Oh, the irony of mindlessly scrolling only to find this gem reminding me that it's time to put the phone down, breathe, and head outside. As usual this completely resonates and I love how you distill these concepts. The idea that we are outsourcing what our nervous systems are supposed to do to AI and algorithms reminded me of The Matrix.
I really like this post Stephen, I came back to it a couple of times.
The shift from framing attention as a 'resource' (currency to be spent) to a 'relationship' (a somatic state) is a profound reorientation. I’ve often felt the failure of 'digital detoxes' precisely because they rely on willpower, which I think of as a a cognitive resource, to solve a physiological dysregulation. Your point that 'protection replicates the problem' is a revelation. I never realized that by building walls against the noise, I was still practicing constriction. The idea of expansion as the antidote, widening the container rather than shutting the gates, feels like the missing piece of the puzzle.
The connection you draw between the individual nervous system and the body politic is terrifyingly lucid. We discuss polarization as an ideological issue, but framing it as a physiological one, 'a population primed for authoritarianism' due to chronic constriction, explains why logic and debate seem to be failing us. If we cannot hold space for difficult sensations in our own bodies, we certainly cannot hold space for nuance in the public square. The argument that 'presence is a prerequisite for political agency' should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the current democratic landscape.
Also, thank you for naming the sensation of the 'defensive narrowing'; simply identifying it as a trauma response makes it feel manageable rather than like a moral failing. Excellent post with lots to think about!
Thank you Colin! You've got the shift exactly right: attention as relationship, not resource. That reframing changes everything. Life is relationships. The body knows this before the mind does.
The widening piece I've learned from how the body heals from trauma. The counterintuitive discovery: our hurts aren't too big for us. They're stuck, and we've been trying to manage them with too small a container. Think of lifting a heavy suitcase with one finger versus a whole hand versus two hands. Same weight, different capacity. The work isn't to shrink what we carry. It's to widen what can hold it.
And yes, the political piece. We keep treating polarization as a problem of information or ideology when it's a problem of capacity. A constricted nervous system can't hold nuance. It's not a debate failure. It's a physiology problem.
Grateful for the exchange. This is how ideas sharpen.
A **Catholic psychologist** reading *“The Attention Wound”* by Stephen Hanmer D’Elía would likely offer a **nuanced, thoughtful engagement**, affirming much of the essay’s insight into the **embodied psychological effects of the digital world**, while also offering **distinctive critiques and expansions rooted in theological anthropology, moral formation, and sacramental worldview**.
---
## 🟢 Affirmations: Where Catholic Psychology Would Strongly Agree
### **1. The Body as a Sacred Site of Experience**
Hanmer’s essay insists that attention is not merely cognitive, but **somatic**—that is, rooted in the body. This aligns deeply with Catholic psychology, especially that informed by **St. John Paul II’s theology of the body**, which views the body not as an obstacle but as the **locus of encounter, meaning, and grace**.
> “The body, in fact, and it alone is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine.” — *Theology of the Body*
* A Catholic psychologist would affirm Hanmer’s insight that **technological overstimulation leads to disintegration**, especially when the **body is bypassed**, or treated only as a mechanistic host for attention.
### **2. Attention as Relationship, Not Resource**
Hanmer reframes attention as **relational**, not transactional—a move a Catholic thinker would welcome.
* Catholic spiritual traditions, especially **contemplative practices (e.g., Lectio Divina, Ignatian discernment)**, regard **attention as a mode of presence to God, self, and others**.
* **Simone Weil**, a Catholic philosopher-mystic, wrote: *“Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”* Hanmer’s expansion of attention from a commodity to a relational capacity deeply resonates with this.
### **3. Trauma, Regulation, and Presence**
Hanmer insightfully describes the attention economy as a **trauma-inducing system**, shrinking the body’s **window of tolerance**, leading to dysregulation and dissociation. Catholic psychologists—particularly those drawing from **trauma-informed theology** (e.g., Dr. Conrad Baars, Dr. Anna Terruwe)—would strongly affirm this analysis.
