
We're creating a culture of distraction - mmariani
http://joekraus.com/were-creating-a-culture-of-distraction
======
alan_cx
Just one of those observations:

A while ago, could be 3 or so years, I was in my local fish and chip shop. For
those who don't know, there are small take away food shops in the UK (and I
guess else where) and generally you wander up, order your food, then usually
wait a few minutes while your order is put together or cooked. 10 mins or so.
(I like the wait because usually it means my food is being cooked fresh.)

Usually I stand to the side waiting, and just gaze around, usually at the
world going by out side the window. Normally the customers are not just one
off people, but a couples or a pair of friends, or a parent and kids, and so
on. You know, a decent variety of however people come. Usually there is a bit
of a buzz of conversation and what not.

This time, I looked up, and all 10 or so of the people waiting in the show
were literally buried, absorbed in their smart phones, and the shop stood
stark silence. The people on their own, the kids, the parents, the couples,
the whole damn lot. The only sounds were of the people working in the shop
preparing the food.

Usually when the food is cooked, the person behind the counter only needs to
mention the beginning of the order and the right person usually snaps in to
action to retrieved their food, and leave the shop. This time I noticed it
took up to 3 or 4 attempts before the smart phone spell was broken and the
person realized their food was ready.

And the weirdest thing was, as they came to, coming out of their smart phone
spell, each and every one of them had that look of some one who had just woken
up in the morning. Eyes blinking, rubbing eyes, the slow realization of where
you are, what you are doing, what comes next, etc.

I found the whole thing incredible creepy.

And since then, I've seen it more and more. In fact, I have even been round
people houses or in a pub, where there are a few people meeting up, and I've
observed the exact same thing. Oh, add to that, railway stations, bus stops,
and so on.

OK, smart phones are very, very useful. Great little devices. But Im not so
sure about they way people use them. Seems to me there must be something
socially damaging about over use. Its like having the kid who is (exaggerate
to show the point time) 24/7 in his/her bedroom on their computer. Now its
like that but we can take the computer everywhere. Yeah, we can isolate
ourselves anywhere.

~~~
jkscm
The dosage makes the poison.

So yes, overuse is not healthy. But consider another angle: for me a
smartphone can fill useless time like waiting for an appointment, the bus,
etc. instead of wasting their time these people text their loved ones, read
articles about self employment or check reddit for cat pictures.

Giving someone not the attention they might deserve is indeed rude. But i hope
customs will change hopefully to the better and people put their smartphones
down when appropriate.

But i don't think it is right other without knowing the context and what
they're doing.

Edit: I think i want a better mute button for my phone and a hardware mute
button for my laptop. Everything should be hidden besides calls from circa 5
people and the third call from one number. Besides that the OS should not show
me any notification, message,etc. not even the notification light should blink
and when i check the time on the phone i should not see how many messages i
missed

~~~
digitalsushi
Try eating dinner with a group of current college kids and hoping they put
their phones down to listen to you.

There is no way the trend is going to reverse itself. I try not to be a cynic
but on this topic it's impossible for me - what event could trigger a reversal
to this behavior?

What would make people prefer people again over digital distractions?

~~~
sp332
They are socializing with people, but physical presence matters less than it
used to. They're not (mostly) playing games. They're generally chatting with
their friends, or (if they're really bored) browsing content posted by a
smallish list of facebook and twitter contacts.

To trigger a reversal, you have to train people to be engaged, sympathetic,
good at body language, and extremely talkative. Basically all the difficult
interpersonal things that text chat can't do. Edit: technology isn't standing
still, though! Snapchat is adding more personal video content to phones
already.

~~~
ZenoArrow
'physical presence matters less than it used to.' Physical presence matters
just as much as it always did, what's lacking is the appreciation of how much
is being missed.

~~~
sp332
If a smile from a stranger can cheer you up, imagine being surrounded by
familiar voices each giving you a friendly "hi" and then moving on. It's not
especially meaningful but it's a great feeling. Maybe it's more valuable than
the option of actually connecting with whoever happens to be physically
present.

