
How the Internet hurts your sleep schedule, productivity and personal life - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/22/heres-how-much-the-internet-hurts-your-sleep-schedule-productivity-and-personal-life/
======
tokenizer
Could be titled, "How [thing] hurts your [other things]".

Of course a newer, more utilized tool eats into your other activities that
don't revolve around that tool.

Less time spent driving to the store, walking around the store, and purchasing
the items, and driving back home? More time spent on Amazon.com?!?!

What about less time spent socializing offline, but more time spent playing
MMOS?

IMO this is all about one major sociological/technological device eating into
our other habits. Depending on the person, it could eat into bad habits, or
good ones.

They mentioned 2.7 minutes less working, but what about the productivity gains
_from_ the internet?

~~~
Karunamon
Indeed. This article seems like they started with a premise, and then got the
data to support that premise. (I.e. the completely wrong way to go about any
kind of data collection).

~~~
bgilroy26
This is a puzzling comment. Every hypothesis is a premise.

Every schoolchild in America is told experiments begin with hypotheses.

Granted that isn't how things work in the real world, but it isn't
categorically untrue either.

~~~
jclos
I think the point of the parent comment is that they went looking for data
that supported their hypothesis, instead of the more accepted form of
formulating a null hypothesis and defeating it with data and statistics (which
is not bulletproof in itself).

~~~
Karunamon
Exactly. Basically research conducted in this way has a real confirmation bias
problem.

~~~
Zancarius
The argument the article attempts to make seems a touch knee-jerk to me and
slightly absurd, as if to ignore the immense benefits the Internet has given
us, so I really like where this thread of your doing (and what tokenizer
started) has gone.

The thing is though, some of these are ridiculous. 9.6 fewer seconds at
parties? 6 fewer seconds at cultural events/institutions? Well, I don't party
for one (it's a waste of time, and I'm an introvert), and what is a "cultural
event/institution?" There's few museums near here, the university theater has
few interesting plays, and I likely wouldn't go to them anyway. Maybe I'm
lacking an adequate amount of culture, but the only museums that really tickle
me in my happy spot are air and space museums (with a few notable others
touching on such subjects as archaeology or anthropology)...

As tokenizer pointed out at the top of this thread, less time shopping doesn't
imply people aren't shopping. It could imply they're supplanting their
shopping with online shopping, which is often more convenient. Depending on
where you live, online stores might even have a better selection!

I can think of a few falsifications, borrowing from yourself, tokenizer, and
several others. 1) Instead of partying or socializing, some people are more
apt to replace that with playing games with friends online and using VoIP
clients (TeamSpeak, Skype, etc). 2) Instead of spending "other" leisure time
watching telelvision or the like, it's supplanted by browsing or gaming. 3)
Can you even prove that spending Internet-related time isn't someone's idea of
relaxing? Moreover, how do you quantify "relaxing?" Does the notion of what
constitutes relaxation change from person to person?

Personally, I'd personally rather if someone were to waste an evening reading
Wikipedia than watch television, so I'm not sure how one could quantify "36
fewer seconds on educational activities." This is doubly true for those who
use the Internet as a means to further their own interests (the article almost
implies they're mutually exclusive).

The other question is thus: Does it matter?

~~~
tokenizer
Great points. You summarized exactly what I felt when I read the article.
So...

> The other question is thus: Does it matter?

Absolutely not. Any, and I repeat, any of the __problems __encountered with a
computer or the internet, can easily be more attributable to the human
condition, and the way our civilization and organizations work. It 's the
exact same argument as guns don't kill people.

Lets take the title as an assertion, and see if holds any ground when asked as
a question. So the assertions are: "The internet hurts your sleep schedule,
productivity and personal life"

 _The internet hurts your sleep schedule?_

First of all, what's the internet? Is it a physical object? No it is not. Does
it force me to interact with it? No. People or myself may force me to use it
however. When I look into the science, it tells me that what really affects
your sleep, is bright lights close to your face. This actually seems like more
of a problem with display screens and is more of a criticism of our modern,
electrical society, which is fine. This doesn't mean that it's the Internet's
fault though.