* **Catholic psychology affirms that wounds—especially relational ones—must be healed in the body and soul**, through *presence*, *relationship*, and *grace*.
* The essay’s insistence on **“collective presence”** and **co-regulation** echoes the **Church's understanding of the human person as inherently social and ecclesial**.
---
## 🟡 Points of Tension or Expansion
### **1. Absence of the Transcendent**
While Hanmer rightly critiques technological overreach and affirms embodiment, he does so **entirely within an immanent framework**—there is **no mention of God, grace, or spiritual direction**.
A Catholic psychologist might ask:
* *What is the ultimate ground of human attention and presence?*
* *Can attention truly heal if it is never reoriented toward the divine?*
From a Catholic view, **true attentiveness must be rooted not just in neurobiology but in the soul’s orientation to God**.
> Catholic spiritual masters would say that **attention wounded by distraction can only be fully healed by contemplative attention to the divine**—not merely a return to sensory presence, but a redirection toward *the One in whom we live and move and have our being* (Acts 17:28).
### **2. Healing Beyond Somatics: Grace and Moral Formation**
Hanmer focuses almost exclusively on **somatic strategies**—expanding sensation, breath, duration. While these are valid and important, **a Catholic psychologist would insist on the necessity of grace**.
* Healing requires not only **neuroregulation** but **moral and spiritual integration**.
* **Catholic psychology views will, intellect, and virtue as integral to healing**, not just nervous system retraining.
* **Spiritual practices** like prayer, confession, Eucharist, and adoration are **not “coping” tools**, but **means of deep healing** that reconfigure the self in God’s love.
### **3. Concern for Subtle Gnosticism or Neo-Stoicism**
Though Hanmer praises embodiment, a Catholic thinker may notice a subtle **tendency toward internal mastery**—*expanding capacity, reclaiming the body, etc.*—without acknowledging **our fundamental dependence on God**.
* There’s a fine line between **somatic autonomy** and **Pelagian self-healing**. Catholic psychology sees the body as good—but always **in need of redemption, not just regulation**.
> A Catholic psychologist might respond: *“The nervous system matters deeply. But even it must be healed in the light of Christ’s wounds.”*
---
## 🔴 Where a Catholic Psychologist Might Gently Critique
### **1. Lack of Sacramental or Liturgical Context**
Hanmer’s call for **collective presence**—gathered bodies, shared attention—is compelling. Yet for the Church, **this is fulfilled most powerfully in the liturgy**, especially the **Eucharist**.
* Catholic psychology rooted in the **incarnational and sacramental worldview** sees the **Mass as the ultimate antidote** to disembodied, distracted life.
* In liturgy, bodies gather, time slows, and **attention is reoriented toward eternal realities**—not just as psychological relief, but as divine participation.
A Catholic thinker might say:
> “You describe the wound beautifully. But you stop short of the ultimate healing—the sacramental life where presence is not only possible but transcendentally real.”
### **2. The Role of Vocation, Purpose, and Identity in Christ**
Nowhere does Hanmer discuss **who the human person is** at the deepest level. For Catholic psychology, this is central:
> “You are not just a being with a nervous system. You are a child of God, called into communion and mission.”
Healing attention means:
* Restoring our **identity in Christ**.
* Reordering our **affections toward the good, the true, and the beautiful**.
* Participating in the **life of grace**, not only regulating the body.
---
## ✅ Final Summary: A Catholic Psychological Response
| **Aspect** | **Catholic Response** |
| **Body and trauma** | Strong affirmation. The nervous system holds pain, and healing must involve the body. |
| **Attention as relationship** | Yes—but ultimately, attention must be directed toward God, not just social presence. |
| **Digital overstimulation** | Agrees fully—this is a cultural illness. Catholic thought would add: it also damages the soul’s capacity to pray and contemplate. |
| **Somatic solutions** | Helpful but incomplete. Healing requires grace, moral virtue, and the sacramental life. |
| **Collective presence** | Beautiful—but most powerfully realized in the Church and liturgy. |
| **Political stakes of attention** | Real—but grounded in theological anthropology and human dignity, not just political theory. |
Richard, please thank your “Catholic psychologist” for the generous read:)
What stayed with me is how closely the somatic frame and the Catholic frame sit next to each other when it comes to presence, relationship, and the body as a site of meaning. The points about grace, liturgy, and ultimate orientation make sense in that tradition, and I can see why those questions surface when the essay stays intentionally immanent.
