
Era of Distraction - zkanda
http://www.raymundtamayo.com/2014/09/era-of-distraction.html
======
Animats
That reads like a rant from the 1950s. People have been complaining about that
since the introduction of television. Before television, entertainment was a
scarce resource. After television, anyone with a receiver could obtain more
entertainment than they could consume.

About a dozen years ago, ABC, the TV network, had a promotion to the industry
with banners around the Hollywood area. One on Wilshire near Beverly Hills
said "All we ask is five hours a day". That refers to the average TV viewing
time of Americans. That number has dropped since, much to the annoyance of the
TV networks.

We may have passed peak cell phone overuse. I see fewer people walking around
while looking at their little screen. It's been several years now since
someone walked into me while looking at a screen; in the early days of
smartphones, that happened often in stores. I'm no longer seeing people on the
California Coastal Trail watching little screens. Society seems to be dealing
with this.

~~~
nosuchthing
Funny that the plea is for 5 hours of TV consumption rather than 5 hours of
labor per day.

------
thegainz
I've recently given up a big temptation/distractor in my life. I packed up my
gaming desktop and gave it away, and now I just use my laptop which I long ago
set aside as school-only. This thing couldn't even play games if I wanted to,
but it CAN ssh and compile code.

I mean, after 9.5 years of playing DotA, what's the point? My grades have
improved and I'm overall happier as I invest more time learning skills that I
truly want to gain, all while traveling lighter.

I think I hit a breaking point when I was living in my last apartment. I had
too much junk around that I didn't want, need, or use. And because there was
enough of it, I didn't have a real place for anything and didn't feel like
cleaning it. My apartment wasn't dirty, but it was perennially untidy. I did
not like that at all.

~~~
eterm
Good for you. I'm often tempted to do the same, I still play 2-3 hours a day
of PC games most nights after work. It isn't healthy but then if I didn't I
suspect I'd binge on netflix or even just regular TV instead. I think
eventually I'll grow out of it and do more reading, cooking and other
activities, but it'll take a decision on my part to make that happen.

~~~
jerf
I find I have about an hour before bed where I really _shouldn 't_ be trying
to be productive (because if I keep coding or whatever, it'll actually prevent
me from sleeping), where some nice video games or some passively-consumed
video content can be slotted in guilt-free.

Now, I'm not saying that's the _only_ time I relax, because that would be a
lie. But it is a time that at least speaking for myself, I _have_ to relax or
I can't sleep.

------
dopeboy
I don't think the author should be using the "we" pronoun. He's welcome to
talk about himself but it's a step too far in generalizing that everyone has
those behaviors and tendencies.

Second, he needs to take a deep breath and relax. There is a balance that can
be achieved through focus and discipline. How about changing the discussion to
educating parents on these distractions and nipping the false sense of anxiety
at the bud? How about having a psychology class in high school that confronts
these desires and shows how artificial they really are?

~~~
ickwabe
As indicated at the bottom of the article, this is only the first chapter of a
book in which he does offer solutions and strategies.
[http://www.raymundtamayo.com/p/simplify-life-and-make-it-
cou...](http://www.raymundtamayo.com/p/simplify-life-and-make-it-count.html)

Regarding use of "we". Clearly (at least to me) he is referring to societal
trends that are fairly common. Not a specific groups of "we"s. So clearly
there are plenty of folks who are not effected by these challenges. It's
fairly pendantic to get hung up on this word.

------
Htsthbjig
I think the author uses the term "we" when he should talk about himself.

He presents distraction as an insurmountable problem, and it is not. Society
develops antibodies for everything, including novelties in the later century
like propaganda and media mass control, advertisement and even TV.

As tools things like cinema, TV or Internet, or cell phones give us much more
options that what is taken from us.

For example, going to the cinema for two hours made people understand places
and people living far away much better than any book theater or picture could.

Now if you want to solve distraction finding people that have solved it and
developed effective techniques is only a touch away, if you really want to
solve it instead of ranting about "we sinners" on Internet.

