I Used to Be a Human Being(nymag.com)
nymag.com
I Used to Be a Human Being
http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/09/andrew-sullivan-technology-almost-killed-me.html?mid=twitter-share-selectall
229 comments
I practice two small repeatable activities throughout the day:
1. Spend five minutes looking out a window, not doing anything, not talking, not looking at your phone, not thinking about work or errands, but just trying to be present. I focus on breathing evenly and relaxing my muscles wherever I feel tense, and I find that my brain appreciates the break from its usual stressors.
2. If I'm experiencing negative emotions, I take 5-10 minutes to think about why I am feeling those emotions, and what I'm going to do about it. No communication, no phone, no computer. Like the author of the article said, the goal is to let myself feel bad and move on rather than to avoid it. This is sometimes harder than other times. For example, after a breakup "5-10 minutes" might actually be a 30 minute walk through the park to sort out my feelings before going back to work.
I find that both of those exercises help me reduce my emotional dependence on technology so that while I do still feel the impulse to reach for my phone, I don't find it hard to resist because I have no emotional investment in the phone, apps, etc.
Also helps that all of my friends know that I am often slow to respond to texts. When there are no expectations of immediate responses, it's much easier not to feel pressured into eternal communicative vigilance.
1. Spend five minutes looking out a window, not doing anything, not talking, not looking at your phone, not thinking about work or errands, but just trying to be present. I focus on breathing evenly and relaxing my muscles wherever I feel tense, and I find that my brain appreciates the break from its usual stressors.
2. If I'm experiencing negative emotions, I take 5-10 minutes to think about why I am feeling those emotions, and what I'm going to do about it. No communication, no phone, no computer. Like the author of the article said, the goal is to let myself feel bad and move on rather than to avoid it. This is sometimes harder than other times. For example, after a breakup "5-10 minutes" might actually be a 30 minute walk through the park to sort out my feelings before going back to work.
I find that both of those exercises help me reduce my emotional dependence on technology so that while I do still feel the impulse to reach for my phone, I don't find it hard to resist because I have no emotional investment in the phone, apps, etc.
Also helps that all of my friends know that I am often slow to respond to texts. When there are no expectations of immediate responses, it's much easier not to feel pressured into eternal communicative vigilance.
I shut down my facebook account seven years ago. I'd noticed fairly early on that what I did there was basically marketing myself and some stalking. I also noticed I was poor in marketing and felt ashamed of myself. In consequence my interest in stalking / following others' marketing faded, and shutting down my account was the only logical action to take. I've never regretted it.
I have a smartphone, but don't use it except for texting and making calls. Since I have maybe 10-20 calls or texts a week, I usually don't take my phone to work. For me, email at work and a phone at home is enough for setting up appointments and leading a satisfactory social life. It's a great relief not carrying this nagging tracking device around with me all day.
I don't understand what's the great thing about smartphones. They are much less convenient to use than a desktop or laptop for most of the things I do (emailing, web surfing, software development). (what things are so important that need the mobility or the special devices not typically found in desktops such as touch, GPS, camera? Maybe if I played Pokemon Go or had selfie-taking or QR scanning addiction...).
I also totally hate when I have to share others' attention with their smartphones. Personally I've learned to embrace or even enjoy boredom, or watching out the window, or sitting in a bar drinking beer, thinking of nothing at all. I feel my head is working underneath, and I need the balance I get from doing nothing conscious. A quote from Pulp Fiction that I like: “That's when you know you've found somebody really special. When you can just shut the fuck up for a minute and comfortably share silence.”
However my big problem is dealing with computers at work, and sitting in front of them 8-10 hours a day, at work and at home. When I don't feel productive (most of the time -- I try to make good decisions in my software designs, and thoughts need time to settle), my time is spent randomly clicking links on news sites, HN and twitter (barely sending, mostly consuming).
I would really like to be more productive and consume less unimportant news. However knowing I'm not a genious I doubt that more isolation will improve my productivity.
I have a smartphone, but don't use it except for texting and making calls. Since I have maybe 10-20 calls or texts a week, I usually don't take my phone to work. For me, email at work and a phone at home is enough for setting up appointments and leading a satisfactory social life. It's a great relief not carrying this nagging tracking device around with me all day.
I don't understand what's the great thing about smartphones. They are much less convenient to use than a desktop or laptop for most of the things I do (emailing, web surfing, software development). (what things are so important that need the mobility or the special devices not typically found in desktops such as touch, GPS, camera? Maybe if I played Pokemon Go or had selfie-taking or QR scanning addiction...).
I also totally hate when I have to share others' attention with their smartphones. Personally I've learned to embrace or even enjoy boredom, or watching out the window, or sitting in a bar drinking beer, thinking of nothing at all. I feel my head is working underneath, and I need the balance I get from doing nothing conscious. A quote from Pulp Fiction that I like: “That's when you know you've found somebody really special. When you can just shut the fuck up for a minute and comfortably share silence.”
However my big problem is dealing with computers at work, and sitting in front of them 8-10 hours a day, at work and at home. When I don't feel productive (most of the time -- I try to make good decisions in my software designs, and thoughts need time to settle), my time is spent randomly clicking links on news sites, HN and twitter (barely sending, mostly consuming).
I would really like to be more productive and consume less unimportant news. However knowing I'm not a genious I doubt that more isolation will improve my productivity.
this is exactly the reason i got rid of fb also. i found myself stalking people online, trying to initiate probably-unwanted communications, something bizarre and creepy that i certainly do not do in real life. it just becomes easy and abstract on social media.
I've done the same. Facebook was closed last year, Reddit this year, Twitter never really used, but deleted the app. I've added comment blockers in all of my browsers to get rid of all of the negativity on websites, especially YouTube. I don't use any other social apps besides the occasional Instagram for business purposes.
My phone goes into Do Not Disturb about an hour before bed, and I place it face down on the nightstand.
I read daily before bed to wind down.
I've considered revisiting psychedelics, but it's been a long time since college!
I exercise daily, mostly high intensity aerobic, pushups, pullups, situps, indoor rowing, or hiking.
The phone stuff is really getting out of control, and I'm not sure what the solution is for less disciplined people. Dating sucks, going out socially sucks, going to concerts sucks, all because of the pervasiveness of the modern phone.
My phone goes into Do Not Disturb about an hour before bed, and I place it face down on the nightstand.
I read daily before bed to wind down.
I've considered revisiting psychedelics, but it's been a long time since college!
I exercise daily, mostly high intensity aerobic, pushups, pullups, situps, indoor rowing, or hiking.
The phone stuff is really getting out of control, and I'm not sure what the solution is for less disciplined people. Dating sucks, going out socially sucks, going to concerts sucks, all because of the pervasiveness of the modern phone.
How do people survive without Facebook? How do I keep up with what everyone's up to? Sure, there's a lot of mindless posting on there but for me the good outweighs the bad.
You just do.
When I deleted my Facebook, I lost friends. But if my friendship with someone relies on my having a Facebook then, well, fuck them. I text people or call. I also don't need to know what everyone is up to, either. They can tell me when we talk or hang out.
Coincidentally, the friends I lost where the type of people who are on their phones the entire time we hung out, so I don't consider it much of a loss.
I consider Facebook -- for me -- wasted time, though, and I didn't enjoy it. If you do like it and you're comfortable with the platform (because, tbh, I'm one of those tin-hat security nuts, too, and Facebook skeeves me out on principle), then keep it. Or, if you're curious, disable it for a week and see what happens. There's no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone.
When I deleted my Facebook, I lost friends. But if my friendship with someone relies on my having a Facebook then, well, fuck them. I text people or call. I also don't need to know what everyone is up to, either. They can tell me when we talk or hang out.
Coincidentally, the friends I lost where the type of people who are on their phones the entire time we hung out, so I don't consider it much of a loss.
I consider Facebook -- for me -- wasted time, though, and I didn't enjoy it. If you do like it and you're comfortable with the platform (because, tbh, I'm one of those tin-hat security nuts, too, and Facebook skeeves me out on principle), then keep it. Or, if you're curious, disable it for a week and see what happens. There's no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone.
Yeah, if they were just upfront about privacy and changes and the implications, I'd be a happier user. But now that Zuckerberg is doing something pretty damn cool (the medical research project), actually, it sort of makes up for past privacy sins. :-)
Oh and please, please Facebook implement Markdown. I'd never complain about Facebook again. Probably.
I have a rule that I only friend people on Facebook who I have met, in the real world, a minimum of twice.
It really cuts down on the crap.
It really cuts down on the crap.
I really can't tell if this was sarcasm. Same way they did all the years before the invention of Facebook.
Text to coordinate gatherings/hanging-out. Talk at gatherings/hang-outs.
[EDIT] remove (mild) snark
[EDIT] remove (mild) snark
To clarify, I know people survived before Facebook but I've been on it since I think about 2008. I really like it to be honest. It makes me sad to think of giving it up. A lot of people here are talking about a program of achieving balance. A common list item is "delete your facebook account." I can do without Twitter but Facebook I'd mourn the loss. Maybe that's part of growth though. Damnit!
An easier strategy for giving up Facebook is to simply unfollow most of your friends for about two or three weeks. After a while, you will probably notice a huge decrease in your cravings. Once you feel comfortable not seeing updates from everyone all the time, you can try deactivating your account for a week or two, and overtime you start feeling like you don't actually need to use Facebook anymore. You certainly don't have to delete your account or unfriend everyone to do this.
What is the reason for doing this though? I don't feel the need to do this. It feels like a solution looking for a problem. I realize Facebook takes up time but I usually have fun on Facebook. But I probably use it to make up for weaknesses and to avoid being alone with my thoughts at times.
Interesting. If you actually enjoy being on Facebook there is no reason to do this. It's only going to help if you're trying to give it up like you did with Twitter. My suggestion is a less radical alternative to the common "delete your Facebook account" mantra that you mentioned.
Yes, that's right. I'm realizing that the problem the OP brings up is really a spectrum. I actually do think I have a problem with too much time online but everyone's solution isn't drastic measures. For some it might be scheduling yoga, the gym, a beer with friends. You know you have a problem when you're grateful when a friend cancels plans as you get to spend more time online.
One thing is clear though, immersion without awareness is inherently unhealthy. The first step toward finding one's way is awareness or a reminder of the awareness you once had.
One thing is clear though, immersion without awareness is inherently unhealthy. The first step toward finding one's way is awareness or a reminder of the awareness you once had.
How many people on your Facebook friends list, or more specifically who show up on your feed have you not talked to in over a year? In over 5 years?
For me I would say 90% of people on my feed I have not spoken with in over a year or two. Some not for 5 years, some not for 10 years.
So the question is, is it really worth my time to read updates on their life when neither of us can be bothered nor have reason to actually talk to each other? Be it in person, or over the phone, or a personal e-mail.
I think for many people, they spend way too much time reading about other people's lives. People who they no longer see or interact with in any way outside of Facebook.
The other ill effect is that most people only tend to post positive things on Facebook. If you don't talk with them outside of Facebook you are getting a one sided view of their life. Everything may seem perfect. They love their job. They keep going on interesting vacations. Getting nice things. Going out to eat etc.. And it can make you depressed that your own life isn't as fun or interesting. The truth is they likely have just as many bad days and hardships as you, but don't publicize that information. A one sided view can cause jealousy and resentment. If Facebook is your only window in their life, you probably shouldn't be concerning yourself with what these people are doing.
For me I would say 90% of people on my feed I have not spoken with in over a year or two. Some not for 5 years, some not for 10 years.
So the question is, is it really worth my time to read updates on their life when neither of us can be bothered nor have reason to actually talk to each other? Be it in person, or over the phone, or a personal e-mail.
I think for many people, they spend way too much time reading about other people's lives. People who they no longer see or interact with in any way outside of Facebook.
The other ill effect is that most people only tend to post positive things on Facebook. If you don't talk with them outside of Facebook you are getting a one sided view of their life. Everything may seem perfect. They love their job. They keep going on interesting vacations. Getting nice things. Going out to eat etc.. And it can make you depressed that your own life isn't as fun or interesting. The truth is they likely have just as many bad days and hardships as you, but don't publicize that information. A one sided view can cause jealousy and resentment. If Facebook is your only window in their life, you probably shouldn't be concerning yourself with what these people are doing.
You make valid points. But I'll still make a feeble attempt to defend Facebook.
Speaking for myself, I've had some interesting and fun conversations on Facebook and even met new people that became friends in real life. I don't pay much attention to the check out how wonderful my life is posts and more attention to something that seems more genuine, is interesting, or the basis for some banter. I actually enjoy seeing pictures of people's families and they seem to enjoy when I post pictures of my son but I don't do that very often.
I've already accounted for the positive bias on Facebook so it does not affect my view of the world. I'd imagine most people who've survived on Facebook this long have done the same, not to mention I think the nature of posts has gotten beyond the burnishing one's image to more balanced life challenges sort of posts. I'm talking about my feed so others might not be seeing this trend but it's possible a lot of people have said fuck it I'm going to tell the truth on here.
I am friends on Facebook with close friends and family but yes a lot of my "friends" are a hodgepodge of people I met once, met online somehow, and some I don't even remember where they came from. So the net result is a sort of fantasy community. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with a fantasy community though as I experience it as real. I'm not sure if that's a contradiction but I'd better get off HN for the rest of the day as this is topic is consuming. :-)
Speaking for myself, I've had some interesting and fun conversations on Facebook and even met new people that became friends in real life. I don't pay much attention to the check out how wonderful my life is posts and more attention to something that seems more genuine, is interesting, or the basis for some banter. I actually enjoy seeing pictures of people's families and they seem to enjoy when I post pictures of my son but I don't do that very often.
I've already accounted for the positive bias on Facebook so it does not affect my view of the world. I'd imagine most people who've survived on Facebook this long have done the same, not to mention I think the nature of posts has gotten beyond the burnishing one's image to more balanced life challenges sort of posts. I'm talking about my feed so others might not be seeing this trend but it's possible a lot of people have said fuck it I'm going to tell the truth on here.
I am friends on Facebook with close friends and family but yes a lot of my "friends" are a hodgepodge of people I met once, met online somehow, and some I don't even remember where they came from. So the net result is a sort of fantasy community. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with a fantasy community though as I experience it as real. I'm not sure if that's a contradiction but I'd better get off HN for the rest of the day as this is topic is consuming. :-)
When I think I might have a problem with something, my experience has been I'm usually right about it. I also can't remember the last time I did something in response to feeling like I had a problem and regretting the decision.
You're absolutely right, though, and it's something a lot of people recovering from this or that addiction don't typically understand: solutions to addiction exist on a personal level, everyone has to find their own, and absolute abstinence isn't necessarily required. I've encountered lots of addicts who've tried to tell me that I can or can't do this or that thing or else I won't be sober.
The distinction between me doing something, like reading a physical book, in an addictive manner vs not is exactly what you said: awareness.
Of course, I'm responding to comments in this thread partially because I'm avoiding an anxiety-provoking creative project to use as a means of getting a job. Awareness is key, but apparently something else is needed. My guess is it's emotional support (or at least that's what it is in my case).
You're absolutely right, though, and it's something a lot of people recovering from this or that addiction don't typically understand: solutions to addiction exist on a personal level, everyone has to find their own, and absolute abstinence isn't necessarily required. I've encountered lots of addicts who've tried to tell me that I can or can't do this or that thing or else I won't be sober.
The distinction between me doing something, like reading a physical book, in an addictive manner vs not is exactly what you said: awareness.
Of course, I'm responding to comments in this thread partially because I'm avoiding an anxiety-provoking creative project to use as a means of getting a job. Awareness is key, but apparently something else is needed. My guess is it's emotional support (or at least that's what it is in my case).
Self awareness is key and a break to do something else like a discussion here for a while is reasonable, too.
We all might look back at this moment as the moment it all changed, we all held our heads up and made eye contact. We put away the devices. Cats slept with dogs. And dogs slept with donkeys. There was something different about the world that morning.
I'm glad I stumbled on this thread even though I sort of argued with myself today whether I should regret the time spent on this thread or not. I won the debate.
We all might look back at this moment as the moment it all changed, we all held our heads up and made eye contact. We put away the devices. Cats slept with dogs. And dogs slept with donkeys. There was something different about the world that morning.
I'm glad I stumbled on this thread even though I sort of argued with myself today whether I should regret the time spent on this thread or not. I won the debate.