I don’t see the somatic frame and the sacramental frame as competing. The somatic foundation I’m describing doesn’t preclude grace. It may be a precondition for receiving it. A nervous system in collapse can’t attend to the Eucharist either. Width, depth, and duration aren’t substitutes for the sacramental life. They’re what let the body show up for it. Gracias
For me it calls us to be conscious and we can only be conscious in the body. Tech, like social media and AI seem to be 'programming' us to go further and further up into our heads, where we are not grounded in anything really, and become anxiety ridden. I read that our consciousness is now residing 2 feet above our heads so we are not even close to our bodies and the ground of our being.
Yes, consciousness in the body is the key. The "2 feet above our heads" image captures something real: dissociation, the nervous system's way of leaving when staying feels unsafe. Tech accelerates this. It rewards the split, keeps us in reactive, disembodied attention.
The work is descent, not ascent. Back into sensation, breath, weight. The body is the ground. Everything else is abstraction.
Thank you for this article! Very helpful in my struggle against what I feel technology is doing to me. I admit that I’m not as concerned with the body politic right now as I am my own brain and with my relationships. My brain does not feel good after scrolling Substack notes, or the headlines in the digital newspaper. That’s pretty much all I do on the internet. I have no social media. I’m Gen X for reference.
But I’m disturbed because I don’t feel well. My brain does not feel good! It must be what you are describing.
Recently I have been combatting this by deleting Substack after checking it (then reinstalling to next day to check, and repeat). I’m forcing myself to read books again. It’s going pretty well, but boy is it hard to do.
The second thing that bothers me is what it has done to relationships, at least this is my theory. I’m referring to a newish phenomenon of people who don’t answer texts or phone calls, and who break plans easily or refuse to make plans at all. But then they send you links to instagram post after instagram post that they are scrolling in the group chat. This is happening with my sisters, and not just to me. It’s very bizarre. My theory is that they find it hard to do anything that’s not the comfort of online stuff. It’s made people selfish and self centered somehow and less capable of actual interaction. But maybe it’s more of what you have said, a nervous system problem.
Thank you. I’ll return to this article to try to understand it better.
Thank you JB. What you're describing is exactly what the essay is about, and you're already doing the work.
The brain not feeling good after scrolling isn't metaphor. It's the nervous system registering that it's been in a state of shallow, reactive arousal without any settling. You're Gen X, like me, so you have a before. You know what a regulated system feels like, even if it's harder to access now. That's actually an advantage. The body remembers.
And yes, what you're noticing in your sisters is the same mechanism showing up relationally. The difficulty answering texts, breaking plans, sending links instead of having actual exchanges: these aren't character flaws. They're signs of nervous systems that find presence harder than scrolling. Real interaction requires staying. Staying has become the hardest thing.
The fact that reading books is hard but you're doing it anyway matters. You're retraining the system. The difficulty is the work. Each time you stay a little longer than is comfortable, you're teaching the nervous system that depth is survivable.
Beautiful. I love that you say expand rather than constrict when interacting with the impulse to check the phone. I am going to read your piece again, with more attention(!), but everything you are saying rings true. The point that all this media use in isolation leads to easier acceptance of authoritarianism — wow.
Thank you so much Katia. The expansion piece was counterintuitive when I first learnt about it, but it makes so much sense. And yes, the authoritarianism link is the piece I keep returning to. We talk about polarization as an ideological problem. To me it's as much a physiological one. A nervous system in chronic constriction can't hold complexity. The narrowing happens in the body before it shows up in the polity.
Oh, the irony of mindlessly scrolling only to find this gem reminding me that it's time to put the phone down, breathe, and head outside. As usual this completely resonates and I love how you distill these concepts. The idea that we are outsourcing what our nervous systems are supposed to do to AI and algorithms reminded me of The Matrix.