Having said that "Man shall not live on bread alone". Some distraction in your
life is necessary. People are not productivity machines. Curiosity is Ok. I
"lost" time on HN, but I always "gain" from things I learn on it. I have
cashed lots of money from this knowledge but hadn't I, I will continue reading
it.

Using twitter or facebook for getting in touch with the people you love does
not need to take so much time and could be very useful.

------
habitue
I would say the author's point about buying things and distraction from being
connected is pretty weak. There's actually a tension there: why buy other
stuff when you only ever interact with your phone?

You can be a complete minimalist, live in a house with nothing in it, and just
lay on the floor in the dark surfing the internet on your phone, chatting with
friends on facebook etc, and all of the problems the author complains about
will still exist.

~~~
sarreph
I agree. The link/extrapolation here to general consumerism is tenuous at
best.

~~~
HenryTheHorse
There is a very real problem of people not being aware of their impulse to
buy. In fact, it's the foundation for all advertising: plant messages in the
buyer's mind well before the buying occurs.

I know that sounds Manchurian Candidate-ish but that's the nature of Marketing
and Advertising.

So perhaps the author is not entirely wrong in positing that distraction is,
in a way, fueling meaningless purchases?

~~~
habitue
It's certainly possible, but if true, its in spite of our tendency to have one
device we use all the time, not directly because of it

~~~
HenryTheHorse
You bet. People have been making questionable purchasing decisions for a LONG
time. To blame it ALL on a smartphone or some other distraction is a bit
simplistic.

------
LiweiZ
Focus is a more valuable trait in this era. We spoil our mouth and stomach
first. And it's mind's turn. Information diet might be a solution for most
information consumers.

------
JadeNB
> I don’t want to offend anyone, and I’m saying this with absolute care and
> humility… but if only they hadn’t had that much stuff then they would have
> had an easier time evacuating their homes and focusing on making sure their
> families are safe.

I've never understood these "I'm not a racist, but"-type comments. This _is_
offensive, and does _not_ demonstrate care and humility. Someone who learns
from such a tragedy principally that others shouldn't have so much stuff is, I
think, learning the wrong lesson.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean that I don't understand the _purpose_ of the
disclaimer, but rather that, if not always then at least in a modern
rhetorical environment, it seems like a poor way of achieving its goal. For
example, if the author correctly recognises that his statement sounds
offensive, and absent care and humility, why not explain why he thinks that
perception is incorrect, rather than trying simply to deny it by _fiat_?

~~~
ggreer
From Scott Alexander's post, _The Eighth Meditation on Superweapons and Bingo_
[1]:

> But why would someone use "I'm not racist, but..."? It sounds to me like
> what they are saying is: "Look. I know what I am saying is going to sound
> racist to you. You're going to jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist and
> not hear me out. In fact, maybe you've been trained to assume that the only
> reason anyone could possibly assert it is racism and to pattern-match this
> position to a racist straw man version. But I actually have a non-racist
> reason for saying it. Please please _please_ for the love of Truth and
> Beauty just this one time throw away your prejudgments and your Bingo card
> and just listen to what I'm going to say with an open mind."

> And so you reply "Hahahaha! He really used the 'look I know what I'm saying
> is going to sound racist to you you're going to jump to the conclusion that
> I'm a racist and not hear me out in fact maybe you've been trained to
> assume...' line! What a racist! Point and laugh, everyone! POINT AND LAUGH!"

Poor reactions to such disclaimers have gotten so bad that I'm now seeing
disclaimers referencing that fact. "I know racists say, 'I'm not racist
but...', but in this case..."

Most often, people who use such disclaimers really aren't racist. Or if they
are, it's by accidental ignorance, not purposeful maliciousness. In any case,
it's more productive to respond with civil discourse rather than claiming
offense and biting their head off.

1\.
[http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html](http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html)

~~~
JadeNB
> Most often, people who use such disclaimers really aren't racist. Or if they
> are, it's by accidental ignorance, not purposeful maliciousness. In any
> case, it's more productive to respond with civil discourse rather than
> claiming offense and biting their head off.