 _The internet hurts your productivity?_

Hah. So where are we getting our data from? From before the internet was
invented? Yes? Well No. Actually the data is more about what a time sink on
average, certain services are _on_ the internet. Again, what's the internet??
Unfortunately people use whatever definition suits them. Again, all I'll say
is the problems are most likely born from personal or social pressures or
vices or defects, and while I may agree to more accurate phrase (Facebook
hurts your productivity), the internet is where I and many others make their
living everyday. To generalize it as unproductive is just incorrect.

 _The internet hurts your personal life?_

If you let it hurt your personal life, or you let someone use the internet,
and that person hurts your personal life, then I guess you could argue a more
exacting phrase (My naked photos being on the internet hurts my personal
life). But then again, with such a general definition of internet, then a fair
retort is the evidence we have of people's personal lives being improved
everyday because of the internet. Girl dying of cancer? Reddit donates to her
in a caring creative way. Veteran needs some love on their B-day? /b/ from
4chan has over 10 people attend and give the man company. The internet is
keeping you single because of anime and porn? The internet got this guy a girl
friend and a job in Cologne.

It's like your said earlier: Does it matter? No. Because people are different,
technology is agnostic to our anthropomorphism, and all of our problems stem
from humans, human groups, or human civilization.

------
mbesto
And thus furthering the internet's arms war for grabbing people's attention.

I see this playing out two ways:

1\. The "productivity" apps will continue to grow as more people become less
productive. (the tools aren't lacking, but their attention spans are) We'll
continue to see to-do list apps, CRM apps, and project management tools rolled
out week after week.

2\. Internet based companies (everything from publishers to web apps) will
have to increasingly find more ways to ensure user engagement. This means more
email notifications, more smartphone notifications, more SMS's, and more ways
of people trying to annoy you.

~~~
onedev
#2 is what's killing me, so these past few weeks I've deactivated all social
network services (Facebook, Twitter, etc), deleted all of those apps off my
phone, and the result has been refreshing. I feel so....free...my mind is more
clear and more able to focus. Sure the messaging situation is a bit broken up
right now (a mix of iMessage, SMS, and Hangouts, whereas before I only used
FB), but I don't even mind.

We'll see how long it lasts before I feel the need to switch them all back on,
but so far I haven't been missing them one bit! I might just give them up for
good because I really do feel great not having to check up on my
Twitter/Fb/etc. I'm no longer being pummeled with a sea of content that I then
inadvertently consume. I spend more time looking around my environment in my
moments of free time (like when standing in line) instead of automatically
opening up Fb or Twitter like a cruel nervous twitch.

The only social network app that I kept is Instagram because I like taking
pictures a lot and Instagram is just fun for that purpose :) Plus it doesn't
notify me too much or require too much of my attention even when it does.

~~~
Dewie
Neat! Lately I've been trying to just ponder, soak in the moment or just do
nothing if I'm waiting in line or something, rather than reach for my smart
phone. But the biggest timesink for me is my laptop, or rather my Internet
powered laptop. I remember when I didn't have WiFi (or was it electricity...)
in my apartment. I thought I would be bored to tears, but it was actually a
nice change of pace. Definitely more serene. Now I just need to find some self
discipline and use the Web less, or maybe turn it off completely, and when I
do use the laptop to be less obsessive with Facebook, email etc.

------
DenisM
For a very detailed take on the subject I suggest "The Shallows: What the
Internet Is Doing to Our Brains" by Nicholas Carr.

A notable fact about this book is that 20% of the entire volume are references
to various scientific studies used throughout the text to substantiate the
author's position. It's not a fluff piece.

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393339750](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393339750)

------
Segmentation
Does this sound like you?

Wake up in the morning. You have about an hour to prepare and get to work.
While you're eating breakfast, you read Hacker News. Multi-tasking. Now you
have finished eating breakfast. Yet you're still reading Hacker News. You just
gotta finish those last few links. And maybe check up on your email. Then you
realize you've wasted minutes of an already tight schedule and you really got
to rush it to make it to work on time. You arrive maybe 5-15 minutes late and
a little flustered because you were racing.