Thanks Susie. The Matrix parallel keeps coming up again and again in so many different ways....
I really like this post Stephen, I came back to it a couple of times.
The shift from framing attention as a 'resource' (currency to be spent) to a 'relationship' (a somatic state) is a profound reorientation. I’ve often felt the failure of 'digital detoxes' precisely because they rely on willpower, which I think of as a a cognitive resource, to solve a physiological dysregulation. Your point that 'protection replicates the problem' is a revelation. I never realized that by building walls against the noise, I was still practicing constriction. The idea of expansion as the antidote, widening the container rather than shutting the gates, feels like the missing piece of the puzzle.
The connection you draw between the individual nervous system and the body politic is terrifyingly lucid. We discuss polarization as an ideological issue, but framing it as a physiological one, 'a population primed for authoritarianism' due to chronic constriction, explains why logic and debate seem to be failing us. If we cannot hold space for difficult sensations in our own bodies, we certainly cannot hold space for nuance in the public square. The argument that 'presence is a prerequisite for political agency' should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the current democratic landscape.
Also, thank you for naming the sensation of the 'defensive narrowing'; simply identifying it as a trauma response makes it feel manageable rather than like a moral failing. Excellent post with lots to think about!
Thank you Colin! You've got the shift exactly right: attention as relationship, not resource. That reframing changes everything. Life is relationships. The body knows this before the mind does.
The widening piece I've learned from how the body heals from trauma. The counterintuitive discovery: our hurts aren't too big for us. They're stuck, and we've been trying to manage them with too small a container. Think of lifting a heavy suitcase with one finger versus a whole hand versus two hands. Same weight, different capacity. The work isn't to shrink what we carry. It's to widen what can hold it.
And yes, the political piece. We keep treating polarization as a problem of information or ideology when it's a problem of capacity. A constricted nervous system can't hold nuance. It's not a debate failure. It's a physiology problem.
Grateful for the exchange. This is how ideas sharpen.
A **Catholic psychologist** reading *“The Attention Wound”* by Stephen Hanmer D’Elía would likely offer a **nuanced, thoughtful engagement**, affirming much of the essay’s insight into the **embodied psychological effects of the digital world**, while also offering **distinctive critiques and expansions rooted in theological anthropology, moral formation, and sacramental worldview**.
---
## 🟢 Affirmations: Where Catholic Psychology Would Strongly Agree
### **1. The Body as a Sacred Site of Experience**
Hanmer’s essay insists that attention is not merely cognitive, but **somatic**—that is, rooted in the body. This aligns deeply with Catholic psychology, especially that informed by **St. John Paul II’s theology of the body**, which views the body not as an obstacle but as the **locus of encounter, meaning, and grace**.
> “The body, in fact, and it alone is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine.” — *Theology of the Body*
* A Catholic psychologist would affirm Hanmer’s insight that **technological overstimulation leads to disintegration**, especially when the **body is bypassed**, or treated only as a mechanistic host for attention.
### **2. Attention as Relationship, Not Resource**
Hanmer reframes attention as **relational**, not transactional—a move a Catholic thinker would welcome.
* Catholic spiritual traditions, especially **contemplative practices (e.g., Lectio Divina, Ignatian discernment)**, regard **attention as a mode of presence to God, self, and others**.
* **Simone Weil**, a Catholic philosopher-mystic, wrote: *“Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”* Hanmer’s expansion of attention from a commodity to a relational capacity deeply resonates with this.
### **3. Trauma, Regulation, and Presence**
Hanmer insightfully describes the attention economy as a **trauma-inducing system**, shrinking the body’s **window of tolerance**, leading to dysregulation and dissociation. Catholic psychologists—particularly those drawing from **trauma-informed theology** (e.g., Dr. Conrad Baars, Dr. Anna Terruwe)—would strongly affirm this analysis.
* **Catholic psychology affirms that wounds—especially relational ones—must be healed in the body and soul**, through *presence*, *relationship*, and *grace*.
* The essay’s insistence on **“collective presence”** and **co-regulation** echoes the **Church's understanding of the human person as inherently social and ecclesial**.