If you enjoy using facebook, don't let others convince you otherwise. Maybe it works for you, but not for the other commenters. Personally i still check ocasionally my facebook, because I get notified of reharsal dates (I'm an amateur musician), what people that share the same sports as I do are doing, etc..
I think the key is balance.
I think the key is balance.
I promise, you can have even more real, meaningful relationships without Facebook updates.
How can you promise that as you don't know me and don't know how i use Facebook, right? Maybe I'm having a fun time and also projecting good energy out to others. Or maybe I'm delusional. But how do you know with such certainty that my life or any other individual's life would be better without Facebook? I understand if you observed them mindlessly posting updates about minutia and robotically liking this and that.
Because I know how humans have interacted socially for the last 200,000 years prior to the Internet. I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you, but for many it's detrimental. There is a reason these articles are cropping up more, and more. People are finally getting privy to the negative effects, of a life consumed online.
My experience isn't just one experience. It's a mix of positive and negative experiences. On the good side of the ledger I've been able to help people with some things I know something about and others have been able to help me. I've been supportive of friends online in a genuine way who needed it, and vice-a-versa when it wasn't realistic to be together in person. I've learned more than would ever have been possible without this tool.
The only thing (it's big though) I can think of on the bad side of the ledger are that it's easy to be consumed. I've resisted the worst manifestations that can actually kill other human beings: I NEVER, EVER look at my phone while driving. There's no justification for risking the lives of other human beings for that. I don't walk and text as it's annoying as fuck to someone walking the other direction.
What I need to do is restore balance. I would imagine that's what most people need. They don't need to do what Andrew Sullivan did. This could be the online addiction using me a sock puppet, though...
The only thing (it's big though) I can think of on the bad side of the ledger are that it's easy to be consumed. I've resisted the worst manifestations that can actually kill other human beings: I NEVER, EVER look at my phone while driving. There's no justification for risking the lives of other human beings for that. I don't walk and text as it's annoying as fuck to someone walking the other direction.
What I need to do is restore balance. I would imagine that's what most people need. They don't need to do what Andrew Sullivan did. This could be the online addiction using me a sock puppet, though...
One thing that has helped me is a "digital purge." I do mine on New Years Day, and I go through every app and ruthlessly un-follow/unfriend anyone who doesn't isn't contributing positively to me in some way (sometimes deleting entire apps).
At the end of the day I'm offering these people direct access to me multiple times daily. If I don't get a positive outcome from these interactions, why keep them around?
At the end of the day I'm offering these people direct access to me multiple times daily. If I don't get a positive outcome from these interactions, why keep them around?
That's something I do consistently but I've not really consciously thought it through. I just delete any apps or "unfriend" people that I determine to be a negative force in my life even in a small way. This one everyone should do even if they don't want to get into the digital 12 step program. I'm waiting to hit digital rock bottom before I quit.
I agree, a purge is a good step, although it's not a total solution. It feels like spring cleaning.
The privacy/notification tools on each site update over time and so do our interests in people and topics, so it makes sense to go in and jig things around every once in a while.
The privacy/notification tools on each site update over time and so do our interests in people and topics, so it makes sense to go in and jig things around every once in a while.
Sounds like a great idea. I am going to try this!
> I'd be interested to hear everyone's strategies to combat this
For me, it's all about latency: I try to introduce a barrier for being able to access typical time-wasting sites. If there was a way on OS X to reduce browsing certain websites to pre-broadband speeds, I'd be all on that.
> For personal things, I deleted Facebook and feel quite a bit better.
I did this too. So glad, don't miss it at all, and actually feel like I talk to my friends more now as a result.
I'm still on the fence about contributing to a community like HN (anyone looking at my profile will see a big gap of about a year). It's a nice community with useful discussions, but I'm not sure it positives outweigh the negatives for me (distraction).
I also try to get my news via newsletter now, e.g. I get the top HN articles emailed to me rather than checking the website manually. That way I get to stay up-to-date without that 'slot machine' effect of just refreshing the front page when I'm taking a break.
Overall, I strongly believe the Internet is addictive. I'm glad it exists. It's enriched my life in many ways. But the addictiveness is certainly real, and it's something I'm trying to actively address in myself.
For me, it's all about latency: I try to introduce a barrier for being able to access typical time-wasting sites. If there was a way on OS X to reduce browsing certain websites to pre-broadband speeds, I'd be all on that.
> For personal things, I deleted Facebook and feel quite a bit better.
I did this too. So glad, don't miss it at all, and actually feel like I talk to my friends more now as a result.
I'm still on the fence about contributing to a community like HN (anyone looking at my profile will see a big gap of about a year). It's a nice community with useful discussions, but I'm not sure it positives outweigh the negatives for me (distraction).
I also try to get my news via newsletter now, e.g. I get the top HN articles emailed to me rather than checking the website manually. That way I get to stay up-to-date without that 'slot machine' effect of just refreshing the front page when I'm taking a break.
Overall, I strongly believe the Internet is addictive. I'm glad it exists. It's enriched my life in many ways. But the addictiveness is certainly real, and it's something I'm trying to actively address in myself.
The newsletter thing is huge for me. I used to be really addicted to constantly checking the forums for new updates, but a weekly newsletter will sum all the important things I need to know. I try to dedicate a block of time to read it all in one go, rather than randomly clicking on links and reading them sporadically.
It's kind of like having a dedicated block of time to reply to all your emails vs. replying to them as they arrive in your inbox. I find that it reduces multitasking and increases focus.
It's kind of like having a dedicated block of time to reply to all your emails vs. replying to them as they arrive in your inbox. I find that it reduces multitasking and increases focus.
>I'd be interested to hear everyone's strategies to combat this, as I assume many of us that work in the industry encounter similar problems of distraction and inundation.
- Close any social media account not used for your job.
- Stop using GPS unless in dire emergencies, even in foreign cities. Buy a map, ask directions.
- Read physical newspapers and books.
- Text people only for coordinating where to physically meet up, no conversations.
- Take up a sport and interact with your friends face to face more.
- Use your phone literally as little as possible. Start with a cold turkey period, and then re-introduce slowly.
- Close any social media account not used for your job.
- Stop using GPS unless in dire emergencies, even in foreign cities. Buy a map, ask directions.
- Read physical newspapers and books.
- Text people only for coordinating where to physically meet up, no conversations.
- Take up a sport and interact with your friends face to face more.
- Use your phone literally as little as possible. Start with a cold turkey period, and then re-introduce slowly.
Always fun watch someone go cold turkey, since it becomes obvious to them their an infozombie really quick; reaching for a phone in their pocket that's not there every few minutes, going through withdrawals from not being able to read feeds/email, etc.
Somewhat unrelated, but I think it's funny how quickly these devices have turned us into their slaves.
Among people who can afford a smartphone, which is a wide swath from the working poor on up, it seems like _everyone_ is swiping at their phones all day. I like to imagine them in as many variations as possible: judges, programmers, hells angels, movie stars, school children, cops, window washers hanging from a rope...[1]
It then becomes fun to try to think of people you don't see using phones as much: construction workers (too busy with hands), surfers (in water and heavy surf), astronauts maybe ?...
[1] http://www.boredpanda.com/portraits-holding-devices-removed-...
Among people who can afford a smartphone, which is a wide swath from the working poor on up, it seems like _everyone_ is swiping at their phones all day. I like to imagine them in as many variations as possible: judges, programmers, hells angels, movie stars, school children, cops, window washers hanging from a rope...[1]
It then becomes fun to try to think of people you don't see using phones as much: construction workers (too busy with hands), surfers (in water and heavy surf), astronauts maybe ?...
[1] http://www.boredpanda.com/portraits-holding-devices-removed-...
I can't stand when someone does that so that's the one thing I NEVER do is reach for my phone when I'm in any way engaged with people IRL. It's just annoying as fuck to talk to someone who's a slave to communication coming in through their phone.
Then I'd have to face the holes in my life. That kind of sucks.
Louis CK had some great thoughts about that: https://youtu.be/5HbYScltf1c?t=54s
That Louis CK bit is very good. I'm one of those kill your television types (I'm committed fully to my online crutch) but I have to acknowledge that he expresses some good insights here. Thank you.
Since you already experiment with things like meditation and psychedelics, you should look more into finding out more about your psyche and feelings, and other self-development themes. Find out more about your inner being, about the structure of your (and in general, human) soul, what motivates you, what deep fears you have, in what ways are you still unconscious about yourself. There are tons of books, trainings, coaches that can help with this. Basically you should do more "self-development".
There is no innate problem with facebook, slack, or computers or screens or any other similar thing. The problem is that you are getting distracted. You are not fully present with what you are doing. Thinking that facebook is a problem is just grossly misleading.
When you have fixed your internal issues, you will not care how many websites or LCD screens are around you. You will do what you want, when you want it.
Telling this to an average person is next to pointless, because they are so unconsciouss that they will not understand it. They have lost touch with the notion that they actually have a choice of whether to be distracted or not, they have a choice in how to feel in every single moment. Since you already experiment with the stuff you wrote about, you just might though.
For someone who is in deep unconscioussness, who lacks knowledge about themselves, who is constantly distracted and who eats junk food that does not provide their brains with enough nutrition, etc. - trying to do simple dumb things like "I'll only look at facebook 10 minutes a day" - sure it might give some results. But once you've gained some basic groundedness - it just becomes ineffective to look at specific distractors, and much more effective to look at deeper issues within you that cause distraction in the first place.
There is no innate problem with facebook, slack, or computers or screens or any other similar thing. The problem is that you are getting distracted. You are not fully present with what you are doing. Thinking that facebook is a problem is just grossly misleading.
When you have fixed your internal issues, you will not care how many websites or LCD screens are around you. You will do what you want, when you want it.
Telling this to an average person is next to pointless, because they are so unconsciouss that they will not understand it. They have lost touch with the notion that they actually have a choice of whether to be distracted or not, they have a choice in how to feel in every single moment. Since you already experiment with the stuff you wrote about, you just might though.
For someone who is in deep unconscioussness, who lacks knowledge about themselves, who is constantly distracted and who eats junk food that does not provide their brains with enough nutrition, etc. - trying to do simple dumb things like "I'll only look at facebook 10 minutes a day" - sure it might give some results. But once you've gained some basic groundedness - it just becomes ineffective to look at specific distractors, and much more effective to look at deeper issues within you that cause distraction in the first place.
What do you do if the situation you are in do not allow time to sit down and perform deep introspective behavior? I find myself very easily falling into introspection to the point where my mind often cries out for it if I go without for a while. However, my current work and the balancing of multiple careers (as a programmer, as a writer) and social obligations mean I often don't have time and feel intense stress/distress at the inability to commune with myself for long periods of time. I also know I suffered greatly in college due to similar distress. How does one find the time to oneself when the world demands ones time?
The world can demand your time, but that doesn't mean you have to give it your time.
Your careers are social obligations are all things you do by choice. I'm not saying you can drop all your careers and live without money, but you have the power to make career related decisions that will give you more time for yourself. Can you temporarily pause one of your careers to give you more time with yourself? Are your social obligations all meaningful to you? If not, it's okay to say no when invited to events that aren't meaningful to you in some way. You end up with obligations because you choose to take them on. You have the power to choose yourself instead, at least some of the time.
At you end of the day, if you don't make time for introspection and relaxation, you might find yourself burned out and failing to meet your obligations no matter how hard you try to work.
Your careers are social obligations are all things you do by choice. I'm not saying you can drop all your careers and live without money, but you have the power to make career related decisions that will give you more time for yourself. Can you temporarily pause one of your careers to give you more time with yourself? Are your social obligations all meaningful to you? If not, it's okay to say no when invited to events that aren't meaningful to you in some way. You end up with obligations because you choose to take them on. You have the power to choose yourself instead, at least some of the time.
At you end of the day, if you don't make time for introspection and relaxation, you might find yourself burned out and failing to meet your obligations no matter how hard you try to work.
Well all the practical advice still work: eat well(!), excercise, have a proper sleep schedule, read good books, and even yes, hard-limiting time spend on social media - they all still work.
I just meant that all those things also do take time and, more importantly energy. Like the mental energy to keep yourself from looking at facebook, or the energy to keep an excercise schedule, etc.
And so after a certain point, you should switch more of that energy from "dumb" solutions to more intelligent, deep and wise solutions like introspection, meditation, specific work with your fears/feelings ("shadow work" as some call it), going through important memories, talking about this with your loved ones, etc. etc.
> the point where my mind often cries out for it if I go without for a while.
Especially when you notice that some part of you cries out for something like this - is usually a very good time to find time and energy to do this. Your system actually tells you what you need. And even if nothing superbad happens if you ignore such signals every once in a while, if you repeatedly ignore them - the signals will stop coming and you'll become even less conscious about this part of your life. Until this behavior will cause some actual crisis (life, social, health, mental health, you name it) that will actually force you to return to listening to your signals.
But it will be much more comfortable and better in the long run if you don't let it come to this and listen to them already, especially if you are even at this point already sensitive enough to recognize them. (Many people don't even recognize such internal signals, so it's actually pretty great that you have this.)
> How does one find the time to oneself when the world demands ones time? If I try to put it simply, it's by recognizing that you are actually a more important and close being to you, than the world around you, or your obligations, your practical goals, work, or sometimes even people who try get something from you. Recognizing that giving yourself the needed energy and attention is actually the best way to achieve the life you actually want, even if it would mean giving up on some external things.
I just meant that all those things also do take time and, more importantly energy. Like the mental energy to keep yourself from looking at facebook, or the energy to keep an excercise schedule, etc.
And so after a certain point, you should switch more of that energy from "dumb" solutions to more intelligent, deep and wise solutions like introspection, meditation, specific work with your fears/feelings ("shadow work" as some call it), going through important memories, talking about this with your loved ones, etc. etc.
> the point where my mind often cries out for it if I go without for a while.
Especially when you notice that some part of you cries out for something like this - is usually a very good time to find time and energy to do this. Your system actually tells you what you need. And even if nothing superbad happens if you ignore such signals every once in a while, if you repeatedly ignore them - the signals will stop coming and you'll become even less conscious about this part of your life. Until this behavior will cause some actual crisis (life, social, health, mental health, you name it) that will actually force you to return to listening to your signals.
But it will be much more comfortable and better in the long run if you don't let it come to this and listen to them already, especially if you are even at this point already sensitive enough to recognize them. (Many people don't even recognize such internal signals, so it's actually pretty great that you have this.)
> How does one find the time to oneself when the world demands ones time? If I try to put it simply, it's by recognizing that you are actually a more important and close being to you, than the world around you, or your obligations, your practical goals, work, or sometimes even people who try get something from you. Recognizing that giving yourself the needed energy and attention is actually the best way to achieve the life you actually want, even if it would mean giving up on some external things.
It doesn't have to be for long periods of time. 30-60 minutes a day of quiet sitting (sometimes called 'meditation') is sufficient to get your mind on an unconscious self-development track for the rest of your day.
If you have a hard time squeezing even this out, then you might try "pay yourself first". The same tactic that's helpful for saving dollars, is helpful for creating the space for introspection. Doesn't matter if your work deadline is looming, or writing needs doing, as long as there's no physical emergency, the 30 minutes of planned sitting is priority.
If you have a hard time squeezing even this out, then you might try "pay yourself first". The same tactic that's helpful for saving dollars, is helpful for creating the space for introspection. Doesn't matter if your work deadline is looming, or writing needs doing, as long as there's no physical emergency, the 30 minutes of planned sitting is priority.
Some food for thought. I heard a very interesting answer from a meditation teacher to the simple question "How much should I meditate?" which went something like this, paraphrasing:
"Generally, if it's not a major part of your life, 15 minutes every day would be most appropriate to gain positive benefits from the practice. However, if you're extremely busy while balancing many obligations and absolutely don't have the time to take 10-15 minutes every day, then you should take an hour. Possibly two. That is a sign that you need it far more than others."
Others may generally get similar other "recharging" introspective activities during their less frantic day. It's like asking how much water you should drink - drink a glass. But if you're so dehydrated that you can't lift the glass to your mouth, then you need far more than that. Feeling intense stress at inability to commune with yourself is just as severe symptom as dehydration; in the first world far more people die from that than from thirst.
