
Please Unplug - DanielBMarkham
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/05/please-unplug.php
======
dkarl
I will venture a defense for the teenager who came over and listened to her
mp3 player. I remember reading that in Japanese culture (specifically in the
first half of the 20th century; don't know if it is currently true) close
family members might visit each other and, if they had nothing substantive to
talk about, simply sit in silence together and count the time as well-spent. I
certainly understand that someone might feel the need for human proximity
without needing to exchange information. Isn't the teenager's behavior quite
_opposite_ of the typical modern tendency, which is to obsessively exchange
trivial information without any physical togetherness?

~~~
shard
Sitting together in silence is vastly different from sitting together with
earphones plugged into one's ears. The first, you are immersed in the others'
presence. The second, you are not having a shared experience.

------
lecha
So the problem is growing number of people don't pay enough attention to a
particular subject or social interaction. They are in the state of continuous
partial attention.

Here's a simple test if you have this condition: Consider news/tweets/blog
items you read this morning. How many many different topics they covered? How
long did you focus on one particular topic (eg. programming, software industry
trends, social psychology). Now think if you REALLY paid sufficient attention
to each subject to produce a meaningful and lasting effect (eg. form new
opinion about a technology trend, make a technical decision affecting your
work, etc.). If the answer isn't clear then you too are in this 'partial
attention' state.

The point is, it isn't how people use the technology or tools. It is about how
many things people pay attention to and how long they keep that attention.

The fix isn't to unplug, but to reduce time spent in 'continuous partial
attention'.

May I suggest you now go unfollow a few people from your Twitter account :)

------
edw519
Great post, Daniel. The more of your stuff I read the more I see how much we
think alike. I just realized one big thing we share in common:

We are both 20-something high-tech entrepreneurial free spirits trapped in
40-something bodies in cubicles where we do not belong.

This is a not a bad thing! In fact, it can be pretty good as long as we always
remember:

\- We were born at a time to now have the best of multiple worlds: modern
technology, good work experience, and some domain-specific knowledge.

\- No matter what the sitution, the ability to drill down > 1 level is a great
personal differentiator. I love being a hacker.

\- In large institutions, illogical is the new logical.

\- It's OK to be a fish out of water, as long as you realize that you're a
fish out of water.

\- Always find the "takeaway" from a bad situation.

\- There are a whole bunch of things we probably can't change (Ex: everybody
being plugged in). The trick is determining what to do with that data.

\- Positive mental attitude trumps all. When things don't make sense, always
think, "What _can_ I do about that?" When not sure, write some code. That
ususally seems to solve some problem somewhere.

------
saturdayplace
I understand that this really can be a problem in a business setting when you
really want the people who are physically present to interact with _each
other_. This kind of argument has been going on for a while though, about how
we defer attention to distant people, like answering the phone when you're
already conversing with someone else, or texting under the dinner table. I've
ranted about that kind of thing myself a couple times; it annoys me. (I'm
~30).

But outside of business settings, it really a _problem_? I don't know that we
can really say that in social settings it's necessarily _better_ to be
unplugged. Teenagers nowadays feel comfortable enough with their peers
behaving the way this guy describes. Eventually it'll become the norm, unless
somehow that same group collectively decides to behave differently.

Not sure why so many people are crying foul. Unless it's because they're used
to having your full attention, and now they're frustrated with having to
compete with the friends you're texting/tweeting/facebooking. That's sort of
narcissistic, isn't it? Do you _deserve_ their full attention?

~~~
philwelch
"Not sure why so many people are crying foul. Unless it's because they're used
to having your full attention, and now they're frustrated with having to
compete with the friends you're texting/tweeting/facebooking. That's sort of
narcissistic, isn't it? Do you deserve their full attention?"

If I don't deserve someone's full attention, why are we having lunch together?

~~~
saturdayplace
I'm just trying to play the devil's advocate here, because honestly the
behavior annoys the ever-loving crap outta me. But I think the conversation is
interesting...

Why _are_ you having lunch together? To kill time? To work on a deal? To
coordinate the secret drop location? Do you honestly _need_ their full
attention during lunch? What does the pause (while the other guys replies to a
text/tweet) detract from lunch? Maybe context matters more than it used to.