---
## 🟡 Points of Tension or Expansion
### **1. Absence of the Transcendent**
While Hanmer rightly critiques technological overreach and affirms embodiment, he does so **entirely within an immanent framework**—there is **no mention of God, grace, or spiritual direction**.
A Catholic psychologist might ask:
* *What is the ultimate ground of human attention and presence?*
* *Can attention truly heal if it is never reoriented toward the divine?*
From a Catholic view, **true attentiveness must be rooted not just in neurobiology but in the soul’s orientation to God**.
> Catholic spiritual masters would say that **attention wounded by distraction can only be fully healed by contemplative attention to the divine**—not merely a return to sensory presence, but a redirection toward *the One in whom we live and move and have our being* (Acts 17:28).
### **2. Healing Beyond Somatics: Grace and Moral Formation**
Hanmer focuses almost exclusively on **somatic strategies**—expanding sensation, breath, duration. While these are valid and important, **a Catholic psychologist would insist on the necessity of grace**.
* Healing requires not only **neuroregulation** but **moral and spiritual integration**.
* **Catholic psychology views will, intellect, and virtue as integral to healing**, not just nervous system retraining.
* **Spiritual practices** like prayer, confession, Eucharist, and adoration are **not “coping” tools**, but **means of deep healing** that reconfigure the self in God’s love.
### **3. Concern for Subtle Gnosticism or Neo-Stoicism**
Though Hanmer praises embodiment, a Catholic thinker may notice a subtle **tendency toward internal mastery**—*expanding capacity, reclaiming the body, etc.*—without acknowledging **our fundamental dependence on God**.
* There’s a fine line between **somatic autonomy** and **Pelagian self-healing**. Catholic psychology sees the body as good—but always **in need of redemption, not just regulation**.
> A Catholic psychologist might respond: *“The nervous system matters deeply. But even it must be healed in the light of Christ’s wounds.”*
---
## 🔴 Where a Catholic Psychologist Might Gently Critique
### **1. Lack of Sacramental or Liturgical Context**
Hanmer’s call for **collective presence**—gathered bodies, shared attention—is compelling. Yet for the Church, **this is fulfilled most powerfully in the liturgy**, especially the **Eucharist**.
* Catholic psychology rooted in the **incarnational and sacramental worldview** sees the **Mass as the ultimate antidote** to disembodied, distracted life.
* In liturgy, bodies gather, time slows, and **attention is reoriented toward eternal realities**—not just as psychological relief, but as divine participation.
A Catholic thinker might say:
> “You describe the wound beautifully. But you stop short of the ultimate healing—the sacramental life where presence is not only possible but transcendentally real.”
### **2. The Role of Vocation, Purpose, and Identity in Christ**
Nowhere does Hanmer discuss **who the human person is** at the deepest level. For Catholic psychology, this is central:
> “You are not just a being with a nervous system. You are a child of God, called into communion and mission.”
Healing attention means:
* Restoring our **identity in Christ**.
* Reordering our **affections toward the good, the true, and the beautiful**.
* Participating in the **life of grace**, not only regulating the body.
---
## ✅ Final Summary: A Catholic Psychological Response
| **Aspect** | **Catholic Response** |
| **Body and trauma** | Strong affirmation. The nervous system holds pain, and healing must involve the body. |
| **Attention as relationship** | Yes—but ultimately, attention must be directed toward God, not just social presence. |
| **Digital overstimulation** | Agrees fully—this is a cultural illness. Catholic thought would add: it also damages the soul’s capacity to pray and contemplate. |
| **Somatic solutions** | Helpful but incomplete. Healing requires grace, moral virtue, and the sacramental life. |
| **Collective presence** | Beautiful—but most powerfully realized in the Church and liturgy. |
| **Political stakes of attention** | Real—but grounded in theological anthropology and human dignity, not just political theory. |
---
Richard, please thank your “Catholic psychologist” for the generous read:)
What stayed with me is how closely the somatic frame and the Catholic frame sit next to each other when it comes to presence, relationship, and the body as a site of meaning. The points about grace, liturgy, and ultimate orientation make sense in that tradition, and I can see why those questions surface when the essay stays intentionally immanent.
