By likening social media use to addiction, only the negative effects are highlighted. For example, the waiting line in the supermarket used to be full of aggression, it has become much calmer with phones, and some people might even revert to alcohol or other destructive habits when they feel uncomfortable with being alone. In some cases, distraction can even be beneficial, as playing Tetris reduces PTSD and flashbacks. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tetris-shown-to-l...
Perhaps a better metaphor might be travelling: When I travel too often and move aroung all the time, there is a certain "up in the air" - emptyness - it feels as if I don't ever arrive anywhere, and I spend far too much time in airports and in transit. When I travel less often, it is easier to enjoy the ride and the experience has a positive impact.
> When I travel too often and move around all the time, there is a certain "up in the air" - emptyness - it feels as if I don't ever arrive anywhere, and I spend far too much time in airports and in transit.
I've absolutely had this. The whole world starts to feel unreal and I start to feel disconnected from everything. It really messes with my head.
What?
Grocery lines used to be people reading magazines/tabloids/tv guides or sending their kid to go get something they forgot, now it's people yacking loudly on their phone or playing candy crush waiting for the person in front of them to finish self checkout.
Not sure what was the point both you and OP were trying to make.
Once I even saw someone watching a basketball highlights video on YouTube during a live basketball game.
Too much novelty too often becomes hard to cope with, too little is too drab.
I still use the phone as distraction, but now I do it with the Kindle app. I keep my phone Kindle loaded with books I can read in short bursts without extended concentration (currently about to finish the financial planning book I Will Teach You to Be Rich, by Ramit Sethi), and carry my regular Kindle around for books that require more engagement.
I already avoided video games; I've done so for years, because I recognized that I have an addiction problem. When it comes to videogames, I'm like an alcoholic that doesn't drink for fear of the consequences. What I didn't realize is how carefully crafted the addictions of Facebook and Twitter are, how they sucked me in worse than video games ever did.
I have a long ways to go to fully engage with the world again, but I'm getting better.
Even though I ended up being a partially failed case for using this book, I still got value from it. I mostly did the thirty day digital detox but ended up going back almost to my old routine. The difference is that I have perhaps reduced wasted time on my devices by about 1/3. I am more aware of how much time I am spending, while I am spending it reading Twitter, HN, or playing Chess or Go when I have short periods of non-busy time. I am considering removing Chess and Go apps from all my devices.
If you are going to read just one Cal Newport book, I recommend choosing Deep Work.
Besides unsound fundamentals (relying too much "third party stories", and other issues noted elsewhere), he focuses too much on "quantity" and "productivity" than on quality and effectiveness.
Sure, he has something of value to say, but he should absolutely have compressed it into one book, and avoid the filler content. But my (uncharitable?) conjecture is, as he values "productivity", he happily gives into the demand of publishers to have X number of pages in a book, to sell, lest it looks like a pamphlet.
I remember reading something about geniuses and high performance individuals, and of course examples were about sports. Because everybody understands sports and the book was for everybody. I wanted to read about workings of the minds of best mathematicians or professionals in intellectuals fields, like engineering, programming, businessman. As I was reading I felt physically ill, until I closed the book, yelled as loud as I can "BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH" and made a cup of coffee for myself. I realized that most of the books I wanted to read were fluff written for the publishers and editors. Not for me. I can get the idea from the title, description, table of contents, and maybe a few Amazon reviews.
I notice the same thing with technical books. Sections about history, long winded explanations of what is going to be taught paired with long conclusions. Recaps. I can't tell you how many times I've read history of Linux, and I can't remember anything about it: these mad diagrams of standards, what came from where, and how it was improved, extended and replaced by something else. I wanted to read a book on algorithms, a free one, it had very warm reception on HN[0], and guess what? It starts out with history of numbers. With detailed names of people who came up with ideas, of places, and even pictures. I hate these forms of introduction. But the book still seems to be good. I can recognize whether a book is "heavy" or "light". Heavy books often have exercises, they start fast, and go deep. Light books just can't get to the fucking point.
Heavy book: Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective Light book: Practical Object-Oriented Design in Ruby: An Agile Primer
[1] largest advantage is getting to meet and get to know really interesting people. I enjoy writing but being an author also opens up a lot of opportunities.
His formula is to take 50 paperback-size pages worth of good material from his blog posts, and then assemble 250 additional pages of fluff to surround the central thesis and actionable tips.
I don't want to single him out, and this is the MO of most productivity/self-help books, but it's especially noticeable on his, as he's quite distinct from a self-help guru or the ex-CEO types that tend to write books like these.
The 'fluff' was all the examples, and unlike many other writers (Ryan Holiday and Robert Greene are particularly bad for this) he goes in-depth in his examples and references them going forward too. They're well thought out examples and not throw away anecdotes. Sure you could get the basic content from his blog but I genuinely think the books are better as they highlight the theory through good use cases. I also enjoy his deliberately provocative style, it's like a toned down MMM. That might not be for everyone but I find it entertaining.
Maybe he should offer a snail mail subscription to his blog?
I did have a slip and started using Facebook again recently, but a two day bout of people I think of as allies being profoundly and loudly wrong on the Internet got me right back off it. Once you recognize the patterns, it's almost self-reinforcing to stay away.
I feel bad for people older than me that never got adjusted to the smartphones when they have to wait staring blankly into space or trying to start up a monologue to random stangers because they can't stand how dull the inside of their head is. Before smartphones your only salvation was a book and it was limited tool also not for everyone.
