge can continue after you know 1 and 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, perhaps your next question should be: What constitutes understanding?

In other words, how will you know when you understand it -- that is, what are the criteria for understanding something?

My answer is that I have two criteria for understanding X:

(1) Knowing the nature of X (its characteristics).

(2) Knowing the cause of X (what makes X the way it is).

In my field, an example would be the American Revolution. A competent historian understands the revolution when he knows what happened (the events) and why it happened the way it did.

Integration with the rest of your knowledge can continue after you know 1 and 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, perhaps your next question should be: What constitutes understanding?

In other words, how will you know when you understand it -- that is, what are the criteria for understanding something?

My answer is that I have two criteria for understanding X:

(1) Knowing the nature of X (its characteristics).

(2) Knowing the cause of X (what makes X the way it is).

In my field, an example would be the American Revolution. A competent historian understands the revolution when he knows what happened (the events) and why it happened the way it did.

Integration with the rest of your knowledge can continue after you know 1 and 2.

I am still working on 1)!....I have only recently recognised the existence of "X" , i.e. focus as distinct from concentration.

Re 2) based on what I am currently reading on Phil of Mind and Evolutionary Psych (Searle, Pinker, Damasio) that might be a ways off! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

Although I have been trying hard not to  ;) I am now apologising for my earlier comments to you on an earlier, similar thread.

Since, quite frankly, I do not even recall the interchange, I cannot with complete honesty accept the apology. So why don't you accept your own apology yourself, in my behalf. :)

I can only say in my defense that I really could not conceive of a difference between focus and concentration at that time.

Even the most rational approach does not guarantee automatic knowledge. Sometimes it just takes time, and seeing the issue from different perspectives, before it "clicks." We are all like that.

p.s. It takes courage, and honesty, to apologize for one's past. Thanks for displaying both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through the thread since I'm short on time, but here's what I think.

Usually you focus on some job which you do. First you choose to focus, naturally, and then what you focus on. Say you're a programmer, so you focus on programming. Generally programming. But when you are required to do a specific job, you concentrate on doing it. You sit by the computer and you concentrate on the work before you.

While to concentrate means paying attention to a specific job you are doing right now, to focus means to know what it is that you want to do in life and how - it is a more general term than concentration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since, quite frankly, I do not even recall the interchange, I cannot with complete honesty accept the apology. So why don't you accept your own apology yourself, in my behalf.  :D

Stephen,

Thanks for returning my apology....rather than keep it for myself I will pass it on to my wife for deposit.....I'm sure it will be used up in the future.....or would that be considered dropping the context?

Even the most rational approach does not guarantee automatic knowledge. Sometimes it just takes time, and seeing the issue from different perspectives, before it "clicks." We are all like that.

Yes, I am getting little introspective glimpses of how focus differs from concentration, it is quite interesting.

p.s. It takes courage, and honesty, to apologize for one's past. Thanks for displaying both.

It does, but it is a releif once accomplished, thank you!

P.S. I seem to be getting the hang of quoting....again thanks to a post of yours (and I think Betsy's) and some trial and error on my part.....see what Objectivism has done for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still working on 1)!....I have only recently recognised the existence of "X" , i.e. focus as distinct from concentration.

Re 2) based on what I am currently reading on Phil of Mind and Evolutionary Psych (Searle, Pinker, Damasio) that might be a ways off!  :D

Yes, these things take a long time, which is one more reason for doing everything one reasonably can to live a long and healthy life.

I assume you have read The Fountainhead. In dark moments of struggling to understand an issue, keep in mind Roark's twenty year struggle to understand the "principle of the Dean."

A genius such as Ayn Rand can develop an outline of a revolutionary epistemology in half an hour, but the rest of us must struggle a bit longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually you focus on some job which you do. First you choose to focus, naturally, and then what you focus on. Say you're a programmer, so you focus on programming. Generally programming. But when you are required to do a specific job, you concentrate on doing it. You sit by the computer and you concentrate on the work before you.

