
Cal Newport on Why We'll Look Back at Our Smartphones Like Cigarettes - dhh2106
https://www.gq.com/story/cal-newport-digital-minimalism
======
chrisweekly
Related tangent: Newport's book "Deep Work" is excellent.

It makes a strong case that deep work is increasingly rare, valuable, and
meaningful. But it goes way beyond the "what" and the "why", providing the
"how", in the form of specific, pragmatic, actionable guidance for achieving
just that. Anecdotally, it's been very helpful for me.

~~~
keiferski
This book follows the recent trend of: find obvious slightly un-talked-about
idea, create a fancy sounding term to describe it (preferably with as few
words as possible - one is best, like _Blink_ or _Outliers_.) These words
should be vague and have hundreds of meanings - 'work', 'deep', or 'source',
for example. Then, while you could summarize the idea in a single page, write
100+ pages framing the issue as a fundamental shift in one's perception.
Finally, go on a media tour to promote it.

~~~
kashyapc
Newport is on a 3-book contract[1] on more or less the same subject with
slightly different framing. So he's _obliged_ to drum-up attention about it.
Also as someone else pointed out in a different thread, Newport places too
much attention on "quantity"; it doesn't sit quite well with me.

Yes, his bigger point is entirely valid (and I appreciate him bringing it to
our attention), but no—there is not enough material to write _three_ damn
books. Take inspiration from Kahneman, he condensed his 40-year work (in
collaboration with Tversky) into _one_ book.

As I've noted on HN before, I'd much rather recommend the book by the
Hungarian psychologist, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's (or Prof. C): _Flow—the
psychology of optimal experience_

Prof. C has defined the idea of "flow" (he discusses it in various contexts,
including human well-being), and dedicated his entire _life_ to studying it.
IMHO, the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely high in this book—no wonder, it
was Prof. C's seminal work.

[1] [http://calnewport.com/about/](http://calnewport.com/about/)

~~~
blub
Does Prof. C also discuss the benefits of mixing focused time with
communication and idea exchange time? E.g: closed door work with open work
areas.

I encountered a similar idea in "The New Science of Building Great Teams" by
Alex Pentland, where the concept of exploration is introduced: "The best team
players also connect their teammates with one another and spread ideas around.
And they are appropriately exploratory, seeking ideas from outside the group
but not at the expense of group engagement".

~~~
kashyapc
Not quite. In my view, Prof. C's work is more fundamental in nature; he
doesn't _prescribe_ anything particular. But describes what works, based on
his observations, and lets us judge for ourselves.

Among other things, he goes in detail (with studies backing up his points) on
what provides "optimal experience" to humans. And covers topics like "order in
consciousness", "sense of self", "entropy", "freedom", "purpose", and so on.

A couple of random quotes from my notes:

(1) "The inevitable consequence of equally attractive choices is uncertainty
of purpose; uncertainty, in turn, saps resolution, and lack of resolve ends up
devaluing choice. Therefore fredom does not necessarily help develop meaning
in life—on the contrary."

(2) "There is one very important and at first apparently paradoxical
relationship between losing the sense of self in a flow experience, and having
it emerge stronger afterward. It almost seems that occasionally giving up
self-consciousness is necessary for building a strong self-concept. Why this
should be so is fairly clear. In flow a person is challenged to do her best,
and must constantly improve her skills. At the time, she doesn’t have the
opportunity to reflect on what this means in terms of the self—if she did
allow herself to become self-conscious, the experience could not have been
very deep. But afterward, when the activity is over and self-consciousness has
a chance to resume, the self that the person reflects upon is not the same
self that existed before the flow experience: it is now enriched by new skills
and fresh achievements."

~~~
chrisweekly
Thanks, yes, this. Rel to your 2nd quote, an explanation might be found in the
"experiencing self" vs "remembering self", which IIRC Kahneman mentions in the
intro to "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow."

~~~
kashyapc
Yes, that is is one my favorite stories from Kahneman. If you look up "The
riddle of experience vs. memory", you can hear Kahneman himself narrating it.