Smartphone as entertainment devices are the greatest social invention so far.
That works for first few years of life.
> She does that to not be bored.
Exactly. But at age 7 or 9 she'll have most of the things figured out and when you place hear in novelty lacking, restricted environment like at or near the table adults are eating and talking about same things seemingly forever you'll see her suffer. I hope you'll notice and help her find entertainment.
There was a saying that intelligent people are never bored. Untrue. I have IQ over 150 and boredom brought me to tears more than once.
I'd read to kill it, i'd play solitaire with real cards, I'd play one player games with pen and paper.
Now when I'm older I can handle being bored much better. As I accumulated scars I can reminiscence on how effed my life is and daydream of pleasure. Buy I still prefer my phone wherever it's socially acceptable.
Something for people that lack all of: personal life, friends, interests, goals, and curiosity.
Looks like you have it backwards. You should feel sorry for them for how "dull the inside of their head is" -- not for not being used to having smartphones to compensate.
But I feel sorry to see them suffer while they might have not if they were able to use smartphone for entertainment.
You can get a lot more bored if you're used to be entertained the whole time.
I can only tell from my own personal experience, that reducing entertainment also influences my consciousness, that I'm feeling less easily bored and I'm better able to just enjoy and see the beauty of my surroundings.
I gained a ton after sitting through family dinners at my SO parents and grand parents. Initially I was bored out of my mind. Gradually I adapted and suffered less and less.
But I don't see it as something positive. I feel like it broke my mind in some way. It replaced frantically struggling against boredom with nearly catathonic apathy.
It feels more like a learned helplessness than improvement.
If you are in the rain for few minutes you are running and hiding. If you are in the rain for few hours you can no longer give a fuck as your feet melt in swampy shoes.
Many articles portrait boredom too much as being good instead portraying it like the necessary rest you need between work outs.
Allowing yourself to get bored is good but you should understand why and what's a good/bad way to stop being bored.
I find modern computing to be filled with stress and anxiety. Computers, at one time, used to sit idle until used. Using a computer was to use a tool to help you get some task done that was previously menial and boring. These days as soon as I sit down at a computer I start getting messages, advertisements, pleas, bargains, warnings, requests... it seems like it never ends. I sit down to get some work done and an hour later I've finally managed to get enough of the messages down and distractions over with that I've nearly forgotten what it was I intended to do in the first place.
And this experience has been following me in my pocket for more than a decade. Since 2008 or so it has been getting louder, more obnoxious, and demanding. Offers for new phones and data plans when I'm trying to bathe my kids vibrate in my pocket waiting to be heard. Advertisements tailored to my interests and desires follow me everywhere. Messages from people trying to contact me whenever the whim comes to them. There is little room for silence in my days anymore.
I have a dream inspired by the folks behind http://screenl.es/ -- a version of computing where there screens are not the primary interface for computing. One that is diverse, invisible, and intentional. I'd like a version of computing that is controlled by me and bends around my needs and not the needs of product designers, advertisers, and whims of others.
Until I can realize that dream or someone else gets it done I think I'm going to continue my trend of cutting out as much technology from my life as possible. I need more silence, solitude, and intentional, meaningful interactions. I don't want a deluge of social opinion on every happening in the world aimed right at my brain.
Should we thank the geniuses who designed phones with amplified speakers and no headphone jack (some people are too poor/cheap for Bluetooth I suspect)? Or do we thank Facecrook and Instascam for out-loud videos cranked up at a higher volume on Android?
Or a breakdown of norms due to being a permissive, some call freer society?
Whatever it is, it's a quality of life detriment for those of us in dense areas, and a personal pet peeve.
What's new is that it's coming out of a tiny phone rather than a 12 D-cell powered boom box.
And that makes all the difference. You cannot possibly compare the number of times you would be bothered by a boom box in the 90s in public transport, for example, and how frequent it is now to be bothered by other people's phones on the exact same circumstances. Let's get real.
Seems like less about tech minimalism being the key and more, learning how to have self control. I am not knocking that, I believe that if you do not have the self control to manage a habit than you should remove that habit if it is a detriment. Nonetheless, the article, IMHO, is off the mark.
It is promoting the author and his book, because that's how he makes a living and feeds his family.
You get a bit of value from the post, you are exposed to the author, and perhaps in exchange you will buy his other work and give him and his publisher some money.
And this or that technical post is an advert for the company whose devs wrote it.
It is good to strive to do worthwhile things. The worthless things you do to fill your time are not preventing you from doing anything else. You do what you do...
There was the occasional eat-your-life-for-weeks-on-end game but they tended to be confined to genres like 4x and RPGs (Ultima series, say) and you didn't see multiple high-quality works of that sort every single year. The other big exception was probably MUDs and other games where social, online multiplayer was a major component.
I think a combo of 1) refining and focusing games to drive "engagement", 2) games just getting better over time, in a lot of ways, 3) multiplayer and social elements becoming more common, and 4) digital distribution putting unlimited novelty at one's fingertips, has made the whole artform kinda scary, unless you stick strictly to shortish, tight single-player games. Or local multiplayer, I guess, since it's hard to binge that until 3AM on a regular basis, for obvious reasons. Leveling concepts, lengthy turn-based games, randomness of rewards, and online/social components are all especially dangerous.
Actually point 4 goes for most things, now. It's kinda too fast & easy to get... well, almost everything. I think there's a reason an unfettered will and easy gratification aren't usually things depicted as improving characters in fiction, for example, and often do the opposite.