I don't believe that I bit anyone's head off (but maybe you weren't claiming
that I did).

As for a claim of _accidental_ ignorance, I don't buy it _in the context of_
the "I'm not racist, but …" disclaimer. If you are aware enough of how you
sound to say that, then it seems too much to claim that any actual racism is
accidental.

In fact, what I meant to say here was _not_ that racist-sounding remarks are
always racist and should never be heard, but rather that someone who wants to
say something that sounds racist, but that he thinks isn't, had better
_explain_ why it isn't rather than just _asserting_ that it isn't.

------
arh68
Have any of you seen this television ad?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4GjGhAhCn8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4GjGhAhCn8)

 _Cox is the official sponsor of binge-watching._

Addiction sells (see _Phillip Morris_ ). The wonderful thing about selling
_Internet_ is that you don't create the content, you just provide access to
it. As content gets larger and larger (320x240 -> 4K streams..) so do profits.
It's bizarre to me how blatantly they want their users to be helplessly
addicted.

I think the author is right about tangible things ("stuff") but could spend
more time pointing out the intangible addictions: 1000+ RSS feed items to
read, 100+ TV episodes to catch up on, 10+ news aggregators to check, 100+ new
PNGs to arrow through, etc. These things don't pile up quite so visibly.

------
chipsy
I think I'll take his advice and not buy the book, cause I don't need more
stuff(even digital stuff).

------
zkanda
The first half of the article is a genuine problem. There's just so much
distraction going on right now, I wonder how people are being productive.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I know HN sure isn't helping me be productive from minute to minute! I'm
checking it compulsively for new posts. Hopefully its teaching me enough to
compensate...

~~~
eterm
When I'm busy at work I turn on "noprocrast" mode. I still open hn all the
time but the "get back to work!" message helps me close it quicker.

------
l33tbro
My favorite part of being a human is that I get to decide what stresses me,
what makes me anxious, etc. So I make interacting with technology about me
deciding how much I want to engage. Phones have silent. You can turn off email
notifications pretty easy. You can turn it off on nights and weekends (I can't
recommend this highly enough if you are in a position to do so).

Sure, I get peeved with folk obsessing over their phone's Instagrat feed. But
then I remember that it's their life, their choice, and who am I to think it's
inherently wrong?

I also couldn't help but think of this Louis CK bit the whole time reading
this: [https://vimeo.com/69662330](https://vimeo.com/69662330)

------
thanatropism
The ideas in this article:

1\. Contain a grain of truth 2\. Might be better understood by reading
Csikszentmihalyi (or Heidegger, for that matter) 3\. Come in sets of three

------
colund
People should be masters over the technology, not the other way around. It's
important to feel in charge and to retain the right to freedom of choice. Too
many people are too worried not to keep up with everything new and shiny. But
many people don't care and go their own way...

------
johnchristopher
> In fact, it leads to deeper debt and needing bigger houses to contain all
> this meaningless stuff.

> It also becomes a cause of unnecessary stress, as it will take your precious
> money, time, emotion, attention, and effort to take care all of this stuff.

> The recent massive flooding here in Olongapo City is a testament to that.
> Visiting houses of families ravaged by the flood, I was reminded by how too
> much stuff is not a luxury – it’s actually a burden, a liability.

I am not rich. I am poor. The few possessions I have, that you might think are
cluttering my rented apartment, I hold to them because I can't afford to
replace them. Too many chairs in my living room, too many different knives in
the kitchen drawer. I don't have a TV though. But I won't ditch my mp3
collection burned on CDs because I can't afford to listen to it on Deezer. I
wish I could go on holidays with only my iPhone and my sennheiser headphone
and just buy what I need on the spot. I'll drop some karma points to say this:
"Fuck you".

------
lurkinggrue
TL;DR