Then you realize you could have just left the house quickly and read Hacker
News at work, on the clock. Yet you'll make the same mistake tomorrow.

~~~
gaius
Yes the reason the Internet is different is this: back in the day, older
people might have worried that youngster were spending too much time listening
to gramophone records instead of doing their chores, but the youngsters
themselves loved it. But we - supposedly the biggest fans of the Internet and
all it promised - are worrying about _ourselves_.

------
jeanjq
^hurts^changes

Headline says one thing; final paragraph says another: "Bottom line? The
Internet is quickly changing the way we allocate our time, but there’s no call
to panic yet. You might want to stop reading this thing on the Internet and
get back to work, though."

------
ghostfacedbat
I hope that the irony of this article being posted on the internet isn't lost
on anyone.

------
curiouslurker
Truly the dismal science, if this is the kind of thing that an economist can
engage in and have it considered serious scholarship!

------
blakesterz
Maybe this title should be more like... "How having internet access changes
the way people choose to spend their time". It's not like The Internet is
attacking people, we choose to do this.

~~~
DenisM
Well, crystal meth is not jumping out of its container to do a facehug either,
but we do talk about it ruining people's lives.

------
adultSwim
Synecdoche

------
Nux
We shall adapt. Or not. :)

------
a3voices
So? Even if it's true, you don't get a trophy at the end of your life for
being slightly more productive and having a better personal life. The Internet
also makes people more literate and understand the world better.

~~~
Sagat
Not necessarily. If like at least half of users you spend your time watching
videos, memes and your facebook feed, you aren't going to become more literate
or understand anything.

~~~
Zancarius
I would posit that those people are unlikely to be sufficiently motivated to
spend time learning or doing something more constructive anyway regardless of
the Internet and nothing is likely to change that. While the Internet has
certainly lowered the bar of entry with regards to "entertain me," it has done
the same to information access at large.

~~~
Sagat
There are a number of alarming studies (as some other poster said, take a look
at N. Carr's book) that show that screen time, especially in our formative
years can have dramatically negative effects on brain development. So it's
possible that some people who ended up zombified by the internet could
actually have had significant lives. There are plenty of people whose
otherwise adjusted lives have spiralled into failure due to drugs, so why
couldn't the same thing happen with other dopamine releasing activities? I
think the fact that people have literally died from screen overuse lends
credence to the idea that there is some danger to integrating computers in
every part of our lives and it's not necessarily our fault if we fall into the
depths of online time-wasting.

In any case, I don't really like the idea that those people would been useless
anyway as if it were in their nature to be unmotivated. Maybe I'm a bit naive
but I believe good nurture can offset much of the problems of nature.

~~~
Zancarius
> ...especially in our formative years can have dramatically negative effects
> on brain development.

I personally believe it is a parent's responsibility to monitor their children
and ensure that they have the best chance they can get at adequate cognitive
development, even if that means monitoring their use of "screen time."

When I was young (and no doubt many of you), it was cartoons. Now it's
Internet or game-related stuff.

> In any case, I don't really like the idea that those people would been
> useless anyway as if it were in their nature to be unmotivated.

I didn't suggest they're useless. I stated they were unmotivated and that such
lack of motivation is unlikely to change no matter what the distraction. 20
years ago, it might have been soap operas. Today it's the Internet. Removing
any distraction in particular for someone with a great deal if idle time who
is unlikely to be motivated to "learn" something isn't going to change their
motivation. That was essentially the crux of my point.

> I think the fact that people have literally died from screen overuse lends
> credence to the idea that there is some danger to integrating computers...

And what about those of us who use them daily with (seemingly) no ill effects,
because it's what we do for a living and for much of our hobbyist use? Of the
circumstances I'm aware of where people have died from sitting in front of a
computer too long, it's been due in part to video game abuse. Playing
StarCraft for 48+ hours in a single stretch without eating or drinking is the
sign of an addiction, not necessarily the fault of StarCraft itself.

I think this effectively boils down to the fact that the problem is not with
technology. The problem is with people.

------
Dewie
Hi. My name is Dewie, and I'm a Web addict. (but thanks to the obnoxious
follow-you-everywhere social media banner that also hovers above the text of
the article, I at least didn't indulge myself by reading this article)