Having many obligations doesn't necessarily mean that the best way to fulfill them is to spend all your time directly on them and no time on yourself to be able to do them effectively - especially in intellectual creative work. As in the classic parable of "sharpening the saw" (e.g. https://betterlifecoachingblog.com/2010/10/11/sharpening-the... lists it). If you have 8 hours to write an article or a software feature, then spending 3 hours to catch up on sleep debt, 1 on exercise and medidation and 4 hours on actual writing can easily mean more and better results than just working through that. I certainly have my share of late night work that was extremely unproductive due to tiredness and ultimately had negative value due to the unreasonable rate of introduced bugs - with hindsight, doing that work was a mistake, and simply sleeping to recharge for the next day would be more productive.
Also, if you say that you're suffering, that indicates that a change is needed. Much of our obligations are ultimately self-imposed and can be adjusted in long term. When the world demands something that you cannot sustainably give, saying 'no' is not a possibility, but a necessity.
"Generally, if it's not a major part of your life, 15 minutes every day would be most appropriate to gain positive benefits from the practice. However, if you're extremely busy while balancing many obligations and absolutely don't have the time to take 10-15 minutes every day, then you should take an hour. Possibly two. That is a sign that you need it far more than others."
Others may generally get similar other "recharging" introspective activities during their less frantic day. It's like asking how much water you should drink - drink a glass. But if you're so dehydrated that you can't lift the glass to your mouth, then you need far more than that. Feeling intense stress at inability to commune with yourself is just as severe symptom as dehydration; in the first world far more people die from that than from thirst.
Having many obligations doesn't necessarily mean that the best way to fulfill them is to spend all your time directly on them and no time on yourself to be able to do them effectively - especially in intellectual creative work. As in the classic parable of "sharpening the saw" (e.g. https://betterlifecoachingblog.com/2010/10/11/sharpening-the... lists it). If you have 8 hours to write an article or a software feature, then spending 3 hours to catch up on sleep debt, 1 on exercise and medidation and 4 hours on actual writing can easily mean more and better results than just working through that. I certainly have my share of late night work that was extremely unproductive due to tiredness and ultimately had negative value due to the unreasonable rate of introduced bugs - with hindsight, doing that work was a mistake, and simply sleeping to recharge for the next day would be more productive.
Also, if you say that you're suffering, that indicates that a change is needed. Much of our obligations are ultimately self-imposed and can be adjusted in long term. When the world demands something that you cannot sustainably give, saying 'no' is not a possibility, but a necessity.
Even people with careers and kids manage to fit it in. I'm not a person who's good at fitting things in but I've seen it done. :-)
You can take time when you need it. Why do you need two careers? Aren't programming and writing the same thing? Take a break from one for a week or two and use that time to talk to yourself.
Writing gives me a reason to live. Programming gives me an enjoyable means to live.
A bit of a hyperbole but there are things in my mind that can only be acceptably expressed and understood by others when I write them as fictional worlds. Things programming can't express.
A bit of a hyperbole but there are things in my mind that can only be acceptably expressed and understood by others when I write them as fictional worlds. Things programming can't express.
Thank you for this. This is something I could possibly pull off immediately. Going cold turkey's too high a mountain for me to summit at the moment. I'd imagine a lot of people could start here.
[deleted]
> Slack is one of the biggest interrupting factors while coding these days, more so than IRC ever was for me, so I try to have chunks of time during the day with it closed.
I used a client which enables me to mute most of the notifications, which is pretty nice.
> For personal things, I deleted Facebook and feel quite a bit better.
I like it, but I only check it once in the morning and once in the evening, from my desktop.
I don't have any social apps on my phone, except G+ — and it's hardly brimming with notifications!
I used a client which enables me to mute most of the notifications, which is pretty nice.
> For personal things, I deleted Facebook and feel quite a bit better.
I like it, but I only check it once in the morning and once in the evening, from my desktop.
I don't have any social apps on my phone, except G+ — and it's hardly brimming with notifications!
Surprisingly, I think you can fully disable G+ on Android.
But somehow, G+ has never been in the way for me. It almost feels like a grown up version of Facebook.
But somehow, G+ has never been in the way for me. It almost feels like a grown up version of Facebook.
> It almost feels like a grown up version of Facebook.
Yup, I really like it, although recently (as it's emptied out) the public communities have gotten significantly worse.
'Facebook for adults' sounds like a wonderful thing. My hope now is that maybe we can build it as a community, rather than as a product.
Yup, I really like it, although recently (as it's emptied out) the public communities have gotten significantly worse.
'Facebook for adults' sounds like a wonderful thing. My hope now is that maybe we can build it as a community, rather than as a product.
How do you mean G+ has emptied out? Honestly curious as I've been keeping tabs on the whole dynamic of the site -- from initial high hopes to present near-complete disillusionment.
What I mean is that the public communities seem to have lost whatever participants they had originally had. Now it's a lot like reading the comments section on the local paper's website, only with names which are more difficult to pronounce. Lots of trolling, lots of spamming, lots of Pe0PLe Wh0 ++don't__ knoW h0w to Wr1te!!!1!11!eleven!!
I still have some affection for G+, but … it's kinda like the affection one has for an awkward family photo from one's youth.
I still have some affection for G+, but … it's kinda like the affection one has for an awkward family photo from one's youth.
Thanks.
I'm inclined to agree.
I'm inclined to agree.
You're barking up our tree! Having experimented with many of those strategies too, we believe the best solution is to change the menu altogether.
We're working on a minimalist phone to help you disconnect and be more focused, through an intentionally limited feature set and smarter notification management. All the utilitarian tools you need to navigate 2016, none of the slot machines.
PM if you are interested in our beta test. We're also looking for a tech lead ;)
We're working on a minimalist phone to help you disconnect and be more focused, through an intentionally limited feature set and smarter notification management. All the utilitarian tools you need to navigate 2016, none of the slot machines.
PM if you are interested in our beta test. We're also looking for a tech lead ;)
I don't have the self-control and willingness to impose organization to safely have a smartphone without it turning into a skinner box. So, I just don't own a smartphone. I sometimes carry a flip-phone, though usually I leave it at home.
It's really easy to get caught up in optimizing the process you have, rather than choosing which processes best fill your needs.
It's really easy to get caught up in optimizing the process you have, rather than choosing which processes best fill your needs.
1) Don't check email when waking up. Wait until noon. And check email only twice a day. Say in your email signature that you usually check your email twice daily, so people know what to expect.
2) Meditate.
3) Configure your phone to be in airplane mode or do not disturb as much as you can get away with it. Definitely when you sleep, but also for other times in the day.
4) Don't read news on weekdays. Save articles people send to you on Pocket, and subscribe to no more than 5 newsletters that you read only on the weekends. At the end of the weekend delete what you haven't read at https://getpocket.com/privacy_clear
When to multitask:
When commuting, read or listen to an audiobook.
2) Meditate.
3) Configure your phone to be in airplane mode or do not disturb as much as you can get away with it. Definitely when you sleep, but also for other times in the day.
4) Don't read news on weekdays. Save articles people send to you on Pocket, and subscribe to no more than 5 newsletters that you read only on the weekends. At the end of the weekend delete what you haven't read at https://getpocket.com/privacy_clear
When to multitask:
When commuting, read or listen to an audiobook.
I'd be interested to hear everyone's strategies to combat this
I started a business that requires me to binge on everything I'm interested in online.
I started a business that requires me to binge on everything I'm interested in online.
You seem super human to me. I can't imagine doing any of the above, well, except the last one as Ayahuasca is useful. Maybe I'll go back there with the intention of more balance. She never goes there. She didn't seem to care either way on screen time.
I'm in the process of swapping out my phone for my old iPod Touch. It creates a lot of moments where getting access to the internet requires effort (e.g. asking people for their WiFi password, finding/knowing about public places with WiFi, looking up routes in Google Maps and screenshotting it before leaving WiFi, etc).
Doesn't work for everyone, but works for me.
And also I save $50 a month.
Doesn't work for everyone, but works for me.
And also I save $50 a month.
Fiction books are another era's addiction, if you believe the theses being presented here.
Try living without your iPhone.
I put it away most of the day, and don't have any email reminders.
Get away with the least you can.
After a while, notifications etc. become bothersome and you'll actively find ways to get away from the noise.
I put it away most of the day, and don't have any email reminders.
Get away with the least you can.
After a while, notifications etc. become bothersome and you'll actively find ways to get away from the noise.
I read somewhere recently that smart phones have essentially become random gratification engines in the same way as slot machines. Sometimes on a slot machine you win the jackpot, because of this every pull gives you an endorphin kick, each time we pick up our phones or get a notification it might be an important/interesting thing, therefore we get a little endorphin kick that keeps us checking.
Because of this I turn off all notifications apart from phone calls and text messages. I don't have app badge counters or notifications for email either, if it is that important the person would ring me.
Because of this I turn off all notifications apart from phone calls and text messages. I don't have app badge counters or notifications for email either, if it is that important the person would ring me.
Regarding "smartphones as slot machines", the piece you are remembering is this one by Tristan Harris, probably:
https://medium.com/swlh/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds...
"How Technology Hijacks Minds"
https://medium.com/swlh/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds...
"How Technology Hijacks Minds"
Yep, that's the one, thanks
Look up "Skinner box." Basically codified the psychology behind a slot machine. A mouse hits a single lever that either releases or doesn't release food. When the lever is set to Always release food, the mouse soon gets bored and only eats when he's hungry. When the lever is set to Randomly release food, the mouse gets addicted, compulsively hitting the lever all day without concern for how fat he is getting.
To expand on this a bit, BF Skinner founded the behaviorist area of psychology (which is important in later fields like neuroscience for training animals on various experiments), he specifically investigated operant behavior (behavior where the organism does something to its environment) and various schedules of reinforcement. The schedule you're thinking of is one of the strongest schedules for inducing behavior, and that's the variable ratio schedule, where reinforcement occurs after a variable number of responses from the organism. Skinner was actually one of the first to try and bring more rigor to psychology.
Being aware we're in a skinner box enables us at least the option of transcending it. It's on my "to do" list.
Sources for that? "Skinner box" is a generic term for a much broader class of experiments.
Look up "schedules of reinforcement," or see the first chart here: https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psy...
This is the daily reminder that technology is not politically or socially "neutral".
What was the origin of that quote? I mentioned it offhand in conversation the other day but couldn't remember where I'd heard it.
I'm familar with it from Jerry Mander, Neil Postman, and Joyce and Michael Heusemann, who address it specifically and at length in their book Techno-Fix. Also in Marshall McLuhan (of whom Postman was a student).
I think you'll find a philosophical basis in Jaques Ellul among others (Foucalt is also mentioned).
From Postman:
[E]very technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others. Only those who know nothing of the history of technology believe that a technology is entirely neutral.
French philosopher Jacques Ellul, who...
...cautions that technology brings with it a great number of unforeseen effects [4]. This is because “technology leads a double life, one which conforms to the intentions of designers and interests of power and another which contradicts them—proceeding behind the backs of their architects to yield unintended consequences and unintended possibilities” [5]. It is difficult then for us to control what we cannot always see.
http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=1360
There's a related concept of Technological Determinism, originating with Thorstein Veblen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism
More reading:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/techno-fix-why-technology-wont...
http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina...
http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu...
http://www.worldcat.org/title/this-is-marshall-mcluhan-the-m...
I think you'll find a philosophical basis in Jaques Ellul among others (Foucalt is also mentioned).
From Postman:
[E]very technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others. Only those who know nothing of the history of technology believe that a technology is entirely neutral.
French philosopher Jacques Ellul, who...
...cautions that technology brings with it a great number of unforeseen effects [4]. This is because “technology leads a double life, one which conforms to the intentions of designers and interests of power and another which contradicts them—proceeding behind the backs of their architects to yield unintended consequences and unintended possibilities” [5]. It is difficult then for us to control what we cannot always see.
http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=1360
There's a related concept of Technological Determinism, originating with Thorstein Veblen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism
More reading:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/techno-fix-why-technology-wont...
http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina...
http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu...
http://www.worldcat.org/title/this-is-marshall-mcluhan-the-m...
Are you perhaps thinking of "Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg
I improvised it from Michel Foucault.
Technology is neutral, though. It's the people using the technology that are not neutral or am I missing something?
It's not, because technology is a product of the people and processes that created it. And since people and processes aren't neutral (who is, after all), the technology they create won't be, either.
> because technology is a product of the people and processes that created it. And since people and processes aren't neutral (who is, after all), the technology they create won't be, either.
Karl Schroeder expounds upon this idea (albeit via science fiction) in "Lady of Mazes", and a little near the end of the Virga series. I highly recommend them.
Karl Schroeder expounds upon this idea (albeit via science fiction) in "Lady of Mazes", and a little near the end of the Virga series. I highly recommend them.
I may come off as disagreeing but I question to understand. Do you have some tangible examples?
Accessibility is often offered as an example here.
When we create a technology that requires certain abilities (the ability to use a qwerty keyboard, for instance) we have inadvertently made a technology that can't be utilized by people that lack that ability level. Likewise, for stairs, visual public signage, color use, etc.
Other examples include accessibility not based on physical difference, but social or economic difference. If you can't afford a smart phone or other computer, it can become prohibitively difficult to apply for jobs (or seek services, etc.) that only accept online applications. Or - famously - the standard IQ test used to ask what color the keys on a piano were long ago. This test was used for employment, military services, etc.; however, that question was inadvertently biased towards middle/upper class people who had experience with musical instruments.
These designs are not created with exclusion in mine, but there are often accessibility issues in one form or another because of our blind spots.
Other times, we create designs that actively mimic our biases - for instance, a bias towards rationalism led the military to design airplane cockpits back in the 1930's+ around an "ideal standard" of human physiology without any adjustability. Because no one is actually average, once you get beyond a one or two physiological measurements (maybe), these cockpits didn't really fit anyone and many US pilots died unnecessarily because they couldn't properly operate the airplane. Once the military overcame that bias they were able to make cockpits that fit many more sizes/shapes of people and our pilot deaths dropped significantly.
When we create a technology that requires certain abilities (the ability to use a qwerty keyboard, for instance) we have inadvertently made a technology that can't be utilized by people that lack that ability level. Likewise, for stairs, visual public signage, color use, etc.
Other examples include accessibility not based on physical difference, but social or economic difference. If you can't afford a smart phone or other computer, it can become prohibitively difficult to apply for jobs (or seek services, etc.) that only accept online applications. Or - famously - the standard IQ test used to ask what color the keys on a piano were long ago. This test was used for employment, military services, etc.; however, that question was inadvertently biased towards middle/upper class people who had experience with musical instruments.
These designs are not created with exclusion in mine, but there are often accessibility issues in one form or another because of our blind spots.
Other times, we create designs that actively mimic our biases - for instance, a bias towards rationalism led the military to design airplane cockpits back in the 1930's+ around an "ideal standard" of human physiology without any adjustability. Because no one is actually average, once you get beyond a one or two physiological measurements (maybe), these cockpits didn't really fit anyone and many US pilots died unnecessarily because they couldn't properly operate the airplane. Once the military overcame that bias they were able to make cockpits that fit many more sizes/shapes of people and our pilot deaths dropped significantly.
A simple example is, think of a car. Cars are uncomfortable for people who are very tall, or very short. Now, you may say, "it's pretty much impossible to design a car to fit everyone!" which is absolutely true—and that's my point. Car makers can't design a car that fits everyone comfortably, so the car maker has to decide—based on the tradeoffs of cost, complexity, and audience size—who to size the car for. Is it uncomfortable for people over 6'3"? Is it uncomfortable for people over 6'10"? That's where the creator's views creep in, and there's no way to avoid it. It's not the end of the world; decisions do need to be made, and we make do. We just need to recognize that technology reflects the biases of its creator, and take that into account when seeking to understand technology and its impact.
From Michael and Joyce Heusemann, Techno-Fix (mentioned in a prior comment):
"In addition to cost-effectiveness, efficiency and marketability, a wide range of other values are commonly embedded in many modern technologies. These are, for example, power, control, exploitation and violence, with respect to both people and nature (Chapter 3), profit-maximization, speed, mass-production, uniformity, repetitiveness, quantification, precision, standardization, dependency, materialism, consumerism and individualism.854 In general, the more specifically a technology has been designed for a particular use, the more completely it will embody the values of the designers, and the less it will be of use for purposes reflecting different values. Thus, the more specific the design, the less human choice and control there will be regarding the final use of the respective technology."