You are only confusing the issue further by using a commonplace notion of "focus." This is not at all what Objectivists mean by "focus." To focus is to commit to awareness, a commitment to manage your mind. As Leonard Peikoff states in OPAR (p. 56),

"'Focus' (in the conceptual realm) names a quality of purposeful alertness in a man's mental state. 'Focus' is the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are only confusing the issue further by using a commonplace notion of "focus." This is not at all what Objectivists mean by "focus." To focus is to commit to awareness, a commitment to manage your mind. As Leonard Peikoff states in OPAR (p. 56),

"'Focus' (in the conceptual realm) names a quality of purposeful alertness in a man's mental state. 'Focus' is the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality."

Alertness to what purpose? If focus is the state of a goal-directed mind, stop right there and ask what goal?

You can't focus on nothing in particular, you must focus on something. When you choose to focus, you must inevitably choose something to focus on, otherwise you remain out of focus. Only when you focus on something, can you say that your mind is in the state of focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alertness to what purpose? If focus is the state of a goal-directed mind, stop right there and ask what goal?

You can't focus on nothing in particular, you must focus on something. When you choose to focus, you must inevitably choose something to focus on, otherwise you remain out of focus. Only when you focus on something, can you say that your mind is in the state of focus.

source,

I had great difficulty with this too, so allow me to try to help :P

Focus, in the earlier analogies used here is "taking the lense cap off the camere" or "opening your eyes"....both are volitional acts and must be done before you focus the camera or your eyes.

"Alertness to the purpose" of goal directed action perhaps? Many people do not have this faculty (? terminology) "turned on"...so they can never concentrate on a course of action, only in sudden (child like?) bursts.

Does this help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting comments, but something that just popped into my mind: why is 'concentration' viewed as a purely visual act? Can one not concentrate on say an abstract idea, or a picture, without having the eyes open to the external environment? Or, would you all say that one must 'focus' on the abstract idea, and then 'concentrate'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alertness to what purpose? If focus is the state of a goal-directed mind, stop right there and ask what goal?

You can't focus on nothing in particular, you must focus on something. When you choose to focus, you must inevitably choose something to focus on, otherwise you remain out of focus. Only when you focus on something, can you say that your mind is in the state of focus.

You are just not getting it. Focus is more fundamental, a commitment to awareness, itself a precondition for your thinking and what you concentrate on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes discussions among honest people swirl around and around. One cause can be, in my experience, a failure to make a distinction among these three issues:

1. What are the facts of the case -- that is, what aspects of reality are we talking about?

2. Cognitively how should we organize (integrate and differentiate) those facts?

3. What terms should we use to label the ideas we have for organizing the facts?

Does this situation apply to the discussion of volition, focus, and concentration?

Does anyone dispute the facts of what happens when minds work on problems? I don't see any.

Is there disagreement about how to conceptualize or interpret what happens? I am not sure, here.

Or is the issue what labels to put on what we know? This is the most likely prospect, but it might be tied to some degree of disagreement about how to organize what we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone dispute the facts of what happens when minds work on problems? I don't see any.

Is there disagreement about how to conceptualize or interpret what happens? I am not sure, here.

Or is the issue what labels to put on what we know? This is the most likely prospect, but it might be tied to some degree of disagreement about how to organize what we know.

In the context of this thread I think there is a fundamental difference as to what happens not "when the mind works on a (particular) problem" but what the possible states of mind are before the mind starts to work on particulars.

source is making the same mistake I did until very recently, that of not seeing how one could "focus" without focusing on anything in particular. The problem may come from the word focus itself. I agree that one cannot focus in a visual sense without an object to focus upon. But focus here is something different, as Stephen writes it is a committment to awareness prior to concentration. It is the volitional act of taking off the lense cap and must come before focusing.

I am, as of recently, fairly sure of the above (but please correct me if I err!).

Now into realms of which I am less sure:

I think that without focus it is very difficult to conceive of, let alone hold on to, "purpose" in anything like the sustained way needed to acheive purpose. We can all concentrate on a goal in the short term, but without the prior focus it is very difficult to sustain our concentration over the long term and through the inevitable difficulties, nomatter what the goal. This could explain why the vast majority of men "lead lives of quiet desperation"....or in Zig Zigler's terms appear to be wandering generalities :)

I am eager for feedback as I am still integrating this myself, so don't spare my blushes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent, I think you are correct that Source is misunderstanding "focus" on a fundamental level, and, apparently, Burgess is not identifying in what manner this is so.