~~~
smokinn
Personally, it doesn't bother me (I'm 25) when people do this to me (though I
don't usually do it myself mostly due to not owning an iphone or ipod or any
portable gadgets other than a basic cell phone) but I'm really interested in
why it bothers some people.

Do you know why it annoys you? Is it because you find it's a lack of respect?
Is it just because you yourself have nothing better to do while your
conversation partner engages with something remote?

~~~
briancooley
>Do you know why it annoys you?

Have you ever tried to get someone's attention when they are electronically
engaged? Because the electronic interaction is passive, the engaged party
mistakenly believes that they can divide their attention between you and the
device. They often can't. Since it's difficult to gauge how fully engaged they
are, you are often left wondering whether they are actually listening to you.

Trying to interact with an electronically engaged person is extremely
frustrating, and I feel sorry for my wife who has tried to have many a
conversation with me while I stared at a computer screen.

It's fine to be together and do independent activities side-by-side, as long
as that's the agreement. My wife often watches TV in the same room where I am
using my laptop just for the proximity, but we never consider it quality time.
In fact, I'd say those sessions often leave us feeling _more_ urgent about
spending time together.

A by-product of physical proximity is evaluation of interaction. If I meet a
friend for a meal or a drink, I want to interact, not gather up the leftover
crumbs of attention.

And, to head off an argument I've heard before, I'll say that it's not the
same as if a third party dropped by during our visit. That at least has the
possibility of a conversation among the three of us. I might think it rude if
my friend did not introduce me, and I would certainly think it rude if my
friend spent most of our time together talking to this third person without
introducing me.

------
abstractbill
This was a nice read, and I agree there's a problem, but I disagree with your
solution (just unplug, at least occasionally).

The kinds of social interactions we're all becoming addicted to online aren't
as "real" as offline ones to be sure. I'd rather solve that problem by further
improving the technology.

To give you a concrete example, all of my family and many of my friends are in
the UK, while I'm in California. We keep in touch a lot using Facebook and
Skype. Those are great, as far as they go, but what I really want is something
that lets me and my best friend grab a "virtual beer" together in a way that's
as good as the "real" thing. Ever the optimist, I think we'll get there soon
enough.

~~~
bsaunder
What is there to a "virtual beer" beyond a quickly brokered time for a Skype
session with a real beer in hand?

I agree with the solution but not for all of the situations the author
mentions...

Status meetings in particular seem like inefficient token ring events

Collaborative problem solving and design reviews on the other hand could be
more engaging to require an "unplugged" atmosphere.

~~~
stcredzero
I think he's getting at a key point, but never quite gets there. All of our
interface technology is oriented towards a single user interacting with a
single machine. There's a reason why a desktop PC has been called a
"workstation." The design of the interface is specifically for a human who is
_not_ interacting with his surroundings. Even our "mobile" computing is really
just relocatable computing. It's a "workstation" that you can easily move to a
new location in which you can ignore your surroundings. Heck, even the iPhone
is designed in this way. (You are _not_ meant to be driving, biking, or even
walking when you are using one!)

Interfaces designed for Collaborative interfaces with computers are being
researched. It could be as simple as a big rear projection screen with Johnny
Lee's Wiimote hack for an inexpensive multi-touch interface.

[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/johnny_lee_demos_wii_remo...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/johnny_lee_demos_wii_remote_hacks.html)

EDIT: I think this is one of the things that bugs me about Pair Programming. I
don't think we have the right setup for it.

[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/images/FT_xmen_1.jp...](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/images/FT_xmen_1.jpg)

~~~
abstractbill
Yes, this is along the lines I was thinking. Computers need to get better at
integrating into our lives in a way that makes them part of the background and
doesn't prevent us from interacting with the real world. In fact I'm convinced
that, if we get it right, technology can _enhance_ those real world
interactions rather than detracting from them.

------
fauigerzigerk
It was different back in the old times. There was even less communication
because entertainment then meant TV and books, both completely solitary
activities. But since TV was home based and reading books at work was
inappropriate people had to fall back on radio.

Radio was always on. Wherever people were working, radio was on, no matter
whether it was a construction site or an office full of programmers. Weird.