The passage continues to quote Robert Proctor in Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge.
To give another example, virtually the entire infrastrure of the modern Web and information technology system is oriented around the interests of advertisers, and against those of content creators. I'm typing this on a tablet which will faithfully suppor all requests by advertisers to cram their content, and surveillance requests, down my throat, but which routinely discards my own content (I've watched this comment disappear multiple times as I toggle to the book viewer application from which I'm pulling quotes). The tools for organising content of specific interest to me is exceptionally poor.
Even putatively user-oriented systems such as GNU/Linux have been increasingly falling victim to this, a distressing trend that's been accellerating over my 20+ year use of it.
"In addition to cost-effectiveness, efficiency and marketability, a wide range of other values are commonly embedded in many modern technologies. These are, for example, power, control, exploitation and violence, with respect to both people and nature (Chapter 3), profit-maximization, speed, mass-production, uniformity, repetitiveness, quantification, precision, standardization, dependency, materialism, consumerism and individualism.854 In general, the more specifically a technology has been designed for a particular use, the more completely it will embody the values of the designers, and the less it will be of use for purposes reflecting different values. Thus, the more specific the design, the less human choice and control there will be regarding the final use of the respective technology."
The passage continues to quote Robert Proctor in Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge.
To give another example, virtually the entire infrastrure of the modern Web and information technology system is oriented around the interests of advertisers, and against those of content creators. I'm typing this on a tablet which will faithfully suppor all requests by advertisers to cram their content, and surveillance requests, down my throat, but which routinely discards my own content (I've watched this comment disappear multiple times as I toggle to the book viewer application from which I'm pulling quotes). The tools for organising content of specific interest to me is exceptionally poor.
Even putatively user-oriented systems such as GNU/Linux have been increasingly falling victim to this, a distressing trend that's been accellerating over my 20+ year use of it.
I get your point as some of the most articulate posts on here were by you and the others who responded on this topic. Wow, some passion behind this. Do you think it's ever political in the left, right, etc., since of the word?
What's wrong with Linux? Are you referring to RHEL and things like that?
What's wrong with Linux? Are you referring to RHEL and things like that?
> Technology is neutral, though.
The abstract concept of "Technology" is neutral, along with the majority of embodiments of such concept.
It is the particular technologies the OP is talking about, - smartphones, social media, etc - which are not neutral. Those have been specifically engineered by their creators to further the creator's goals indetriment of the consumers they supposedly server.
It is one thing to say "guns don't kill people, people do". But if a manufacturer started making guns that fired themselves at random so the gun owner had to purchase extra ammo, the NRA would be the first ones to go all ballistic over it. But somehow our customers think that's normal business practice.
The abstract concept of "Technology" is neutral, along with the majority of embodiments of such concept.
It is the particular technologies the OP is talking about, - smartphones, social media, etc - which are not neutral. Those have been specifically engineered by their creators to further the creator's goals indetriment of the consumers they supposedly server.
It is one thing to say "guns don't kill people, people do". But if a manufacturer started making guns that fired themselves at random so the gun owner had to purchase extra ammo, the NRA would be the first ones to go all ballistic over it. But somehow our customers think that's normal business practice.
[deleted]
I get this same unnerving feeling from most video games, and once I notice it, it's hard to want to continue since I get the feeling of being "duped". Most modern games follow these same principles and it's really infuriating. The games I really enjoy are the ones where the "rewards" are subtle enough that I don't notice that they're consciously trying to addict me. Or games where the "rewards" are self-generated (open-ended games like Minecraft come to mind).
I've been saying this for years. You open Twitter and you may or may not get something cool. Same thing for Facebook or mail or whatever. It's inherently addictive.
For some reason, I misread what you said as:
"smart people have essentially become random gratification engines in the same way as slot machines."
Somehow, that seems strangely appropriate.
If you're making interesting posts on social networks like Facebook (or HN, for that matter), you're providing that instant gratification you're talking about.
Similar things could be said about those building social networks and the technology that enables them, that are then used for instant gratification.
"smart people have essentially become random gratification engines in the same way as slot machines."
Somehow, that seems strangely appropriate.
If you're making interesting posts on social networks like Facebook (or HN, for that matter), you're providing that instant gratification you're talking about.
Similar things could be said about those building social networks and the technology that enables them, that are then used for instant gratification.
Interesting misreading. I guess in a way, HN is a random gratification engine for me like that - I visit it nowadays mostly for the often insightful comment threads.
Amusing misread and yes I suppose it still works.
That's true in the same sense that soap has become a tool of OCD people. I don't even install games and never have so I don't know what I'm missing.
I also turn off notifications, too. That's a must for all but a critical communication channel.
I also turn off notifications, too. That's a must for all but a critical communication channel.
I have been going around and around on notifications. If sound is enabled, my phone interrupts me for trivial things & spam. If only notification is enabled, I constantly pick up my phone to see if I have email. If nothing is enabled, I unlock my phone & open my email app to see if I have email- less frequent, but more likely to get sucked in.
None of these things are good.
None of these things are good.
I feel for you but please, please don't let email be the channel that has a hold on you. Pick another one to be a slave to. Is it work or personal? If it's work is it urgent?
I ask these questions because you could set some rules on email. I check my personal email once per day. My masters are facebook and text.
I ask these questions because you could set some rules on email. I check my personal email once per day. My masters are facebook and text.
Personal. Work email is there for the calendar sync (very useful), but I feel little compulsion to check it.
For a while I completely removed email from my phone, but that was a pain when I legitimately needed, for example, an RMA number while standing in the post office.
You're right, rules plus zero notifications would probably work well. Or, perhaps enable notifications and set it to check only once a day.
For a while I completely removed email from my phone, but that was a pain when I legitimately needed, for example, an RMA number while standing in the post office.
You're right, rules plus zero notifications would probably work well. Or, perhaps enable notifications and set it to check only once a day.
I deal with that by making myself check e-mail only on several pre-planned occasions during the day (or in cases of total downtime, e.g. when I'm commuting and too tired to read a book) - and then ignoring it, along with social media, for the blocks of time I want to spend doing things. I didn't disable notifications on my phone (though I switch the phone to silent and watch to quiet time mode when I'm focusing hard), so I'm often aware if there's a message waiting; I just ignore it until the scheduled time.
One thing I found helpful here to is reducing the amount of incoming e-mail. I used to receive several dozen messages a day. Over the course of a week I unsubscribed from every newsletter and e-mail notification service that I didn't used or strongly cared about; this reduced the daily private mail influx to about 10 messages a day. It's easier not to check for new e-mail if there's nothing to check for :).
It took a few days to get used to this routine, but I don't really feel a compulsion to check e-mail anymore. Since I also limited my social media use at the same time (disabling as much notifications as possible), I pretty much don't use Facebook anymore. It came naturally.
One thing I found helpful here to is reducing the amount of incoming e-mail. I used to receive several dozen messages a day. Over the course of a week I unsubscribed from every newsletter and e-mail notification service that I didn't used or strongly cared about; this reduced the daily private mail influx to about 10 messages a day. It's easier not to check for new e-mail if there's nothing to check for :).
It took a few days to get used to this routine, but I don't really feel a compulsion to check e-mail anymore. Since I also limited my social media use at the same time (disabling as much notifications as possible), I pretty much don't use Facebook anymore. It came naturally.
You're actually lucky that email's your poison. It's the most aync mode out there, especially if people adjust to not receiving an immediate response.
I have friends that have trained me not to expect an immediate response to texts so I know it's possible to use text more async for everything that's not urgent. If not responding immediately is your default, it's not a break from your normal behavior to delay. I'd like to attempt this one for text as that would remove the temptation to break focus on another activity to check my phone. If I text some people right now with a mundane little thing I know who I will hear back from in 2 minutes, 24 hours, and never. It wasn't worth responding to. That's a good friend, ignores you when you're lame.
I have friends that have trained me not to expect an immediate response to texts so I know it's possible to use text more async for everything that's not urgent. If not responding immediately is your default, it's not a break from your normal behavior to delay. I'd like to attempt this one for text as that would remove the temptation to break focus on another activity to check my phone. If I text some people right now with a mundane little thing I know who I will hear back from in 2 minutes, 24 hours, and never. It wasn't worth responding to. That's a good friend, ignores you when you're lame.
Yeah, I've taught pretty much everyone I know that I answer messages at random, but I'm instantly reachable in an emergency. A big part of that was also teaching people that I rarely pick up the phone - if it's important, they can text me, and I'll happily call back.
The way I see it, people will communicate with you the way you allow; if you let everyone expect that you're always available, you'll be spammed with trivialities all the time. Many people don't have the manners (for lack of better word) and self-awareness to understand their issue is trivial and not worth breaking someone's focus by forcing synchronous communication on them.
The way I see it, people will communicate with you the way you allow; if you let everyone expect that you're always available, you'll be spammed with trivialities all the time. Many people don't have the manners (for lack of better word) and self-awareness to understand their issue is trivial and not worth breaking someone's focus by forcing synchronous communication on them.
LOL. I had a problem like that with my ex, we'd have massive fights conducted 100% through text. I'd complaint to friends about how out of hand it was getting. More than one person suggested why don't you just not respond? It hadn't even occurred to me as an option. It seems like common sense but there's no obligation to respond immediately or at all to a text or any other channel when it's going down a path that's not ideal or if you'd prefer another channel or IRL to continue the discussion. Text has to be THE WORST place to attempt a serious conversation of any sort, email is about as bad, phone's a big improvement, face-to-face is where it's at ideally.
My son, like all 4 year olds I think, are fully human, in tune with the moment, developing ego but still open.
I picked my son up from school and we were playing, then I reached for my phone, noticing the shift in his facial expression from happy to subtle concern and disappointment. He knows that device creates distance in real life.
Then we discussed some topic that I decided could be better handled by Youtube. As soon as the video started he got sucked in and I let him watch a couple vides then had to pull him off the thing, which he promptly forgot about as that was the past.
I'm sure the reason I noticed is this thread got me thinking. But beyond that it occurred to me that there should be some sort of code. Other people might have a different code but I hope to god we all could at least share item number 1. I think that prison is too soft a hell for someone who kills another human because they were texting or any other distraction. Let me know if someone already has a better list on Huffpo or somewhere.
1. Harm none. The most obvious implication of this is NEVER, EVER, touch your phone while driving. Pull the fuck over. Don't take a chance on killing another human being for digital crack. The rest is subordinate to this first principle. I don't use any devices while driving but I'm writing it down to reinforce this, helping me to resist temptation.
2. Choose who you're with. Don't use the device for more than the most basic communication (i.e., coordination of plans) when in the presence of other human beings, especially my son. Sure, snap a couple pictures but put it away and leave it. My son is 4 and so it's more obvious that if I'm on any device, I'm valuing that activity over him. I feel I learn something about human beings here that should be obvious because a child is the base we come from.
3. Have fun and keep learning. Online's awesome.
Ok, it's a pretty thin set of principles that took me a few minutes to compose, but it'll serve my purposes until I'm ready to add another item but it's very likely that other items don't need to be codified. I wonder if making a list like this is a thing or am I a nut? Maybe both...
I picked my son up from school and we were playing, then I reached for my phone, noticing the shift in his facial expression from happy to subtle concern and disappointment. He knows that device creates distance in real life.
Then we discussed some topic that I decided could be better handled by Youtube. As soon as the video started he got sucked in and I let him watch a couple vides then had to pull him off the thing, which he promptly forgot about as that was the past.
I'm sure the reason I noticed is this thread got me thinking. But beyond that it occurred to me that there should be some sort of code. Other people might have a different code but I hope to god we all could at least share item number 1. I think that prison is too soft a hell for someone who kills another human because they were texting or any other distraction. Let me know if someone already has a better list on Huffpo or somewhere.
1. Harm none. The most obvious implication of this is NEVER, EVER, touch your phone while driving. Pull the fuck over. Don't take a chance on killing another human being for digital crack. The rest is subordinate to this first principle. I don't use any devices while driving but I'm writing it down to reinforce this, helping me to resist temptation.
2. Choose who you're with. Don't use the device for more than the most basic communication (i.e., coordination of plans) when in the presence of other human beings, especially my son. Sure, snap a couple pictures but put it away and leave it. My son is 4 and so it's more obvious that if I'm on any device, I'm valuing that activity over him. I feel I learn something about human beings here that should be obvious because a child is the base we come from.
3. Have fun and keep learning. Online's awesome.
Ok, it's a pretty thin set of principles that took me a few minutes to compose, but it'll serve my purposes until I'm ready to add another item but it's very likely that other items don't need to be codified. I wonder if making a list like this is a thing or am I a nut? Maybe both...
I like your set of principles.
Many people seem to polarize on their issues; either they're falling for the "digital crack", or they treat this as unnatural and will get angry if you so much as look at your phone when in their presence.
Principle 1 is fortunately widely recognized. Laws and social pressure seem to be doing a good job enforcing this principle even on people who for some reason don't recognize it on their own. Anecdote - the other day we had a cow-orker admit to using phone without a headset/loudspeaker while driving, and man, I've never seen so much social pressure I saw there. Instant and strong (but polite) disapproval of our entire room.
Principle 2 - the way I see it, it's not really about focus. I can talk with people while playing 2048 on my phone all day long. It's about signalling and manners. Most of the time, if you pull up your smartphone to do something unrelated while talking with people, you'll be signalling you don't think they (or what they're saying) are important. Even if you can focus on them but you have some kind of ADHD like I seem to have. It's not about your focus, it's about their perception.
That's why I don't have a problem seeing (usually young) people talking while each doing something on their own phone. They all know that smartphone use doesn't preclude paying attention. But it works only with people who share this belief, so when in doubt - keep the phone in your pocket.
Principle 3 - couldn't agree more :).
Many people seem to polarize on their issues; either they're falling for the "digital crack", or they treat this as unnatural and will get angry if you so much as look at your phone when in their presence.
Principle 1 is fortunately widely recognized. Laws and social pressure seem to be doing a good job enforcing this principle even on people who for some reason don't recognize it on their own. Anecdote - the other day we had a cow-orker admit to using phone without a headset/loudspeaker while driving, and man, I've never seen so much social pressure I saw there. Instant and strong (but polite) disapproval of our entire room.
Principle 2 - the way I see it, it's not really about focus. I can talk with people while playing 2048 on my phone all day long. It's about signalling and manners. Most of the time, if you pull up your smartphone to do something unrelated while talking with people, you'll be signalling you don't think they (or what they're saying) are important. Even if you can focus on them but you have some kind of ADHD like I seem to have. It's not about your focus, it's about their perception.
That's why I don't have a problem seeing (usually young) people talking while each doing something on their own phone. They all know that smartphone use doesn't preclude paying attention. But it works only with people who share this belief, so when in doubt - keep the phone in your pocket.
Principle 3 - couldn't agree more :).
And by the way, on item 2, I don't care what other people do. It's not that important. It's none of my business. That rule is meant for me because I don't do divided attention well and, for example, my 4 year old deserves full attention on the moment when we're together. It's not all the time as his mom and I aren't together so undivided attention becomes even more important.
The only one I judge people on is item 1 because it's demonstrably dangerous. In the same way that I don't judge people on how much they drink as long as they don't use their car as a weapon, the same goes for people's device habits. Stay jacked in 24/7 but don't run over the mom with the baby carriage and don't plow into that car because something unexpected happened that you'd have been able to successfully react to if you'd not shifted focus. I think it's fair to say that micro seconds count and can make the difference between someone dies a violent death of convulsions and foaming mouth and someone's pissed off and goes home in a bit of a huff.
The only one I judge people on is item 1 because it's demonstrably dangerous. In the same way that I don't judge people on how much they drink as long as they don't use their car as a weapon, the same goes for people's device habits. Stay jacked in 24/7 but don't run over the mom with the baby carriage and don't plow into that car because something unexpected happened that you'd have been able to successfully react to if you'd not shifted focus. I think it's fair to say that micro seconds count and can make the difference between someone dies a violent death of convulsions and foaming mouth and someone's pissed off and goes home in a bit of a huff.
I agree with you on the social signaling. If you're on your phone with someone else and they're cool with you chatting while you do something else then that's cool, of course. The spirit of item 2 was more when it's not cool.