------
deweller
Cigarettes are a flawed analogy. There is no such thing as a "healthy" use of
cigarettes. But I would argue that smart phones can be used in a healthy way.

And I would also argue that the phone itself is not the problem. The problem
is the reliance on the endorphin hit that comes from a new IM, like, post,
etc. Some app makers have optimized their platform for engagement and have
consequently made this highly addictive for many people.

But this addiction is much easier to break for most people than an addiction
to something like say cigarettes (or even sugar).

~~~
rauhl
> There is no such thing as a "healthy" use of cigarettes.

I don’t think that’s really true. The health effects of a cigarette a week
would be indistinguishable from background noise.

The fundamental problem with cigarettes is that they are addictive, and
convenient (at one time _very_ convenient), and so it’s easy to smoke more and
more. That’s actually very similar to smartphones: their use is addictive, and
convenient (you can get a hit at work, in line, in the car, at the store,
walking down the street, in bed).

As with tobacco, I believe that the answer is to responsibly use smartphones.
Chain-smoking is bad; so too is constantly getting a hit from your smartphone.
Smoking a pipe a couple of times a week (or a cigar a couple of times a month)
isn’t a problem, and neither is using a smartphone intentionally &
deliberately.

~~~
jrockway
I don't think cell phones cause lung cancer or emphysema. The better
comparison is to caffeine. Yeah, it's pretty addictive. But it doesn't kill
you. That's about where the cell phone is for some people. (And hey, the blue
light even screws up your sleep cycle supposedly. As a long-time drinker of
caffeine, I don't even HAVE a sleep cycle! Take that, cell phones.)

Also, I am guessing that most doctors would not recommend smoking a pipe a
couple times a week. I doubt it's harmless.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Cell phone addiction absolutely causes life threatening risks, like stress,
isolation, attention deficit, etc.

------
efields
Most people don't actually want a smartphone. Pain in the ass to keep charged,
carry it everywhere, not drop it, not lose it.

Everybody generally wants a few core services from their smartphone: send and
receive brief messages, directions, ride hailing, listen to a podcast or some
streaming service, mobile payments, take photos (perhaps most importantly).

Sometimes some people want the distractions available on a smartphone: watch
video, read the news, social media, browse the web, read a book.

Sometimes some people want to Do Work™ on their phone, but the vast majority
of the people don't want that, at least outside of their preferred work hours.

I try to do more and more with my Apple Watch/AirPods only, and it's starting
the feel like the future depends less and less on having a smartphone. In our
Star Trek utopia, your wearable would let you go up to any screen and access
your stuff, and these would be in convenient locations, like a public transit
stations, cafes, etc.

You'd do work on a purpose built machine for the work you do, one with a lot
of buttons if you type a lot, one with a stylus and weird knobs if you do
precision work.

The personal smartphone as it currently exists is this weird mandatory
liability we're all burdened with, costly in time, attention, and money.
They're worse than cigarettes because at least you can carry on a conversation
while smoking.

~~~
com2kid
> Everybody generally wants a few core services from their smartphone: send
> and receive brief messages, directions, ride hailing, listen to a podcast or
> some streaming service, mobile payments, take photos (perhaps most
> importantly).

Complete access to a large % of Western civilization's collective knowledge is
also kind of nice.

Mostly used for restaurant open hours and random Wikipedia articles. But
still.

Knowing where nearby gas stations are, checking when a store closes,
comparison price shopping, checking nutrition facts, there are many uses for a
smart phone outside of the ones you listed. And, as always, the long tail is
long.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Why only Western Civilization? Why not the collected knowledge of all of
humanity?

~~~
com2kid
Wikipedia has a Western bias.

Linguistic barriers prevent lots of information from East Asia from being
accessible to westeners.

Large portions of the world don't yet have super organized repositories of
knowledge.

