Zooming In and Zooming Out

Do We Only Reward Laser Focus?

I welcome more discussion around focus! When to zoom in with laser focus for specific concerns. And when to zoom out for keeping focus broad. Both are needed. Zooming in gives attention to any given task at hand. Zooming out establishes counterbalance while being less intense.

I love being zoomed out! I love seeing the big picture. I love seeing the bigger picture, and the even bigger picture. Ha! I joke, but the reality is that not everyone’s “zoomed out” is the same. It’s like each person has their default attention setting as to what their preference is for zooming out. Some don’t zoom out as far as others. Is this an individual default setting or is this a choice?

---

What is Your Default Attention Setting?

What if someone’s default attention setting is zoomed out further than the average person? Is this okay? There are implications that come with being zoomed out. Some of the implications are tied up with the relationship to instances when there’s need to zoom in? Designations can be made to one’s process. Relative to specific tasks, some can frame being zoomed out as ADD. I’ve referred to the zoom out process as CPR - Cross Pollination Reorder (which you could read more about here).

My intention with CPR is to name this condition in a favorable manner. I believe this is my default condition, so this is what I’ve named it. If you think about it, why not allow the individual to name the aspects of their focus and attention (rather than be diagnosed). Is there room, and understanding, for each individual to accurately account these aspects of their own perception? I think there is.

In describing these processes, we expand the discussion around one’s perception of their focus and attention. When pondering one’s default attention setting, the pros and cons can be explored. Like with any default condition or vantage point, there may be shortcomings. One of the shortcomings for having CPR, or continuously stationing oneself in the bigger pictures, is that laser focus can become diluted.

From the vantage point of the bigger picture, having acuity of a laser focus isn’t a needed tool in that arena (in fact, laser focus must be subdued there.) But once the broader inferences are assessed (the cross pollination process) then one needs to reinstate laser focus acuity in order to apply the inferences to any specific topic area.

---

The Benefits of Laser Focus

I was listening to a PBD podcast interview with Michael Saylor. The discussion was around Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, but he mentioned something about focus that I found interesting. He mentioned that if you look at his Twitter profile pic, you’ll see he has laser eyes. (At first I thought he only meant that figuratively but the picture actual shows graphics of lasers coming from his eyes.)

He stated the significance of having laser eyes. He said that if you want to make progress in this world you have to focus and channel all of your energy behind a very, very particular objective. For him, as a money strategist, he has laser-like focus with backing Bitcoin.

He continued saying he has one hundred other opinions on various topics, but if he actually filled his social media feed with all of those other opinions, it would take away the laster-like focus of the thing that mattered most to him. The message here is that having scattered attention and opinions will dilute your focus. He emphasized that you just don’t have that much energy in this life.

He pointed to the fact that he’s not going to change his deeply held opinions on any of those various topics he can talk about. Instead, he chooses the one topic, goes into that with laser focuses and scans various sources related to that. Sounds like a good strategy and I think many would agree with this line of thinking.

But is he only talking about one end of the spectrum when it comes to focus and attention? What about the times when he zooms out? Does he zoom out? If so, how does he do this? Also, we don’t know what Michael’s default attention setting is. Is his default attention setting already more zoomed in than your average person?

---

Comfort within Range

It’s taken me many years to accept that my default attention setting is to be further zoomed out. It appears this is what works well for me. I’m comfortable at that setting. Someone else might be uncomfortable at that setting. For me, it gives me access to make inferences via cross disciplinary assessments. Understanding the big picture, so to say.

What is the scope of the big picture? This may vary depending on what you’re trying to assess. Do you allow yourself to be aware of incremental process it takes as you zoom out? Just as there’s an incremental process when zooming in. When does one stop oneself from zooming out or zooming in too much?

I notice that most people only zoom out so much. Whether it’s due to being pragmatic or hyper-focused on specific areas, most people find comfort and stability staying zoomed in for a select amount of key concerns. And when they switch from concern to concern, there’s little zooming out occurring in those interim spaces.

---

Noticing Reflexive Patterns Over Time

Finding stability at one’s default attention setting can be done with deliberate effort. It can also be reflexive; it can be reactive to external happenings. For me, over recent years events, like my Dad’s passing and the response to Covid, sent me to zoom out. These events activated my default attention setting. I try to take the stance of objective acknowledgement, rather than determine if this was the “right” or “wrong” way to respond.

This direction was helpful for me in some ways. Like allowing me to take in more information, and allowing me to have space for exploring my emotions. As I mentioned before, this can also have hindrances. Aligning with this default setting infringed on my ability to zoom in on some important key concerns. Which can lead to not applying enough focus to get some things done.

Since I don’t find as much discomfort as others in being zoomed out, I must continually strike a balance on how and when to zoom in. Part of my challenge becomes what to zoom in on, which often includes basic concerns that the average person likely doesn’t put much copious thought into doing. They just do it, as if part of an automatic to-do list when having a zoomed in default.

For me, there’s consistent effort and deliberations about sliding back and forth between zooming in and zooming out. Emphasis is placed on how I’m to move gradually toward zooming in. The process in finding a comfortable range where there’s enough laser-like focus to make progress in the chosen areas.

---

Making Room for the Broader Questions

I want to value both the ability to zoom out and the ability to zoom in. I’m pretty aware of how society rewards the ability to zoom in and the status given to what we’d regard as expertise. Do we only value individuals who have laser-like focus? Is there value for those who see the broader picture, and make inferences from cross pollination reordering? Those who refrain from only indulging in expertise and zooming in?

I understand that it may only be an expert that shows up as strong signal on a chosen topic. It almost seems like silly questions to ponder, yet I feel called to ask them. Is it an absolute fact that the person with the most expertise in an area has the strongest signal and most valuable perspective on that topic?

For me, the answers isn’t a resounding yes. I say maybe. Maybe that person with expertise, in tandem with a cross-pollinator, can actually provide a stronger more influential signal to those seeking understanding. Specific and broader understanding shared together, rather than in spite of the other.