One principle 1 I 100% agree with the disapproval. Studies show that the distraction of talking on a cell while driving is present whether the driver uses hands free or not. Given the data, it's appropriate to express disapproval of this activity just as it's appropriate to express disapproval at someone talking about how they drove drunk. Though to be fair to drunks, I think distracted drivers kill more people now but I could be wrong.
One principle 1 I 100% agree with the disapproval. Studies show that the distraction of talking on a cell while driving is present whether the driver uses hands free or not. Given the data, it's appropriate to express disapproval of this activity just as it's appropriate to express disapproval at someone talking about how they drove drunk. Though to be fair to drunks, I think distracted drivers kill more people now but I could be wrong.
Why not just turn off all notifications but e-mail (or at least make them silent), and then only set audible notifications for emails that match a filter? There will undoubtedly be false positives and negatives in any such filter, but it seems like it would enable you to open the email app to check email far less often.
I like the filter idea then that woman you've been waiting to hear back from and whomever else, then that reduces the attention shifting thing except when it's worth it. Man, he's lucky his poison is email. It's the perfect medium to ignore for hours, well, unless it's something good.
Oops, I just made the assumption that the person was male posting that. Yikes. Not good. It really isn't. I didn't even look at the username to see if there was a clue there. OK, yeah lot's of other possible mistakes there, too. LOL. Fuck. Not exactly welcoming to women or others who don't fit what I said to post shit like this now is it, Marmot.
https://medium.com/@tristanharris/how-technology-hijacks-peo...
Related - you may have read it here.
Related - you may have read it here.
Having worked at multiple organisations who specifically targeted "stickiness" and user-time-on-site as performance (and employee reward) metrics, there's substantial reason to believe that a large part of the tech industry are deliberately exploiting this phenomenon.
Huh. Weird. I have the opposite issue. Notifications/phone calls actually make me anxious because for the past few years its far more often related to something going wrong at work.
The number one thing I've found to be effective in combatting this is sleep. I have to get 8 hours of uninterrupted, unmedicated sleep. 9 hours is even better. And I have to do it for a few nights in a row.
If I do anything at all that interferes with the quality of my sleep, I'm screwed, and The Stream will suck me in. Conversely, things that increase the quality of my sleep -- exercise, diet, not using gadgets after a certain hour -- all increase my ability to fight off Stream-induced distraction.
So that's my recommendation. YMMV.
If I do anything at all that interferes with the quality of my sleep, I'm screwed, and The Stream will suck me in. Conversely, things that increase the quality of my sleep -- exercise, diet, not using gadgets after a certain hour -- all increase my ability to fight off Stream-induced distraction.
So that's my recommendation. YMMV.
Yes. Lack of sleep weakens my discipline and makes it easier to get sucked in and it's a vicious cycle after that.
Absolutely my finding as well. On those days I'm tired I just get sucked in for hours. I guess I should pick up an easy to read novel on those days.
I'll second this, but note that I wasn't getting the ~8 hours of truly restful sleep until I rejuvenated my exercise routine. Not to hijack this comment and turn it into a thread from /r/Fitness, but I simply couldn't turn off "the Stream" (a helpful metaphor, thank you) without actually going to bed tired.
My knees are shot now, so running isn't an option. But if you're able I highly recommend swimming.
My knees are shot now, so running isn't an option. But if you're able I highly recommend swimming.
Indeed. I also leave my phone in another room and have a separate alarm clock. Really helps with quality sleep!
If only my infant daughter would agree to this plan....
To me, this reads like an alcoholic ranting about how everyone should stop drinking. Yes, technology can be addicting. That doesn't mean we're "helpless" or even that it's bad. I'm really sick of these hyperbolic luddites.
Personally, it's not at all a problem. I'm not a technophobe—I have an iPhone, use Facebook, etc.—but it's done nothing but positively improve my life. I can keep in touch with friends around the world and work remotely from anywhere, all thanks to the beauty of these "distracting" technologies.
However, even though my life is heavily entangled with technology I certainly don't feel "addicted" to it. I have no problem going out into the wilderness for a week and having 0 contact with the world. I certainly don't interrupt conversations to check my phone.
If technology is hurting your life, the problem could just as easily be with you as it is with technology.
Personally, it's not at all a problem. I'm not a technophobe—I have an iPhone, use Facebook, etc.—but it's done nothing but positively improve my life. I can keep in touch with friends around the world and work remotely from anywhere, all thanks to the beauty of these "distracting" technologies.
However, even though my life is heavily entangled with technology I certainly don't feel "addicted" to it. I have no problem going out into the wilderness for a week and having 0 contact with the world. I certainly don't interrupt conversations to check my phone.
If technology is hurting your life, the problem could just as easily be with you as it is with technology.
Respectfully disagree with your view.
Technology in and of itself is not bad. But when technology is run by technology companies whose motive is profit, it can be bad.
I think what we're seeing is new externalities caused by technology. I think junk food + soda + obesity is a more apt analogy than alcoholism. It's easy to say "don't get addicted to junk food or soda" but you have to remember that these companies specifically formulate their products to hack your body and make you crave more. Then they bombard you with ads. All so they can sell you more.
In the same way, technology companies make more money the more you use their products. So they specifically architect their products to hack your brain so you will use it more. It's easy to say "don't get addicted to Facebook" or "the problem is you" but, frankly, I don't think its that simple.
Technology in and of itself is not bad. But when technology is run by technology companies whose motive is profit, it can be bad.
I think what we're seeing is new externalities caused by technology. I think junk food + soda + obesity is a more apt analogy than alcoholism. It's easy to say "don't get addicted to junk food or soda" but you have to remember that these companies specifically formulate their products to hack your body and make you crave more. Then they bombard you with ads. All so they can sell you more.
In the same way, technology companies make more money the more you use their products. So they specifically architect their products to hack your brain so you will use it more. It's easy to say "don't get addicted to Facebook" or "the problem is you" but, frankly, I don't think its that simple.
But with your junk food analogy, there are still alternatives and it's up to you to decide how you live your life.
Apologies if I'm using the wrong terms, but this comes off as a kind of myopic, libertarian view.
Do you have children? I have 4. A lot of this is easier to understand by watching them. Yes, I know it's my job to teach them how to make good choices. But why do devices suck them in so easily if I don't direct or enforce their behavior?
Of course there are alternatives to junk food. But am I completely, 100% in control of my decisions without any influence from external sources?
There is an entire industry whose sole purpose is to influence your decision making. People in this industry spend about half a trillion dollars a year globally. It's called "advertising" and it wouldn't keep growing if it didn't work.
Do you have children? I have 4. A lot of this is easier to understand by watching them. Yes, I know it's my job to teach them how to make good choices. But why do devices suck them in so easily if I don't direct or enforce their behavior?
Of course there are alternatives to junk food. But am I completely, 100% in control of my decisions without any influence from external sources?
There is an entire industry whose sole purpose is to influence your decision making. People in this industry spend about half a trillion dollars a year globally. It's called "advertising" and it wouldn't keep growing if it didn't work.
> But why do devices suck them in so easily if I don't direct or enforce their behavior?
Advertising had nothing to do with my addiction to gaming.
When I was a kid I played games nonstop on atari before I got an apple ][. Then I played games on that until I got a nintendo, then a PC clone, then a sega genesis, then PS2, and then at some point I had to cut myself off. Cold turkey. I would honestly play the dumbest simple game for hours and hours. I'd beat the same game over and over sometimes.
Young children don't understand moderation. They will eat a bag of cookies or play on a tablet for hours at a time without guidance.
You must direct them and always have an activity at the ready. Set an old school egg timer for say 60 minutes and when it goes off, go shut off the game, take away the tablet/phone, and suggest their next task. Don't wait for them to save the game or fall for the "I'm almost done with the level" nonsense.
Advertising had nothing to do with my addiction to gaming.
When I was a kid I played games nonstop on atari before I got an apple ][. Then I played games on that until I got a nintendo, then a PC clone, then a sega genesis, then PS2, and then at some point I had to cut myself off. Cold turkey. I would honestly play the dumbest simple game for hours and hours. I'd beat the same game over and over sometimes.
Young children don't understand moderation. They will eat a bag of cookies or play on a tablet for hours at a time without guidance.
You must direct them and always have an activity at the ready. Set an old school egg timer for say 60 minutes and when it goes off, go shut off the game, take away the tablet/phone, and suggest their next task. Don't wait for them to save the game or fall for the "I'm almost done with the level" nonsense.
I understand what you're saying and I do do those things with my children. My point was more that children provide a more pronounced example of how our decision to use something is influenced by both advertising and the design of the thing (be it video games, food, or a juicy gossip article). Those decisions can then turn into addiction.
Correct, young children don't understand moderation. But I posit that many adults don't either. And even when they do, those things mentioned above wage war against our desire to moderate.
Push notifications. A/B testing. Email notifications. Constant tweaks to the Facebook news feed algorithm. Those things aren't for children. Why do you think they exist? Have you ever read up on how BuzzFeed tests and changes article headlines in order to maximize clicks, time on page, and sharing? [0] It's quite fascinating. Do you think BuzzFeed wants you to use their site in moderation?
[0] https://www.wired.com/2014/12/new-media-2/
Correct, young children don't understand moderation. But I posit that many adults don't either. And even when they do, those things mentioned above wage war against our desire to moderate.
Push notifications. A/B testing. Email notifications. Constant tweaks to the Facebook news feed algorithm. Those things aren't for children. Why do you think they exist? Have you ever read up on how BuzzFeed tests and changes article headlines in order to maximize clicks, time on page, and sharing? [0] It's quite fascinating. Do you think BuzzFeed wants you to use their site in moderation?
[0] https://www.wired.com/2014/12/new-media-2/
> Young children don't understand moderation. They will eat a bag of cookies or play on a tablet for hours at a time without guidance.
Yeah... this was/still is my problem. haha
Yeah... this was/still is my problem. haha
so do I...
> It's called "advertising" and it wouldn't keep growing if it didn't work.
For the record, it doesn't. Advertising is a fairly consistent percentage of GDP over decades.
More importantly, "advertising" doesn't automatically make products addicting. Literally every industry does advertising, that doesn't mean people are "addicted" to insurance.
For the record, I agree that junk food is addicting. It's probably the addiction I'm most prone too. But that's not because of advertising, it's because the products themselves are addicting.
In fact, by far the biggest addiction in my life is bread from a local bakery. I don't blame advertising (they hardly do any) and I don't even blame "modern food" (this is whole wheat, unrefined bread). I simply acknowledge that I love bread, it tastes great, and if I'm feeling depressed then I overeat it. My bread consumption depends much more on my internal mood and habits than anything "industry" does.
Likewise, technology is not addicting because it's evil. It's addicting because it's good and pleasurable, and if you don't have a solid hold on your mental health it's easy to fill the void with pleasurable products, whether they be bread, Facebook, or alcohol. The solution isn't to ban/quit the product, it's to address that hole in your life.
For the record, it doesn't. Advertising is a fairly consistent percentage of GDP over decades.
More importantly, "advertising" doesn't automatically make products addicting. Literally every industry does advertising, that doesn't mean people are "addicted" to insurance.
For the record, I agree that junk food is addicting. It's probably the addiction I'm most prone too. But that's not because of advertising, it's because the products themselves are addicting.
In fact, by far the biggest addiction in my life is bread from a local bakery. I don't blame advertising (they hardly do any) and I don't even blame "modern food" (this is whole wheat, unrefined bread). I simply acknowledge that I love bread, it tastes great, and if I'm feeling depressed then I overeat it. My bread consumption depends much more on my internal mood and habits than anything "industry" does.
Likewise, technology is not addicting because it's evil. It's addicting because it's good and pleasurable, and if you don't have a solid hold on your mental health it's easy to fill the void with pleasurable products, whether they be bread, Facebook, or alcohol. The solution isn't to ban/quit the product, it's to address that hole in your life.
Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier but, as I mentioned in another reply, I included advertising as only one part of the equation. The other part, as you said, is the design/contents of the thing itself.
I don't think technology is evil. Nor do I think it should be banned. But I do think it is designed to maximize usage–even if it's to the detriment of the user or his/her friends & family.
Also, I would be careful about ascribing all technology addiction to mental health issues. I think that's a little unfair.
I don't think technology is evil. Nor do I think it should be banned. But I do think it is designed to maximize usage–even if it's to the detriment of the user or his/her friends & family.
Also, I would be careful about ascribing all technology addiction to mental health issues. I think that's a little unfair.
Sounds like you need to get your own bread making machine to guarantee a fresh supply of always fresh bread, with the best smells and your own continually varying input into the recipe. Have half a dozen varieties of flour at home, mixing as per the mood takes you and enjoy such challenges as the perfect wholemeal loaf.
After a while doing your own breadmaking you will find the 'fresh' bread at the bakers to taste relatively stale and packed full of additives.
However, doing your own bread will take you away from interacting with the baker and his lovely assistants making their venture less profitable. If everyone baked their own bread then the bakery would have no customers. Maybe it is that 'please', 'thank-you' and smile that you get to experience at the bakers that is as much behind your love of bread as the bread itself.
After a while doing your own breadmaking you will find the 'fresh' bread at the bakers to taste relatively stale and packed full of additives.
However, doing your own bread will take you away from interacting with the baker and his lovely assistants making their venture less profitable. If everyone baked their own bread then the bakery would have no customers. Maybe it is that 'please', 'thank-you' and smile that you get to experience at the bakers that is as much behind your love of bread as the bread itself.
You could say the same things about schools. We spend massive amounts of money on education, solely to influence your decision-making, and we wouldn't continue to do it if it didn't work.
The problem is that you're comparing technology to junk food and alcohol, when you could be just as well comparing it to human contact, clean air, or exercise: things that are also just as addictive as technology.
Which isn't to say ads are good; I very much despise them. But I don't really have much experience with them, because the technology I use doesn't effectively force me to.
The problem is that you're comparing technology to junk food and alcohol, when you could be just as well comparing it to human contact, clean air, or exercise: things that are also just as addictive as technology.
Which isn't to say ads are good; I very much despise them. But I don't really have much experience with them, because the technology I use doesn't effectively force me to.
> If technology is hurting your life, the problem could just as easily be with you as it is with technology.
In large part, that's what the author is saying: "And I realize that this is, in some ways, just another tale in the vast book of human frailty."
Humans are weak in the face of what we've built, some (the author) more than others (you). That doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone, but it's definitely a problem for some.
And to use your comparison to alcohol: humanity has millenia of experience with the consumption and overconsumption of alcohol. We basically know the risks. "The Stream" has only existed for something like a decade and it's only getting stronger every day. IMO there's nothing wrong with being very cautious about it and quickly reacting to ill effects.
I wouldn't say I'm addicted and I have nothing close to this author's problem, but I do find "The Stream" lowering my quality of life, so I'm working on moving away from it.
Also, another quote from the author since you seem to be very upset with him over a bit of a strawman that you set up:
"...it reveals, perhaps, that we are not completely helpless in this newly distracted era."
In large part, that's what the author is saying: "And I realize that this is, in some ways, just another tale in the vast book of human frailty."
Humans are weak in the face of what we've built, some (the author) more than others (you). That doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone, but it's definitely a problem for some.
And to use your comparison to alcohol: humanity has millenia of experience with the consumption and overconsumption of alcohol. We basically know the risks. "The Stream" has only existed for something like a decade and it's only getting stronger every day. IMO there's nothing wrong with being very cautious about it and quickly reacting to ill effects.
I wouldn't say I'm addicted and I have nothing close to this author's problem, but I do find "The Stream" lowering my quality of life, so I'm working on moving away from it.
Also, another quote from the author since you seem to be very upset with him over a bit of a strawman that you set up:
"...it reveals, perhaps, that we are not completely helpless in this newly distracted era."
If we're going with the alcoholic analogy, alcoholism very clearly has a genetic component, so some people are predisposed to it. I don't think it's far fetched to hypothesize that technology addiction might be genetic as well, with the key difference being that using technology is basically compulsory while using alcohol is not.
Sounds like you're just saying "deal with it" because you don't personally struggle with it.
Sounds like you're just saying "deal with it" because you don't personally struggle with it.
> Sounds like you're just saying "deal with it" because you don't personally struggle with it.
Sorry if it came off that way. Like I said, I don't doubt that some people might be addicted to it.
I absolutely think they should pursue the remedies they need for themselves, whether that's quitting social media or pursuing a meditation practice. I have friends who quit Facebook and I don't hold it against them (though I do recognize it makes keeping in touch a lot harder).
