“You’ve been living in a dreamworld, Neo.” -Morpheus
Between this article and this software program I’m pretty bummed about the amount of life I still waste online, and I’m determined to fix it somehow. And yes, I do think it is wasteful in spite of the article being titled: “In Defense of Distraction”. I think the author’s defense is horribly weak, and I was left feeling like multi-tasking and social networking are eating up our conscious moments so rapidly that we’re left wondering what the hell happened to our lives much more quickly than other generations have…
“We keep an average of eight windows open on our computer screens at one time and skip between them every twenty seconds. When we read online, we hardly even read at all—our eyes run down the page in an F pattern, scanning for keywords. When you add up all the leaks from these constant little switches, soon you’re hemorrhaging a dangerous amount of mental power. People who frequently check their e-mail have tested as less intelligent than people who are actually high on marijuana. Meyer guesses that the damage will take decades to understand, let alone fix. If Einstein were alive today, he says, he’d probably be forced to multitask so relentlessly in the Swiss patent office that he’d never get a chance to work out the theory of relativity.”
“As B.?F. Skinner’s army of lever-pressing rats and pigeons taught us, the most irresistible reward schedule is not, counterintuitively, the one in which we’re rewarded constantly but something called “variable ratio schedule,” in which the rewards arrive at random. And that randomness is practically the Internet’s defining feature: It dispenses its never-ending little shots of positivity—a life-changing e-mail here, a funny YouTube video there—in gloriously unpredictable cycles. It seems unrealistic to expect people to spend all day clicking reward bars—searching the web, scanning the relevant blogs, checking e-mail to see if a co-worker has updated a project—and then just leave those distractions behind, as soon as they’re not strictly required, to engage in “healthy” things like books and ab crunches and undistracted deep conversations with neighbors. It would be like requiring employees to take a few hits of opium throughout the day, then being surprised when it becomes a problem.”
The entire article is very good, but I doubt you’d have the attention span to read the whole thing unless you do what I did. I had to print it out and take it to bed with me, and make sure my iPhone was downstairs so I wouldn’t try to touch it. That’s awful! Anyway, last year I did an experiment to see if I could live without the internet for one whole week. Even though I was successful, and learned a lot, I easily fell back into the trap. I think I might try the experiment again soon, but it will probably be harder since I have a smartphone addiction now too. And with two very little children to take care of, sometimes I just want the mindless distraction of the internet. But I am not content with this. I like challenges, and I’d like to see if I could unplug again, possibly for longer. Besides, I’m convinced now that single-tasking is the only way to get anything done well, but that’s another story. I shall ponder more. Any thoughts?
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
It always does me good to just sit down with a book and take the time to read it all the way through in a few sittings. Printing out an article and reading it off the paper is also a good thing, not a sad thing, as it does save your eyes from staring at a screen, at least.
And, of course, the kiddos will keep you in line… ;-)
As I said over at Folse’s:
“Books, art and music are still stimulus and people who cannot live without them are the same people who cannot live without their digital counterparts, either. Can you go to that cabin for one week without any reading, viewing or listening material, or spend hours in an isolation tank? That is the true test, not whether you can live without Facebook or your iPhone.”
@Maitri, I see your point, and agree when it comes to the escapism factor. Where I disagree is… when one is reading a paper book, watching TV, or listening to music it requires higher levels of focus than the internet does, and I think the article brings up a good point when it questions the impact on the brain after excess internet use.
I read books, science articles and formulas online, and write papers interactively. That requires a high level of focus. Conversely, reading People magazine in dead-tree form, watching America’s Next Top Bimbo or listening to Shania Twain doesn’t. I think we’re mixing up the content and how it’s brought to us. Then again, Marshall McLuhan has interesting things to say about that.
“…And with two very little children to take care of, sometimes I just want the mindless distraction of the internet…”
Yes, oh, yes.
“… But I am not content with this…”
And with that, you make me feel the same way. Thanks.
@Maitri, All that tells me is that you are very fortunate to be so relentlessly focused regardless of the medium, and I wish I could siphon some from you! I have strong willpower, but even I derail from time to time. Most people are not that focused, and easily cave into the internet’s format of interactive escapism (as opposed to TV/music/books’ one-way escapism). The “interactive” part is what addicts so many people, and it’s why even normally happy, intelligent, well-adjusted people can wind up glued to their “Crackberries” watching mindless YouTube clips when they’d have never watched an “America’s Top Model” marathon on TV. The internet is a psychological phenomenon, and it’s yet to be determined if it has been better or worse for us as a society in the long run. But I’m always interested in hearing new theories.
@Cold Spaghetti: I find a little planning for ‘selfish time’ goes a long way in keeping the internet monster at bay ;-)
- People who frequently check their e-mail have tested as less intelligent than people who are actually high on marijuana.
jesus….I must be the stupidest person on the planet. I get high and check my email all the time.
“The internet is a psychological phenomenon, and it’s yet to be determined if it has been better or worse for us as a society in the long run.”
Depends on whom you ask. Speaking on behalf of scientists, it has been very helpful in scientific research, sharing and collaboration.