------
seandougall
I was kind of with him right up until this:

> But if you ask yourself who's the healthiest person you know, almost
> certainly they subscribe to some sort of named philosophy that helps them
> make consistent and value-driven decisions about what they eat and how they
> move. Maybe they're vegan or paleo.

Maybe I’m an outlier, but that tends to be more true of the least healthy
people I know.

Named philosophies with strict rules give you far more opportunities to
measure your failures. It’s too easy to slip, notice you’ve slipped, and
figure, “well, I’ve done that much, I guess I’m just off the wagon today.”
(Not to mention that vegan and paleo both leave room for some wildly
unhealthful decisions without breaking the rules.)

It seems like his philosophy isn’t as strict as that, though. I like the
approach in large part because it _isn’t_ like going vegan or paleo. As with
so many things, it’s all about finding moderation and an approach that you can
stick to sustainably.

~~~
Void_
Healthiest person I ever knew was my gradma. She sure as hell wasn't vegan or
paleo.

She was Catholic and she was practicing the virtue of temperance every day.

We often adopt lifestyles, we do certain things, in order to become healthier,
fitter, smarter, richer...

She wasn't doing it because who she wanted become. She was doing it because of
who she was.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
> She wasn't doing it because who she wanted become. She was doing it because
> of who she was.

So she would have had no problem stopping such behavior without fear of
repercussion? If not then the motivation is not solely self directed. Many
people are engaged in virtuistic pursuits because of fear or selfishness.
Their outward actions can't always be taken at face value.

------
gnicholas
I was recently searching for a metal box that I could put my iPhone in when
it's time for me to focus on family. After seeing a few vintage cigarette
boxes pop up in the search results, I realized that sticking my phone into a
box built for cigarettes would be a helpful reminder of how addictive my phone
can be. I even considered getting a Camel-brand tin, but decided to get
something classier/more subtle.

~~~
fhood
[https://www.ebay.com/itm/Richmond-Straight-Cut-Cigarette-
Tin...](https://www.ebay.com/itm/Richmond-Straight-Cut-Cigarette-Tin-Hinged-
Allen-Ginter-Richmond-Virginia/202568895397?hash=item2f2a0c0ba5:rk:5:pf:0)

~~~
gnicholas
Yeah I searched Etsy and eBay. It was hard to find one that was big enough for
my iPhone 7 Plus and my wife's SE (in a thick case). I eventually found a few
brass and bronze candidates that were big enough and quite handsome.

------
keiferski
Not a great analogy. A better one would be the automobile, IMO. Incredibly
freeing and powerful, but pushed by actors for ethically dubious reasons and
capable of massive negative societal effects if left unchecked.

~~~
owens99
Yes, but automobiles aren’t addicting.

I believe a better title would be about “today’s smart phone” assuming we will
still have smart phones in the future but they won’t be designed to be
addicting anymore.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Automobiles are not addictive in the medical sense, but consider that, all
else being equal, heavy car users will, much faster than others, lose the
capacity to walk long distances.

~~~
AceyMan
This, so much.

I take transit and cycle everywhere. Even with the bike and bus there's lots
of walking to and from bus stops.

When I am out with colleagues and we want to go somewhere even a half a mile
away people are all "that's soooo far..."

No wonder e-scooters are so popular. (And I suspect lots of their user base
are smokers.)

~~~
telotortium
I suspect (I'm a non-obese non-smoker) that far more obese non-smokers get
winded by walking such a distance than non-obese smokers, at least until
they're fairly old. Also, in walkable cities, I see quite a few smokers but
much fewer obese people. If we're talking about hiking hills, it balances out
a bit more, although I think the obese would still be at a disadvantage.
Losing some of your lung capacity doesn't matter too much until you do intense
exercise, but obese people always have to expend extra effort to carry their
weight around.

------
anu7df
After buying two of Cal Newport's book, with an honest attempt to read it
fully, I decided to never ever buy another one of his "creations". His books
can be compressed to 2 pages without ANY loss of information. So much so, that
I am left wondering, is this the quality of the work that comes out of Deep
Work and such.