My problem is that he can't seem to recognize that this addiction might not be universal, just like alcoholics shouldn't force prohibition on the rest of us. (In fact, he literally calls for "restaurants where smartphones must be surrendered upon entering.")
Sorry if it came off that way. Like I said, I don't doubt that some people might be addicted to it.
I absolutely think they should pursue the remedies they need for themselves, whether that's quitting social media or pursuing a meditation practice. I have friends who quit Facebook and I don't hold it against them (though I do recognize it makes keeping in touch a lot harder).
My problem is that he can't seem to recognize that this addiction might not be universal, just like alcoholics shouldn't force prohibition on the rest of us. (In fact, he literally calls for "restaurants where smartphones must be surrendered upon entering.")
Humans are definitely not universally susceptible to stream addiction.
However, the rate of adoption described in the article[0] is worrisome.
0: Actually, you might just look out a window to get the same data.
However, the rate of adoption described in the article[0] is worrisome.
0: Actually, you might just look out a window to get the same data.
He is not calling on all restaurants to do this. He just thinks it would be good if there existed some restaurants that did.
Just like there are some restaurants that don't serve alcohol, note. Or restaurants that don't serve meat.
Just like there are some restaurants that don't serve alcohol, note. Or restaurants that don't serve meat.
Non-alcoholic restaurants? Maybe that's a nice idea, but I don't think that actually solves anything.
The main problem with alcohol (at least in my culture) is that it's not given that you can go and drink non-alcoholic stuff in a social gathering without others making it a huge problem.
In that situation, who would go into the non-alco restaurant? Especially would you like to ask your friends "let's go to the non-alco place instead of the usual one", if the drinking is the thing you find problematic? Yeah, I've never heard much about non-alco restaurants.
The existence of gimmicky restaurants isn't answer to these kinds of problems, because the inherit reason is ... how I would say this ... in the societal background of "what is normal": the overall framework what is expected of you, what you can reasonably expect of others, and what options you are left with if you think you have a reasonable, principled case against the way things currently stand and disagree with the behaviour that is considered "normal"?
The parallels to over-indulging in predatory social media products are left as an exercise to reader.
The main problem with alcohol (at least in my culture) is that it's not given that you can go and drink non-alcoholic stuff in a social gathering without others making it a huge problem.
In that situation, who would go into the non-alco restaurant? Especially would you like to ask your friends "let's go to the non-alco place instead of the usual one", if the drinking is the thing you find problematic? Yeah, I've never heard much about non-alco restaurants.
The existence of gimmicky restaurants isn't answer to these kinds of problems, because the inherit reason is ... how I would say this ... in the societal background of "what is normal": the overall framework what is expected of you, what you can reasonably expect of others, and what options you are left with if you think you have a reasonable, principled case against the way things currently stand and disagree with the behaviour that is considered "normal"?
The parallels to over-indulging in predatory social media products are left as an exercise to reader.
I agree that there is a societal attitude aspect to the whole thing, sure.
> would you like to ask your friends "let's go to the non-alco place instead of the usual one"
Sure. Vegetarians and vegans do this sort of thing reasonably often.
I should note that actual friends would tend to respect this sort of request. If I had a friend who struggled with alcohol addiction I would certainly respect a request to go to a no-alcohol place. In fact, I would default to that in that situation. It's just basic politeness from my point of view, and yes, I realize that the concept of "politeness" differs from society to society too.
> Yeah, I've never heard much about non-alco restaurants.
They're everywhere, in some countries. Simple example: McDonalds in the US. Again, this varies from country to country; in many countries in Europe McDonalds does serve alcohol. This does come back to the societal attitudes thing.
I agree that this is rarer for upscale restaurants, but from a quick search http://www.latimes.com/food/jonathan-gold/la-fo-gold-dongpo-... is an example (whether temporarily or not is not clear).
Certainly there are lots of medium-scale restaurants in the US that do not sell alcohol but may allow you to bring your own, and then you, as the group going, get to make the call on whether to have alcohol. Of course t305158 he parallels between alcohol and phones are not exact; most people don't carry alcohol with them everywhere they go. ;)
But in general what I think you're missing is that having explicit options that buck the societal trend goes a long way towards normalizing bucking the societal trend.
> The existence of gimmicky restaurants isn't answer to these kinds of problems
It's not _the_ answer, but it's part of _an_ answer.
> would you like to ask your friends "let's go to the non-alco place instead of the usual one"
Sure. Vegetarians and vegans do this sort of thing reasonably often.
I should note that actual friends would tend to respect this sort of request. If I had a friend who struggled with alcohol addiction I would certainly respect a request to go to a no-alcohol place. In fact, I would default to that in that situation. It's just basic politeness from my point of view, and yes, I realize that the concept of "politeness" differs from society to society too.
> Yeah, I've never heard much about non-alco restaurants.
They're everywhere, in some countries. Simple example: McDonalds in the US. Again, this varies from country to country; in many countries in Europe McDonalds does serve alcohol. This does come back to the societal attitudes thing.
I agree that this is rarer for upscale restaurants, but from a quick search http://www.latimes.com/food/jonathan-gold/la-fo-gold-dongpo-... is an example (whether temporarily or not is not clear).
Certainly there are lots of medium-scale restaurants in the US that do not sell alcohol but may allow you to bring your own, and then you, as the group going, get to make the call on whether to have alcohol. Of course t305158 he parallels between alcohol and phones are not exact; most people don't carry alcohol with them everywhere they go. ;)
But in general what I think you're missing is that having explicit options that buck the societal trend goes a long way towards normalizing bucking the societal trend.
> The existence of gimmicky restaurants isn't answer to these kinds of problems
It's not _the_ answer, but it's part of _an_ answer.
alcoholic ranting [...] hyperbolic luddites.
I see what you mean, and you are quite possibly right. Please don't take it as an insult, but how do you know this technology is not causing similar issues in your life? We've all seen some people in our lives deny some facet of themselves only to realize they had a problem (after much introspection).
I would really like to have your opinion on this.
> Please don't take it as an insult, but how do you know this technology is not causing similar issues in your life?
That's something I think a lot about. For me, the evidence that technology is not having that effect on my life:
1. At least once a year, I go on a hike of at least 1 week (without a phone). I'm consistently able to do this without feeling any sort of withdrawal.
2. I try to read a book on my Kindle for an hour every day. [0]
3. Whenever I fly, I never purchase wifi. If I'm able to consistently go 9-12 hours without any internet access, just reading or napping, it hardly seems like I'm addicted.
4. When I'm around other people, focus on them. If I go out to dinner with someone, I sit and talk to them instead of playing on my phone. It honestly boggles my mind that people think it's acceptable to stare at your phone while talking to someone.
[0] The fixation on "printed" books really is ludicrous. Reading on the Kindle is no more or less distracting than reading a printed book. It's essentially an offline experience.
That's something I think a lot about. For me, the evidence that technology is not having that effect on my life:
1. At least once a year, I go on a hike of at least 1 week (without a phone). I'm consistently able to do this without feeling any sort of withdrawal.
2. I try to read a book on my Kindle for an hour every day. [0]
3. Whenever I fly, I never purchase wifi. If I'm able to consistently go 9-12 hours without any internet access, just reading or napping, it hardly seems like I'm addicted.
4. When I'm around other people, focus on them. If I go out to dinner with someone, I sit and talk to them instead of playing on my phone. It honestly boggles my mind that people think it's acceptable to stare at your phone while talking to someone.
[0] The fixation on "printed" books really is ludicrous. Reading on the Kindle is no more or less distracting than reading a printed book. It's essentially an offline experience.
I'm an information addict and here's a fun fact about my recovery experience:
It didn't start til I stopped looking things up in books. That kicked off 9 months of vivid dreams that evolved as I managed to identify & slowly remove other innocuous compulsive behaviors from my daily life.
I want to be clear about this: I'm not saying you sound like an addict. Everything in the world is potentially addictive if it can help escape from or numb emotions. And it doesn't matter much what the source of the addiction is, but the behaviors involved in interacting with that source. That's why it didn't actually matter that I went offline for months on end.
My view of addiction is this:
Addicts are genetically (and likely epigenetically) predisposed to developing a learning disorder we call addiction in response to psychological trauma. The first step to solving the problem of addiction in society isn't to lock up all the addictive things. It's to recognize technology has made it easy as hell for anyone to partake in activities that provide immediate gratification and that means the world has become a much more dangerous place for people predisposed to addiction.
Information addiction is frightening as hell to think about, even when I'm happily moving along in my recovery. I live in a world where the spread of technology is always on the rise & any job that pays well will require me to, in one way or another, dive into my addictive behaviors.
If the author's (likely fearfully) suggesting what you see as extreme solutions, I can absolutely understand where he's coming from.
It didn't start til I stopped looking things up in books. That kicked off 9 months of vivid dreams that evolved as I managed to identify & slowly remove other innocuous compulsive behaviors from my daily life.
I want to be clear about this: I'm not saying you sound like an addict. Everything in the world is potentially addictive if it can help escape from or numb emotions. And it doesn't matter much what the source of the addiction is, but the behaviors involved in interacting with that source. That's why it didn't actually matter that I went offline for months on end.
My view of addiction is this:
Addicts are genetically (and likely epigenetically) predisposed to developing a learning disorder we call addiction in response to psychological trauma. The first step to solving the problem of addiction in society isn't to lock up all the addictive things. It's to recognize technology has made it easy as hell for anyone to partake in activities that provide immediate gratification and that means the world has become a much more dangerous place for people predisposed to addiction.
Information addiction is frightening as hell to think about, even when I'm happily moving along in my recovery. I live in a world where the spread of technology is always on the rise & any job that pays well will require me to, in one way or another, dive into my addictive behaviors.
If the author's (likely fearfully) suggesting what you see as extreme solutions, I can absolutely understand where he's coming from.
[deleted]
I don't feel the author is a luddite but her problems may well be down more to her mother's "screams of frustration and misery" and going to mental hospital regularly throughout her childhood rather than too much Facebook.
"I used to be a human being": I like this phrase.
It captures, poetically, the existential despair of losing the conditions of humanity. Regardless of if the author's particular conditions necessitates the implicit drama, each of one us, I'm sure, have felt like we lost what made us "real" or "authentic" at some point or another.
People have complained about the loss of authenticity for much longer than the internet (much less social media) has been around.
It happens around any time of great change. We happen to be living through a period of some of the fastest changes in human history, so it's not surprising a lot of people are confused and feel like they've lost something.
It happens around any time of great change. We happen to be living through a period of some of the fastest changes in human history, so it's not surprising a lot of people are confused and feel like they've lost something.
> We happen to be living through a period of some of the fastest changes in human history
Couldn't this have been said accurately at just about every point in human history? I'm not asking to try and refute what you said - I think that supports the first point you made. The world is always changing at an exponential rate and we are always on the curve, so people will continue to lament loss of the past until the end of time.
Couldn't this have been said accurately at just about every point in human history? I'm not asking to try and refute what you said - I think that supports the first point you made. The world is always changing at an exponential rate and we are always on the curve, so people will continue to lament loss of the past until the end of time.
Not necessarily - before the industrial revolution the pace of change was very very very slow comparatively. In fact, our rate of change now is pretty slow and minor compared to the changes during the time that Victoria was the queen of England.
What have we lost? I don't doubt we have lost something, I just don't know what it is.
What have we lost? In my opinion, a big part of it is the illusion that people are more than just people
With the internet, we've been able to confirm that everyone is, more or less, just like us. You can see this especially in up and coming new media stars. They use self deprecation as a crutch and irony is really funny. The internet released a hall of mirrors on society and now the illusion of authenticity is broken
Why is that that 'Hipsters' reach out for things that they hope are real? Facial hair is real. Single-Speed Bikes are real. I'm talking about a stereotype here, obviously, but I think that a hipster is something who reaches for external authenticity
I hope I don't sound like a cynical person, because I really don't think I am. I don't think this is a terrible thing, but it certainly makes navigating people much harder because the illusion of becoming one of 'The Greats' with a Capital G is something that doesn't seem very possible anymore
With the internet, we've been able to confirm that everyone is, more or less, just like us. You can see this especially in up and coming new media stars. They use self deprecation as a crutch and irony is really funny. The internet released a hall of mirrors on society and now the illusion of authenticity is broken
Why is that that 'Hipsters' reach out for things that they hope are real? Facial hair is real. Single-Speed Bikes are real. I'm talking about a stereotype here, obviously, but I think that a hipster is something who reaches for external authenticity
I hope I don't sound like a cynical person, because I really don't think I am. I don't think this is a terrible thing, but it certainly makes navigating people much harder because the illusion of becoming one of 'The Greats' with a Capital G is something that doesn't seem very possible anymore
I'm not following the celebrity bit. You're saying we are seeing through the illusion of authenticity because of a wall of mirrors released by the Internet? I get that it's a metaphor but I don't understand what you're getting at.
What's your definition of real? I ask because when I think of single speed bikes, the first thing that comes to mind isn't real, it's what a pain in the ass. Just because it's a throwback doesn't make it more real. Get a real bike! No I don't think anything at all. I'm in fucking Oregon. I'd go nuts thinking.
And is the reason you're having trouble navigating people because they have the illusion of becoming one of the Greats or is it you that has that illusion? This is all intriguing but a bit obtuse.
What's your definition of real? I ask because when I think of single speed bikes, the first thing that comes to mind isn't real, it's what a pain in the ass. Just because it's a throwback doesn't make it more real. Get a real bike! No I don't think anything at all. I'm in fucking Oregon. I'd go nuts thinking.
And is the reason you're having trouble navigating people because they have the illusion of becoming one of the Greats or is it you that has that illusion? This is all intriguing but a bit obtuse.
There's almost a crabs in the bucket type thing that is really obvious to see when a person becomes successful. People start to dredge up all the shitty things in their past. MLK was an adulterer, Mother Theresa was a dick, etc etc. I hope you understand what I mean.
I really enjoy thinking about this stuff, because while it obviously doesn't apply to people at an individual level at all, it's really interesting to see how information overload can affect people en masse
On another note, I think maybe a lot of the cultural-death-by-irony (that phrase is overstating it, but it gets the point across) stuff I'm saying is better shown in a movie called The Comedy with Tim Heidecker, which is a movie that is just about what the fuck 'Post-Irony' is and why it's a scary thing
I really enjoy thinking about this stuff, because while it obviously doesn't apply to people at an individual level at all, it's really interesting to see how information overload can affect people en masse
On another note, I think maybe a lot of the cultural-death-by-irony (that phrase is overstating it, but it gets the point across) stuff I'm saying is better shown in a movie called The Comedy with Tim Heidecker, which is a movie that is just about what the fuck 'Post-Irony' is and why it's a scary thing
I do get what you're saying but I think it's not a useful place to focus your attention. I'm not a fan of being a dick, though I sometimes am one, nor a fan of adultury, that said I devote no bandwidth to hand wringing about MLK's personal life, Mother Theresa's temperament.
Under that much scrutiny, you can find a lot of dirt about any human being. Not useful.
Yeah, irony has amplified the whole nihilism thing. I'm fine with irony if used in moderation not as a way of life.
Under that much scrutiny, you can find a lot of dirt about any human being. Not useful.
Yeah, irony has amplified the whole nihilism thing. I'm fine with irony if used in moderation not as a way of life.
I know you weren't talking about politics specifically but this is likely part of the reason there are too many douche bags in public office. How many earnest, smart people want to subject themselves to that kind of scrutiny?
I don't want a president who hasn't smoked pot, fucked on a trampoline, swam laps while tripping, and traveled to at least one other country other than the U.S. and Alaska.
How do we get real people elected if the footage of every time they shoplifted a snickers bar is going to be compiled into a montage for an unfair attack ad? Sure, it seems like a lot of shoplifting but to be fair it was spread out over 20 years.
I don't want a president who hasn't smoked pot, fucked on a trampoline, swam laps while tripping, and traveled to at least one other country other than the U.S. and Alaska.
How do we get real people elected if the footage of every time they shoplifted a snickers bar is going to be compiled into a montage for an unfair attack ad? Sure, it seems like a lot of shoplifting but to be fair it was spread out over 20 years.
Is the problem of authenticity, another word for being yourself (right?) a problem specific to online? I wonder if it's a problem that came with modern civilization. People can feel this way IRL. I guess the Internet does add an extra measure of distance in a sense but in another sense it reduces those distances. We all routinely interact with people all over the globe.