Back then there was too little communication. Now we're communicating with too
many people at the same time. That's how I feel it.

~~~
tokenadult
_There was even less communication because entertainment then meant TV and
books, both completely solitary activities._

A lot of people visited to have CONVERSATION. I remember that frequently from
those days.

------
lutorm
I know places that deliberately have made their conference rooms Faraday cages
so you can't get any wireless network there for exactly this reason.

------
ph0rque
_The rule was: no computers for the trip. Just books_

Five hundred years ago, one family went on a trip. The rule was: no printed
books. Just scrolls.

~~~
stcredzero
It seems like you're trying to make some clever point. It's either too subtle,
or there's been a mistake made on the "clever" part. Books can be used to
ignore someone. But they don't bring you realtime updates of your tweets and
emails. They don't have long stretches between save points, and you don't need
headphones for the soundtrack.

In other words: He has functional reasons, and wasn't just being a Luddite.

~~~
ph0rque
I was just pointing out that he had an arbitrary cutoff line for the
technology allowed. In the future, I suppose I will say things to my daughters
such as: No immersive-reality goggles for this trip. Just laptops/e-books.

~~~
jodrellblank
It's not an arbitrary line, it's a line between instant/realtime updates and
not. Between short attention span distractions and long ones.

Yes you can read a book and ignore your surroundings, but you can't talk to
someone and dip into a book for a few seconds every couple of minutes like you
can with a phone or email. You have to give attention to a book, it can't
clamour for it or ring.

Hey, maybe that's a good idea... books you like and want to read but keep not
getting round to - make them ring and text you to call you back to them.

------
mcargian
Although I agree that we all need to unplug sometime, it sounds like he is
ranting about a symptom and not the cause. My guess is he needs to work on his
presentation content especially if his long winded blog post is any
indication.

I think we have all experienced presenters, and ideas from those presenters,
that engage us enough that we don't wander back to our "distractions".

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_My guess is he needs to work on his presentation content especially if his
long winded blog post is any indication_

(grin) It's nothing to do my presenting. I'm talking about trying to get
people to listen _to each other_. I'm just trying to get people to have normal
high-functioning interactions with each other. But they're too distracted by,
well, themselves.

They ask us how successful teams operate, so we tell them they all work
together -- co-located. So everybody shows up in same room and spends all of
their time electronically engaged somewhere else.

I have an instrument rating for flying airplanes. It's one of the most
difficult pieces of technology to manage for a single pilot flying alone in
hard IMC. And it's life or death. Pilots have to learn this attention span
management skill to a much higher level than most people.

What I'm seeing is that technology is becoming more and more distracting,
while the human brain 1.0 is still wired for face-to-face caveman communities.

But I'll work on my presentations too. : ) I'm afraid you're stuck with my
loquaciousness.

~~~
mcargian
> Pilots have to learn this attention span management skill to a much higher
> level than most people.

Perhaps you should mention this to the Colgan training co-ordinator. I don't
think the CO 3407 crash had anything to distract the pilots other than their
own conversation.

------
festivusr
For the inattentive meeting-attenders: Do they want to be there? Is it a
mandatory meeting? You might be seeing passive resistance to the meeting
itself.

------
loginx
I texted it to myself, i'll read it at some point.

------
ashot
obviously I'm going to tweet this

------
c00p3r
An addiction is a habit to stimulation. Like TV, Internet is very powerful
stimulator - it holds your attention (some times partial, as it described in
comment above) and allows you to forget or to push aside any challenges of so-
called real world. In fact, it works the same way as an alcohol - cheap and
low-pleasant solution for wasting your time.

All those tweets, blogs, emails and headlines just keeps you loaded, keeps you
away from actual tasks or problems, like a popular radio and then TV shows
did.

Of course it is much easy and even pleasant to read tens or even hundreds of
short, primitive, mostly meaningless posts and comments than to do something
useful.

In this illusion it seems like you're getting new facts, accumulating
knowledge in various areas and it raises your self-esteem, but actually you're
just switching channels from one advertisement to another.

------
erlanger
Please get off my lawn.

~~~
Maciek416
There is a bit of that here when he mentions the teenager, I agree. He may
have a point that professional environments may have to come up with solutions
to deal with this kind of thing, however.