I don’t see the somatic frame and the sacramental frame as competing. The somatic foundation I’m describing doesn’t preclude grace. It may be a precondition for receiving it. A nervous system in collapse can’t attend to the Eucharist either. Width, depth, and duration aren’t substitutes for the sacramental life. They’re what let the body show up for it. Gracias
Thank you for sharing. I resonate with this.
Thanks Andrew!
Stephen, thank you for this post.
For me it calls us to be conscious and we can only be conscious in the body. Tech, like social media and AI seem to be 'programming' us to go further and further up into our heads, where we are not grounded in anything really, and become anxiety ridden. I read that our consciousness is now residing 2 feet above our heads so we are not even close to our bodies and the ground of our being.
Thank you so much Vincent.
Yes, consciousness in the body is the key. The "2 feet above our heads" image captures something real: dissociation, the nervous system's way of leaving when staying feels unsafe. Tech accelerates this. It rewards the split, keeps us in reactive, disembodied attention.
The work is descent, not ascent. Back into sensation, breath, weight. The body is the ground. Everything else is abstraction.
Thank you for this article! Very helpful in my struggle against what I feel technology is doing to me. I admit that I’m not as concerned with the body politic right now as I am my own brain and with my relationships. My brain does not feel good after scrolling Substack notes, or the headlines in the digital newspaper. That’s pretty much all I do on the internet. I have no social media. I’m Gen X for reference.
But I’m disturbed because I don’t feel well. My brain does not feel good! It must be what you are describing.
Recently I have been combatting this by deleting Substack after checking it (then reinstalling to next day to check, and repeat). I’m forcing myself to read books again. It’s going pretty well, but boy is it hard to do.
The second thing that bothers me is what it has done to relationships, at least this is my theory. I’m referring to a newish phenomenon of people who don’t answer texts or phone calls, and who break plans easily or refuse to make plans at all. But then they send you links to instagram post after instagram post that they are scrolling in the group chat. This is happening with my sisters, and not just to me. It’s very bizarre. My theory is that they find it hard to do anything that’s not the comfort of online stuff. It’s made people selfish and self centered somehow and less capable of actual interaction. But maybe it’s more of what you have said, a nervous system problem.
Thank you. I’ll return to this article to try to understand it better.
Thank you JB. What you're describing is exactly what the essay is about, and you're already doing the work.
The brain not feeling good after scrolling isn't metaphor. It's the nervous system registering that it's been in a state of shallow, reactive arousal without any settling. You're Gen X, like me, so you have a before. You know what a regulated system feels like, even if it's harder to access now. That's actually an advantage. The body remembers.
And yes, what you're noticing in your sisters is the same mechanism showing up relationally. The difficulty answering texts, breaking plans, sending links instead of having actual exchanges: these aren't character flaws. They're signs of nervous systems that find presence harder than scrolling. Real interaction requires staying. Staying has become the hardest thing.
The fact that reading books is hard but you're doing it anyway matters. You're retraining the system. The difficulty is the work. Each time you stay a little longer than is comfortable, you're teaching the nervous system that depth is survivable.
Grateful it landed. Keep going.
Beautiful. I love that you say expand rather than constrict when interacting with the impulse to check the phone. I am going to read your piece again, with more attention(!), but everything you are saying rings true. The point that all this media use in isolation leads to easier acceptance of authoritarianism — wow.
Thank you so much Katia. The expansion piece was counterintuitive when I first learnt about it, but it makes so much sense. And yes, the authoritarianism link is the piece I keep returning to. We talk about polarization as an ideological problem. To me it's as much a physiological one. A nervous system in chronic constriction can't hold complexity. The narrowing happens in the body before it shows up in the polity.
Brillante. Presencia y conexión con nuestro cuerpo para ganar la batalla al secuestro tecnológico (¡y político!). Gracias, Stephen.
Gracias Belén! Lo escribí también en español https://yauguru.substack.com/p/la-herida-atencional?r=217mr3