I'm not arguing against what you're saying, just trying to think about it. When did we lose the authentic? And are we trying to restore it online? If so, is it working at all?
I'm not arguing against what you're saying, just trying to think about it. When did we lose the authentic? And are we trying to restore it online? If so, is it working at all?
I was reading a book a couple weeks ago and there was a throwaway line that really stuck out to me. I think it was a David Foster Wallace book
It was something like all the great themes are taken. We've taken all the great themes and adventures and created theme parks where you can go to experience a fantasy yet know this isn't real. You know it's not authentic.
I'm butchering the meaning of it, wish I could figure out where I read it
Edit: I found it! apparently, it's from a 1990 movie I've never seen nor heard of, which doesn't sound right. I'm like 80% sure I read it in Brief Interviews with Hideous Men
"You see, there's nothing to do anymore. Everything decent's been done. All the great themes have been used up. Turned into theme parks. So I don't really find it exactly cheerful to be living in the middle of a totally, like, exhausted decade where there's nothing to look forward to and no one to look up to."
It was something like all the great themes are taken. We've taken all the great themes and adventures and created theme parks where you can go to experience a fantasy yet know this isn't real. You know it's not authentic.
I'm butchering the meaning of it, wish I could figure out where I read it
Edit: I found it! apparently, it's from a 1990 movie I've never seen nor heard of, which doesn't sound right. I'm like 80% sure I read it in Brief Interviews with Hideous Men
"You see, there's nothing to do anymore. Everything decent's been done. All the great themes have been used up. Turned into theme parks. So I don't really find it exactly cheerful to be living in the middle of a totally, like, exhausted decade where there's nothing to look forward to and no one to look up to."
If it's new to me then why should I care? Why is new ipso facto good? And what are some examples of theme parks?
I know a lot of people who go out in the wilderness any chance they get but if that's not your thing, there are plenty of ways to get right to the basics even in day to day life.
And if novelty is what you're seeking, anything new to you is novel. You're not the first person to climb a mountain but if it's your first time, it's a novel experience. New is overrated. The supply of novelty is unlimited right now.
If I'm going to be derivative then this serves: "I've got 99 problems and 'there's nothing to do anymore' ain't one of them."
If you think this is boring, you probably don't remember life before the Internet... :-)
I know a lot of people who go out in the wilderness any chance they get but if that's not your thing, there are plenty of ways to get right to the basics even in day to day life.
And if novelty is what you're seeking, anything new to you is novel. You're not the first person to climb a mountain but if it's your first time, it's a novel experience. New is overrated. The supply of novelty is unlimited right now.
If I'm going to be derivative then this serves: "I've got 99 problems and 'there's nothing to do anymore' ain't one of them."
If you think this is boring, you probably don't remember life before the Internet... :-)
You're right, I was born with the Internet and grew up with it as a constant. Some of my earliest memories are literally of those ugly gray 90's computers.
It's not about quitting the internet to get 'back to basics' (although doing that is incredibly beneficial for me), it's about this weird feeling where you are forced to accept that the enormity of human knowledge is available in your pocket at all times, but it's not going to really change things for you. I know I'm coming off as a cynical, negative person, but I'm just trying to explain, as a person who doesn't remember a time before email, what it feels like trying to be Authentic with a capital A.
It's actually not hard and I think most people really truly are authentically themselves even in this new age, but it's different in a way that's hard to put a finger on. An authentic person who grew up with the Internet can't be authentic in the same way as a person who grew up before the internet.
Maybe I'm projecting, and maybe it's just a generational thing but I don't think it can be stressed enough how different the last 20 years have been
It's not about quitting the internet to get 'back to basics' (although doing that is incredibly beneficial for me), it's about this weird feeling where you are forced to accept that the enormity of human knowledge is available in your pocket at all times, but it's not going to really change things for you. I know I'm coming off as a cynical, negative person, but I'm just trying to explain, as a person who doesn't remember a time before email, what it feels like trying to be Authentic with a capital A.
It's actually not hard and I think most people really truly are authentically themselves even in this new age, but it's different in a way that's hard to put a finger on. An authentic person who grew up with the Internet can't be authentic in the same way as a person who grew up before the internet.
Maybe I'm projecting, and maybe it's just a generational thing but I don't think it can be stressed enough how different the last 20 years have been
What was different now you have me curious. I don't doubt it as every generation is different. Fuck, does this make me old if I ask questions like that? If some of your earliest memories are of those ugly gray computers then I was likely college when you were a small kid or something like that.
For the indoor part of life: Apple IIe, television, and music. That's pretty good. I could only dream about jacking in to cyberspace. I was limited to the other kind of jacking. Just sayin'. Only the Star Trek crew had cell phones. Kung Fu reruns taught me all I needed to know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)
I'd like to hear what it was like to grow up in the age-of-the-sf-fantasy-coming-true-but-with-soul-crushing-side-effects?
For the indoor part of life: Apple IIe, television, and music. That's pretty good. I could only dream about jacking in to cyberspace. I was limited to the other kind of jacking. Just sayin'. Only the Star Trek crew had cell phones. Kung Fu reruns taught me all I needed to know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)
I'd like to hear what it was like to grow up in the age-of-the-sf-fantasy-coming-true-but-with-soul-crushing-side-effects?
You lucky bastard. I had to use an Apple IIe and walk to school 10 miles in the snow. I didn't even know what the weather was going to be without looking out the window. Hard times. I'm kidding of course, people are people, Internet or no Internet. An Apple and afternoon kung fu movies were sufficient.
I wasn't suggesting a person quit the Internet. No fucking way. You'll take my Internet from my cold, dead hands or Comcast will drop the ball on my connection. I just know people who aren't jacked in all the time, going out hiking in the wilderness, doing Yoga, running long distances, drinking too much, playing pictionary, reading sf, etc.
It's hard to get down to authentic. That's ego death. But I'd say you're yourself always and everywhere, just maybe adjusting to the situation. I'm not really presenting myself the same way discussing politics with a right winger than I am in the grocery store checkout line. So I'd say you're authentic, I'm authentic, even if we don't remember a world before the Internet. Lucky bastard!
Btw, honestly, I still don't understand what authentic means?
I wasn't suggesting a person quit the Internet. No fucking way. You'll take my Internet from my cold, dead hands or Comcast will drop the ball on my connection. I just know people who aren't jacked in all the time, going out hiking in the wilderness, doing Yoga, running long distances, drinking too much, playing pictionary, reading sf, etc.
It's hard to get down to authentic. That's ego death. But I'd say you're yourself always and everywhere, just maybe adjusting to the situation. I'm not really presenting myself the same way discussing politics with a right winger than I am in the grocery store checkout line. So I'd say you're authentic, I'm authentic, even if we don't remember a world before the Internet. Lucky bastard!
Btw, honestly, I still don't understand what authentic means?
The loss of authenticity most definitely has something to do with modern life itself (i.e. since the Industrial Revolution) though arguably goes back to the dawn of the practice of agriculture some 10,000 years ago. You ought to read, I hesitate to suggest, the Unabomber Manifesto a.k.a. "Industrial Society and its Future" by Ted Kaczynski. No shortage there of ideas on how modern man has lost his authenticity. (He also calls for violent revolution, which is just ADORABLE.)
We evolved to be hunter-gatherers in small social groups. As such, being on high alert for a faint sound, a movement in your peripheral vision, or some sign from your friends, comes naturally to us because these are traits that were naturally selected and could mean the difference between having a meal and going hungry, or between life and death. "Distraction" wasn't an issue either, because the distraction was usually the more important/urgent thing to be paying attention to, and because there weren't as many of them. We didn't have the situation we have today, where these entire natural cycles of stimulus/response/reward have been studied, and where people have figured out through years of trial-and-error, how to replicate the stimuli, and replace the rewards, in order to substitute a different response that just so happens to make them money. To the degree that you are susceptible to these stimuli you are actually being an authentic human being. It's the environment you're in that is completely inauthentic. We're all swimming in an ocean of bullshit. Being born into a world already mostly built and made for us, it's easy to forget that somebody (humans) had to come along and construct it all. Once you realize humans built it all, you then realize they had to have a reason, an incentive, maybe even an agenda. Being authentic requires reclaiming your own agenda and rejecting others' agendas where they differ from yours.
We evolved to be hunter-gatherers in small social groups. As such, being on high alert for a faint sound, a movement in your peripheral vision, or some sign from your friends, comes naturally to us because these are traits that were naturally selected and could mean the difference between having a meal and going hungry, or between life and death. "Distraction" wasn't an issue either, because the distraction was usually the more important/urgent thing to be paying attention to, and because there weren't as many of them. We didn't have the situation we have today, where these entire natural cycles of stimulus/response/reward have been studied, and where people have figured out through years of trial-and-error, how to replicate the stimuli, and replace the rewards, in order to substitute a different response that just so happens to make them money. To the degree that you are susceptible to these stimuli you are actually being an authentic human being. It's the environment you're in that is completely inauthentic. We're all swimming in an ocean of bullshit. Being born into a world already mostly built and made for us, it's easy to forget that somebody (humans) had to come along and construct it all. Once you realize humans built it all, you then realize they had to have a reason, an incentive, maybe even an agenda. Being authentic requires reclaiming your own agenda and rejecting others' agendas where they differ from yours.
What I would say to this guy is this.
Your "virtual" life is also real. The news that you read, happen in real world. The people whom you talk to are real people. There's no "real life" and "non-real life". Everything that happens to you is "real life" by definition. That includes social networks etc.
The only thing that matters is whether it is a life that you're comfortable with, or not. And there is certainly a point that many people are not actually comfortable, but forced into comforming.
Being uncomfortable about it because it's "not real" is a fallacy, though.
Your "virtual" life is also real. The news that you read, happen in real world. The people whom you talk to are real people. There's no "real life" and "non-real life". Everything that happens to you is "real life" by definition. That includes social networks etc.
The only thing that matters is whether it is a life that you're comfortable with, or not. And there is certainly a point that many people are not actually comfortable, but forced into comforming.
Being uncomfortable about it because it's "not real" is a fallacy, though.
Did this really need a 7000+ word essay? If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. If you're concerned about "distraction overload" then remove things from your life you find distracting. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use smartphone apps and 10 different text messaging systems. If you want to live as a technology-free hermit, go right ahead. But don't try to argue that I should live like you.
The author instead seems to be taking his personal opinions about technology and trying to apply them to everyone. It's not enough that he doesn't like these things. We should not like them either and here's why. Time with my kid is invalid because I also have the TV on? GPS leads me to stop remembering things? Emojis are unsuitable replacements for voicemail? The author imagines restaurants where smartphones must be surrendered upon entering. Cool, you've described a place I'll actively avoid. Where's that "stop liking things I don't like" GIF when you need it?
"Our enslavement to dopamine?" -- how about YOUR enslavement to dopamine? Leave me out of it.
The author instead seems to be taking his personal opinions about technology and trying to apply them to everyone. It's not enough that he doesn't like these things. We should not like them either and here's why. Time with my kid is invalid because I also have the TV on? GPS leads me to stop remembering things? Emojis are unsuitable replacements for voicemail? The author imagines restaurants where smartphones must be surrendered upon entering. Cool, you've described a place I'll actively avoid. Where's that "stop liking things I don't like" GIF when you need it?
"Our enslavement to dopamine?" -- how about YOUR enslavement to dopamine? Leave me out of it.
Or, how about the writer has experienced something very personal which their editor thought would appeal to an audience as wide as that of NYMag? Perhaps, instead of just saying the writer is wrong, you could try and empathise with the position, see if you feel better after some time apart from the internet. Try and understand another perspective.
Writing is 1 to many, the author was most certainly not writing just for you. No need to be so incensed.
Writing is 1 to many, the author was most certainly not writing just for you. No need to be so incensed.
It's fine to say, "Hey, I don't like this--here's the personal story about how I had a huge problem with it." It goes off the rails when he starts calling it "our" [collective] problem. Sorry, I just think that's assuming an awful lot about one's audience.
I'm a recovering info addict (not the author) & here's what I mean when I describe it as our collective problem:
1. We're living in the Information Age.
2. Information can be addictive?! Holy shit!
3. And we barely have a clue as to how to deal with people addicted to anything else, let alone addicted to that thing we're defining this entire age of humanity on?!
It doesn't have to be a problem you suffer from to see that information being addictive implies significant potential for collective harm.
1. We're living in the Information Age.
2. Information can be addictive?! Holy shit!
3. And we barely have a clue as to how to deal with people addicted to anything else, let alone addicted to that thing we're defining this entire age of humanity on?!
It doesn't have to be a problem you suffer from to see that information being addictive implies significant potential for collective harm.
Fair enough, I certainly don't want any government programs to come out of this discussion. I kind of doubt he meant collective in that we need a collective solution. He meant collective in the sense of it captures the times. He's right.
At least I hope that's what he meant as collective solutions aren't called for here. Thoughtful thinking and discussion are called for online, please. I like online.
At least I hope that's what he meant as collective solutions aren't called for here. Thoughtful thinking and discussion are called for online, please. I like online.
"Our collective problem" can also be interpreted that this is a problem for an amount of people in our society, and that is is /our collective problem/ that these people are dealing with these issues.
You're assuming that your ability to control this implies that everybody else in the audience is just like you, has the ability, and doesn't need or want the article. This is quite obviously false and a form of projection.
Again, you're not the audience.
Again, you're not the audience.
You haven't really addressed the article. Are the descriptions of how smartphones have changed society and the people living in it wrong in some way? I'd be curious to hear thoughts on that. You spent 3 paragraphs essentially saying "I disagree", with little elaboration.
"Living technology-free" is a strawman. The author is saying we should be more conscious of how we use technology, not abandon it all together.
P.S. You also seem to be taking it rather personally...
"Living technology-free" is a strawman. The author is saying we should be more conscious of how we use technology, not abandon it all together.
P.S. You also seem to be taking it rather personally...
It was about to be a great story about how smartphones and technology distraction affected _him_, and how he dealt with it. Then it took a turn down the "this is a problem for all of us" path. Think of a hobby you really enjoy, and then imagine someone telling you "I didn't like that hobby--I thought it was a bad use of my time, AND I think it's a bad use of your time too!" He has a right to say it of course, but I think it's fair to have a personal reaction to that.
> If you want to live as a technology-free hermit, go right ahead.
That's very nice, but if you want to live as a technology-free non-hermit you naturally would try encourage other people to join you.
You don't have to read their 7000+ word essays, either, if you have so aggressive reactions to their claims.
That's very nice, but if you want to live as a technology-free non-hermit you naturally would try encourage other people to join you.
You don't have to read their 7000+ word essays, either, if you have so aggressive reactions to their claims.
Yeah no kidding. I would regret my decision after about 45 minutes sitting up on cold mountain. Shit, I probably wouldn't get service even if I hadn't given my phone away. What now?
People would spot me outside the library in town, resisting the urge to go inside... To return the edible plant id guide and maybe I don't know surf the web just a little.
People would spot me outside the library in town, resisting the urge to go inside... To return the edible plant id guide and maybe I don't know surf the web just a little.
Yes. This article put my heart in my throat. I've grown up on the web and have for a long time only used it for work and try my hardest to steer clear of current events / the information high way. But it's depressing. All of your friends interactions are abstracted through social media which I now don't have access to. You become invisible.
I don't know. I think the writer is just spreading awareness.
He's expressing something that benefits some people. If you what he has to say does not resonate with you why did you keep reading and then take time to post? It's a lot of work to say essentially, "this does not apply to me." :-)
> The interruptions often feel pleasant, of course, because they are usually the work of your friends. Distractions arrive in your brain connected to people you know (or think you know), which is the genius of social, peer-to-peer media.
Silly as it will sound I'd never thought of it that way. Cunning , brilliant and cunning again.
Silly as it will sound I'd never thought of it that way. Cunning , brilliant and cunning again.
A related thought: for any app, there's a question ~ "How do I get the user to open the app regularly? How do I turn checking the app into a habit?"
Messaging apps have a nice solution to this: they allow your friends to summon you to the app by sending you a message.
Messaging apps have a nice solution to this: they allow your friends to summon you to the app by sending you a message.
From a business point of view, that's an important goal. The more a user depends on your product, the more you stay in business. And the goal of a business is to survive indefinitely.