What is unique to man is his ability to control his own consciousness, and the essential source of that control lies in the primary choice to focus his mind. This volitional act of focusing is the method and means by which we control the operation of our consciousness, and it pertains to the degree of awareness that we set our mind to, independent of the content of that conscious awareness. That is why I said it is a commitment to awareness, a commitment to manage the operation of our mind. It is very important to grasp focus as a method by which consciousness functions, as distinguished from the content of the conscious mind.

As to the point you made about "purpose": If I understand you correctly, I agree that a mind which operates on a low level of awareness -- a consciousness lacking focus required for a task -- will find it very difficult to have purpose as an integrating factor that is sustained over time in his mental activities. Indeed, to the degree that a person lacks a commitment to awareness, to the degree that he abrogates managing the operation of his mind, to that degree purpose will not operate, and will have little value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent, I think you are correct that Source is misunderstanding "focus" on a fundamental level, and, apparently, Burgess is not identifying in what manner this is so.

What is unique to man is his ability to control his own consciousness, and the essential source of that control lies in the primary choice to focus his mind. This volitional act of focusing is the method and means by which we control the operation of our consciousness, and it pertains to the degree of awareness that we set our mind to, independent of the content of that conscious awareness. That is why I said it is a commitment to awareness, a commitment to manage the operation of our mind. It is very important to grasp focus as a method by which consciousness functions, as distinguished from the content of the conscious mind.

Great, I seem to be getting it at last. I must admit it took nearly three months to grasp the idea of "focus" in these terms and it can only be done through introspection.

As to the point you made about "purpose": If I understand you correctly, I agree that a mind which operates on a low level of awareness -- a consciousness lacking focus required for a task -- will find it very difficult to have purpose as an integrating factor that is sustained over time in his mental activities. Indeed, to the degree that a person lacks a commitment to awareness, to the degree that he abrogates managing the operation of his mind, to that degree purpose will not operate, and will have little value.

With regard to the above, I would like to clarify for my own understanding:

1) re "a consciousness lacking focus required for a task"....do you mean requiring concentration for a task? I think of concentrarion as having a timeframe that is controlled by us to be sufficient to perform the task. But focus is an ongoing lifetime committment. Perhaps this is just confusion over the use of the word focus?....the use of that word in this context certainly gives me trouble B)

I would like to ask you one other more general question:

what are your thoughts on the evolutionary psychology model. I have just read a good chunk of Pinker's book "How the Mind Works". I think from previous posts that you might not think that Pinker is on the right track(?) but could not site my reasons for this assumption. I have just ordered two of Searle's books who I have seen you recommend to others here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re "a consciousness lacking focus required for a task"....do you mean requiring concentration for a task?

That was not the most graciously worded of phrases, but I meant "focus" as in commitment to awareness. So, read it as "a consciousness lacking the commitment to awareness required for a task."

I would like to ask you one other more general question:

what are your thoughts on the evolutionary psychology model. I have just read a good chunk of Pinker's book "How the Mind Works". I think from previous posts that you might not think that Pinker is on the right track(?) but could not site my reasons for this assumption. I have just ordered two of Searle's books who I have seen you recommend to others here.

To briefly answer your question and respond to your comment at the same time ... Most all of the philosophers and scientists who deal with cognition are, unfortunately, materialists in one form or another. With some their materialist position is clear and obvious, while for others you have to delve deeply to see what is at the root. Nevertheless, it usually boils down to the approach that the mind is what the brain does. To Pinker the mind is a system of organs of computation, and it is this activity of the brain that denotes the mind. In contrast, Searle at least recognizes the mind as having properties unique to itself, not simply a reflection of brain activity. To this extent Searle is much closer to the Objectivist view on the mind/body than are the materialists. But, please note that the recommendations I previously gave for Searle were heavily qualified and were not meant to be taken as a blanket recommendation of his work. In my opinion, however, Searle represents the most rational of the prominent non-Objectivist thinkers when it comes to consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...