------
bregma
I find my smartphone is incredibly hard to light and always goes out unless I
draw on it really hard. Also, until I switched to a brand that used USB-C for
its charger cable I seemed to put the wrong end in my mouth the first time
every time.

------
bmj
Related:

[http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html)

~~~
markdog12
Great read, thx.

> You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't
> think you're weird, you're living badly.

------
baxtr
I don’t buy the analogy. Do we look back at TV saying the same thing? Granted
we have to learn how we can live in balance with smartphones and the always-in
mentality. Compared to cigarettes there are a lot of positives things you can
do with smartphones.

~~~
randomsearch
TV isn't the same, as it doesn't contain the same tight feedback loop of
reward and punishment as social media.

~~~
baxtr
TV isn’t the same? you mean like smartphones aren’t the same as cigarettes?

------
kevin_thibedeau
The problem isn't smartphones. It's apps that appeal to addictive persona, be
they social media or time consuming games. Use your smartphone as a tool and
it serves a purpose without intruding on your life.

~~~
taude
I'd buy that if all the research into making them addictive wasn't pursued.
Just like cigarettes, a lot of people are being targeted by the addictive
nature of these devices. Sure, there's some people who just won't smoke, no
matter what. But if you look at statistically significant portions of the
population, how they were directly targeted by marketing, and then saturated
with a physically addictive chemical (constant dopamine rushes that impact the
brain in the case of smart phones and apps), well....I'm pretty sure the
argument holds up for a large part of the population. Saying "just don't do
that' just doens't work.

------
Dumblydorr
I doubt we will launch a massive campaign against phones unless they kill
literally hundreds of thousands like smoking has. It's more likely we will
have to for vaping or marijuana use, if they turn out to cause cancer in the
millions now using those daily.

~~~
uxisnotui
Texting while driving comes to mind: [https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-
topics/distracted-dri...](https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-
topics/distracted-driving/research)

~~~
monkeynotes
Eating while driving is also a huge part of the distracted driving problem.
Food also causes numerous other health problems; obesity, diabetes and so on.

If we all work really hard we can come up with dumb reasons to ban almost
anything. Politicians make careers out of this sort of thing.

~~~
mrfusion
I always liked the idea of simply banning distracted driving. Why have the law
play cat and mouse with new technologies.

~~~
RandallBrown
Awhile back when no texting laws were just starting out I remember thinking it
was so stupid because my state (Michigan) already had a no distracted driving
law.

I don't see how it's any different than eating, smoking, reading, or whatever
else people do in their car that makes it harder to drive.

~~~
jimktrains2
Part of it is marketing. Part of it is a way to essentially double the fine by
adding an additional offense.

------
checker659
I think we'll look at headphones / earphones like cigarettes as well.

~~~
ChrisLTD
Can you expand on that?

~~~
superhuzza
\- Common habit

\- Probably more damaging to our ears than we expect

\- Damage is cumulative and takes a while to show the effects

------
chatwinra
Maybe he's on to something. Ban on indoor use of smartphones?

------
everdev
If you look at city photos pre-iPhone people are walking with their heads up
(no one is looking at their phone).

Not a judgement, just a stark contrast from ~10 years ago.

~~~
bluedino
_posts old timey photo of everyone on a train reading the newspaper_

~~~
lm28469
Well, between smartphones, desk jobs, lack of proper physical activity there
is definitely more people with rounded shoulders and "smartphone necks". And
to be honest I don't think anyone read the newspaper for 3+ hours a day [0]

It's especially damaging for kids (still growing + somewhat more malleable
bones / joints).

[0] [https://www.emarketer.com/content/mobile-time-
spent-2018](https://www.emarketer.com/content/mobile-time-spent-2018)

------
ape4
Those Popsockets are held with two fingers like a cigarette.

------
rekshaw
I think the right comparison is instagram, not smartphones.

------
sonnyblarney
I think cars would be a better analogy.

Something very useful but with negative externalities we did not predict.