But from a human perspective, I'd argue it's completely unethical. As a business, your goal isn't merely to encourage potential customers to choose your brand over another. It's also to get them to buy it even if they don't want it. And it's to get them hooked so they come back and buy more.
Now, what if your product is vodka? Your job suddenly became to make as many high-functioning alcoholics out of customers as possible (high-functioning so that they can continue to buy).
This may be a stretch from a mobile game or social media platform, but not much. They both have negative effects with real impacts on the health and happiness and sometimes even safety of the consumers.
But from a human perspective, I'd argue it's completely unethical. As a business, your goal isn't merely to encourage potential customers to choose your brand over another. It's also to get them to buy it even if they don't want it. And it's to get them hooked so they come back and buy more.
Now, what if your product is vodka? Your job suddenly became to make as many high-functioning alcoholics out of customers as possible (high-functioning so that they can continue to buy).
This may be a stretch from a mobile game or social media platform, but not much. They both have negative effects with real impacts on the health and happiness and sometimes even safety of the consumers.
I fixed my brain by cancelling my internet services. All I had was 1gb of cellphone data.
Never been happier.
Right now I am back with an internet subscription and I'm miserable. I am an internet addict and having internet at home is very bad for me. I strongly consider cancelling my internet suscription again.
Never been happier.
Right now I am back with an internet subscription and I'm miserable. I am an internet addict and having internet at home is very bad for me. I strongly consider cancelling my internet suscription again.
I've had good success putting my laptop away and only using an inconveniently-located desktop when I want to do Computer Stuff. I can still go spend a lot of time on it (sometimes you need to, sometimes you actually want to), but it's a conscious choice to go do that. I can't just carry the cancer that is the Internet around the house with me, flip the lid open "just to check something" and surface two hours later having accomplished nothing.
I have no smartphone, I don't use mobile Internet. Fixed Internet is enough of a problem for me.
What I would love is to go back to dial-up times. I mean, paying by the minute/hour, or a limited plan + by the minute/hour after the limit, or a fixed limit in hours or Go per month. Something like this. That would help me a lot.
People might tell me to implement it on my side, but I know it is not going to work for me: there's no way I pay full price to have a 24/24 connection and then limit myself. And as operators are not going to propose such schemes that would lower their income, I am screwed. Only satellite operators still have such systems.
----
I had an ADSL failure that lasted 8 days a few months ago. The first 2 or 3 days were tough (launching compulsorily the web or mail browser, wondering how the hell I am doing to do X or Y, having to remember that there is no point in doing X and to remember the 'old' way of doing Y), but then it was a relief. A breath of fresh air. We (the family) began to talk to each other. We even did things together!
Then the ADSL was fixed and the Internet addicted behaviours started again, same as before..
What I would love is to go back to dial-up times. I mean, paying by the minute/hour, or a limited plan + by the minute/hour after the limit, or a fixed limit in hours or Go per month. Something like this. That would help me a lot.
People might tell me to implement it on my side, but I know it is not going to work for me: there's no way I pay full price to have a 24/24 connection and then limit myself. And as operators are not going to propose such schemes that would lower their income, I am screwed. Only satellite operators still have such systems.
----
I had an ADSL failure that lasted 8 days a few months ago. The first 2 or 3 days were tough (launching compulsorily the web or mail browser, wondering how the hell I am doing to do X or Y, having to remember that there is no point in doing X and to remember the 'old' way of doing Y), but then it was a relief. A breath of fresh air. We (the family) began to talk to each other. We even did things together!
Then the ADSL was fixed and the Internet addicted behaviours started again, same as before..
I spent the weekend working on my Honda, replacing the timing belt, water pump, clutch cylinders. It's been a long time since I've come up for air, so to speak, and spending the entire weekend off the computer was immensely gratifying. I found more satisfaction in fixing my car than I have in anything for a long time. I found myself thinking that perhaps being on the internet constantly has caused me to lose some taste for life.
I'm taking a vacation soon, 9 days with no computer will be a much needed reset.
I'm taking a vacation soon, 9 days with no computer will be a much needed reset.
What's clicked for me is:
https://selfcontrolapp.com/
It's an open source project either:
https://github.com/SelfControlApp/selfcontrol/
What I do is, essentially, the following: every day at around 0-1 am (before I go to sleep) I set a timer so that it would fire at 7-8 pm (that's when I would get home). This allows me to force myself from browsing unnecessary sites (facebook, twitter, HN, reddit etc.) that would otherwise distract me from doing meaningful work.
As for the other devices, not long ago I would have twitter, facebook, VK, and a few others social media apps on my iPhone. I deleted everything except twitter which I check rarely (<= 10m a day). Deleting the facebook app contributed greatly to my smartphone's battery life either.
https://selfcontrolapp.com/
It's an open source project either:
https://github.com/SelfControlApp/selfcontrol/
What I do is, essentially, the following: every day at around 0-1 am (before I go to sleep) I set a timer so that it would fire at 7-8 pm (that's when I would get home). This allows me to force myself from browsing unnecessary sites (facebook, twitter, HN, reddit etc.) that would otherwise distract me from doing meaningful work.
As for the other devices, not long ago I would have twitter, facebook, VK, and a few others social media apps on my iPhone. I deleted everything except twitter which I check rarely (<= 10m a day). Deleting the facebook app contributed greatly to my smartphone's battery life either.
Is it really bad if you aren't doing meaningful work at 8 pm after you get home from work?
Shameless plug: I created a Chrome extension which makes me wait 1 minute before proceeding to the one of distracting websites, helps me a lot. Maybe it will help you too: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/better-things-to-d....
Thank you so much! This is great
I rather like the internet connected version of living.
How so?
Well at the everyday level you can keep in touch with your friends, catch Pokemon, access the world's information and the like.
More speculatively you have the points made by Louis C.K in the article, that "Underneath in your life there’s that thing … that forever empty … that knowledge that it’s all for nothing and you’re alone …" "you just feel … kinda satisfied with your products. And then you die." As an engineering type I think a lot of that can be fixed by technology, that as computers equal and pass human brain capacities a lot of cool stuff will be possible maybe including fixing the alone and dying stuff and it's interesting to see things progress.
More speculatively you have the points made by Louis C.K in the article, that "Underneath in your life there’s that thing … that forever empty … that knowledge that it’s all for nothing and you’re alone …" "you just feel … kinda satisfied with your products. And then you die." As an engineering type I think a lot of that can be fixed by technology, that as computers equal and pass human brain capacities a lot of cool stuff will be possible maybe including fixing the alone and dying stuff and it's interesting to see things progress.
Meditation, meditation, meditation. These devices/games/stimuli are training your brain, so it's up to you to actively combat that with your own training. That's how I view it - you are being programmed one way or another, either by outside forces or by your own doing.
I swim. Often. No phone. No internet for 2 solid hours.
After that my mind is clear. And I do not want to reach for a smartphone.
One great feature on this phone is the ultra energy saving feature. Basically turning it into a black and white display reminiscent of a Nokia 3310.
Notifications are turned down for everything.
My life is better. Walking the dog and looking at the scenery is feeling good.
I like to have my life back from the social internet blackhole.
After that my mind is clear. And I do not want to reach for a smartphone.
One great feature on this phone is the ultra energy saving feature. Basically turning it into a black and white display reminiscent of a Nokia 3310.
Notifications are turned down for everything.
My life is better. Walking the dog and looking at the scenery is feeling good.
I like to have my life back from the social internet blackhole.
The problem is that these technologies are increasingly necessary to function within normal society. Do we somehow regulate the allowable behaviors of apps? Is it on us to improve our self control so we can act as engaged, but distant participants?
There's also the ethical question around people not being aware of their obsessions/addictions (especially in the mobile gaming space)
There's also the ethical question around people not being aware of their obsessions/addictions (especially in the mobile gaming space)
One suggestion for people who ask if there is a better way than cutting yourself off from social networks:
Try to practice "memory walk meditation" - I made up the word to combine two things I have learnt about, essentially to combat distraction. (And I have been generally successful - but I also don't need it a whole lot)
Next time you read a book, or just anything you feel would be good to remember - take the key points and associate them with objects in the room that you spend the most time in, or where you usually sit/stand when you interact on the social network. If you are completely unfamiliar with the field of memory training, I recommend picking up some old copy of any book written by Harry Lorayne to learn how people usually commit things to memory when doing memory training. (For example, creating outrageous and vivid images is key to retrieval. Learning the major system will help memorize arbitrary numbers)
The actual memory walk meditation consists of traversing those objects first physically, then eventually mentally in a certain order - as you approach the object, use the image to retrieve the concept/idea associated with it. Hopefully you can identify at least 10 or so objects in your room.
After a while, it becomes a bit (too) easy. Read another book, do it for something else you wish to learn.
The point is, it is easier to move away from a bad habit like too much FB by building something else that you look forward to than using denial.
A very nice advantage of this technique is that you can decide, for example, that you will at least go around the room (mentally) once before logging in to the social network, and increase it to two, three etc. So you can slowly build up your resistance, so to speak. A second advantage is that since the objects are usually right in front of your eyes, it gives you triggers all over the environment to help you build the habit.
Try to practice "memory walk meditation" - I made up the word to combine two things I have learnt about, essentially to combat distraction. (And I have been generally successful - but I also don't need it a whole lot)
Next time you read a book, or just anything you feel would be good to remember - take the key points and associate them with objects in the room that you spend the most time in, or where you usually sit/stand when you interact on the social network. If you are completely unfamiliar with the field of memory training, I recommend picking up some old copy of any book written by Harry Lorayne to learn how people usually commit things to memory when doing memory training. (For example, creating outrageous and vivid images is key to retrieval. Learning the major system will help memorize arbitrary numbers)
The actual memory walk meditation consists of traversing those objects first physically, then eventually mentally in a certain order - as you approach the object, use the image to retrieve the concept/idea associated with it. Hopefully you can identify at least 10 or so objects in your room.
After a while, it becomes a bit (too) easy. Read another book, do it for something else you wish to learn.
The point is, it is easier to move away from a bad habit like too much FB by building something else that you look forward to than using denial.
A very nice advantage of this technique is that you can decide, for example, that you will at least go around the room (mentally) once before logging in to the social network, and increase it to two, three etc. So you can slowly build up your resistance, so to speak. A second advantage is that since the objects are usually right in front of your eyes, it gives you triggers all over the environment to help you build the habit.
I'm considering writing a plugin which, much like an ad-blocker, removes click bait links. There would be various black lists one could use. Any feedback on implementation appreciated.
My thinking is leaning toward a few concepts:
* Quantified content utilisation. I've been looking at measures of just how much content people can engage with in a day, and it's much smaller than you might think. Stephen Wolfram and Walt Mossberg both hit about 150 - 300 emails. The NY Times comment moderation crew tackle about 800 comments each per day. That latter means 36 seconds per comment, assuming an 8-hour day. At some point, your brain simply becomes full. I suspect a much smaller number of detailed items, and a small number (10-30) medium, and perhaps 100 or so trivial items, is about the sane limit.
* A quality metric for content, based on some finite, depletable, periodically renewed resource. "Time" might be one such metric (you've only got 86,400 seconds today, but you'll have more tomorrow!). I have a 5-6 point ranking of content, from '0' (actually makes you stupid for having read it) to 5/6 (defines a field, 6 == extends it). Most news articles fall in the 1-2 range, a good news article perhaps 3, a solid technical paper a 3-4. Key is to not assign everything a top-of-the-scale range.
* Assignment of reputations to sources based on those ratings. Both authors and publishers.
Increasingly, I'm simply adding clickbait sites to my firewall's blocklist.
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/wgtaltzorrurzat3wf-lwa
Iwould very much prrefer to have that capacity on my tablet itself (Google and Samsung say I cannot, fuck 'em, fuck 'em hard), or in some brwoser-like tool (really a next-gen browser).
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/ubkidr7yuc7azg9hdnl7lq
* Quantified content utilisation. I've been looking at measures of just how much content people can engage with in a day, and it's much smaller than you might think. Stephen Wolfram and Walt Mossberg both hit about 150 - 300 emails. The NY Times comment moderation crew tackle about 800 comments each per day. That latter means 36 seconds per comment, assuming an 8-hour day. At some point, your brain simply becomes full. I suspect a much smaller number of detailed items, and a small number (10-30) medium, and perhaps 100 or so trivial items, is about the sane limit.
* A quality metric for content, based on some finite, depletable, periodically renewed resource. "Time" might be one such metric (you've only got 86,400 seconds today, but you'll have more tomorrow!). I have a 5-6 point ranking of content, from '0' (actually makes you stupid for having read it) to 5/6 (defines a field, 6 == extends it). Most news articles fall in the 1-2 range, a good news article perhaps 3, a solid technical paper a 3-4. Key is to not assign everything a top-of-the-scale range.
* Assignment of reputations to sources based on those ratings. Both authors and publishers.
Increasingly, I'm simply adding clickbait sites to my firewall's blocklist.
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/wgtaltzorrurzat3wf-lwa
Iwould very much prrefer to have that capacity on my tablet itself (Google and Samsung say I cannot, fuck 'em, fuck 'em hard), or in some brwoser-like tool (really a next-gen browser).
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/ubkidr7yuc7azg9hdnl7lq
Would be interesting to see whether this would cause a retreat to "honest" titles, or an evolution to something completely different.
reminds me of the poem "The World is Too Much With Us", by William Wadsworth:
>The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;—
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. Great God! I’d rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.
>The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;—
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. Great God! I’d rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.
Just wait until machine learning gets really good at providing information that's of value that you "must have" to get through the day.
This service does a rather good job of summarising individual articles:
http://smmry.com/
http://smmry.com/
I'm not sure nxzero (and I) think that is a good thing.
I got the impression that nxzero thought it was a good thing. Filtering out the signal from the noise.
There are two value judgements in there: that there is a such thing as "must have" information that could be provided by such technology, and that a technology's ability to provide that information means it's getting "good."
The best thing I found to combat this is make distraction difficult. To that end, the best two things I did was write an FF plugin to hide FB's news feed and removed the News feed from my iPhone. Now I actually have to type a URL if I want distraction, which becomes something of a deterrent.
I see his point and used to read his blog. But could he have been just as effective online while scheduling in a real life? That is, he could have achieved as much or more with some measure of balance. Easier said than done.
I'm not saying I have a life but I'm hoping to get one real soon now.
I'm not saying I have a life but I'm hoping to get one real soon now.
> But could he have been just as effective online while scheduling in a real life? That is, he could have achieved as much or more with some measure of balance.
I'd like to believe it's possible, but I think he had to accept the fact that, he didn't know how. Maybe he'll figure it out, now that he has some more free time?
I'd like to believe it's possible, but I think he had to accept the fact that, he didn't know how. Maybe he'll figure it out, now that he has some more free time?
Gossip + Random Rewards = Addiction
This article could have been called "here's all the thoughts I have after watching anime for the first time"
eanzenberg(2)
> I couldn’t check my email or refresh my Instagram
> ... trying to describe what I was feeling. The two words “extreme suffering” won the naming contest in my head...
> ... trying to describe what I was feeling. The two words “extreme suffering” won the naming contest in my head...
The "extreme suffering" was in relation to his emotional crisis, not because he was unable to use his phone.
Hyperbole makes a point weaker, not stronger.
And judging someone's self-described suffering as hyperbole misses the point altogether.
Wow you took that out of context.
First, I don't use any devices directly after waking up. I meditate for about 20 minutes upon waking and then try to read fiction for 40 minutes. So, all in, somewhere around an hour of no device distractions before starting my day.
Slack is one of the biggest interrupting factors while coding these days, more so than IRC ever was for me, so I try to have chunks of time during the day with it closed. This is something I've struggled with recently as co-workers always expect to be able to get in touch, but often I really need 30-60 minutes of uninterrupted focus for real tasks.
For personal things, I deleted Facebook and feel quite a bit better. I still scroll Instagram too much. I deleted the Twitter app from my phone and will only check it from time to time on the web. I try to turn on Do Not Disturb mode in the evenings, but it's hard when you have systems that potentially could go down and things could get escalated to you.
On top of that I try to take psychedelics a few times per year, not in any type of party settings, but with people that are close to me. Screens tend to turn up this feeling of disgust when I look at them in that state, so I automatically disengage with them. I find that for at least a short while after the trip my usage of distracting Internet things goes down a lot as well.
Interested to hear other strategies!