~~~
ZenoArrow
"Maybe it's more valuable than the option of actually connecting with whoever
happens to be physically present."

That's where you and I disagree. Given the choice of minimal connections with
those you know and fuller connections with those you don't know, I tend to
prefer the latter.

Perhaps it helps to think about it like this. Everyone has something
interesting about them, and whilst you might not like everyone you meet, you
can at least learn something from them. Openness to meeting new people is a
very positive thing (in my opinion).

~~~
pm90
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. As a former anti-social-randian-
nerd, I used to shun social interactions in favor of reading. But guess what?
You can learn a whole lot of things just by having an honest conversation with
a stranger. And despite the stress of initially approaching a stranger (and
the few times your attempts get embarrassingly shot down), I would say that
its worth it.

I was reflecting for a bit on why it made me feel better to be good at
conversations. Maybe its the way society is set up. Or maybe I have genes
which are the result of generations of my ancestors being social (which may
have a very tangible benefit if you're living in a pre-modern society)

~~~
sp332
Being good at conversations would be nice. But since I'm not, I don't have
much incentive to start one.

------
julianpye
I think part of this trend has to do with the fact that many people tend to
have fear/anxiety issues, when they have nothing to do. We have lost the
capability to truly relax, even to bore ourselves. When we are not active, we
worry, so we constantly distract ourselves from these feelings of anxiety.

Another example - a few years ago there was a huge trend of housewives playing
Hidden-image games. It turns out that these games were so simple that people
could do them in parallel with other tasks such as being on the phone, but
they created a level of 'noise' that kept them from worrying about their
lives. It's quasi electronic self-medication.

~~~
metl_lord
I think that a good deal of that fear/anxiety comes from the fact that people
are expected to be more productive. If someone doesn't respond to an email
immediately, we think the are not working or are being lazy.

I've recently noticed that I will often think about and come up with a
solution to an issue at work while driving or eating dinner. I suspect this
happens because I'm not being distracted by the problem. It also bothers me a
little. If I worked in a factory assembling widgets, I would not be able to
take my work home. You can't leave your brain at work if your job is mostly
mental work.

~~~
dbecker
_I think that a good deal of that fear /anxiety comes from the fact that
people are expected to be more productive. If someone doesn't respond to an
email immediately, we think the are not working or are being lazy._

A quick but possibly meaningless e-mail response doesn't constitute
productivity. The expectation you describe is just one of availability (or
working), while ignoring productivity or presenting real solutions.

~~~
koralatov
Absolutely, but unfortunately, in many places of business `availability' is
conflated with, or entirely replaces, `productivity'.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
When you are a _resource_ , you're supposed to be _available_.

Would you not expect your _website_ to be _available_ all the time? Or
_running water_? Or _electricity_?

~~~
yaddayadda
_Available_ is indeed a key word. If someone is able to work from a connected
location anywhere in the world, and they're at a connected location, are they
_available_?

There are certainly some occupations, and some aspects of other occupations,
that require a person to be at a very specific place at a very specific time
(e.g. emergency room personnel). But there are also many, many jobs that do
not inherently have a location and/or temporal requirement for the work to be
successfully completed.

So my question to employers is whether it is more important for (a) work to be
effectively completed within given time constraints ___or_ __(b) employees to
have a physical presence, _particularly when the two are at odds_ (e.g., storm
prevents someone from getting to work location, but the person can effectively
work from their current location)?

edited: typo and clarification

------
yesbabyyes
"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room
alone." \- Blaise Pascal

Also, Louis CK on smartphones: [http://gawker.com/louis-c-k-s-explanation-of-
why-he-hates-sm...](http://gawker.com/louis-c-k-s-explanation-of-why-he-hates-
smartphones-is-1354954625)

~~~
martinwnet
Immediately thought of the same Louis CK bit from Conan.

Pascal's quote is revealing and shows that this problem is by no means a
recent invention. Though I would wager that new technology has made it much,
much easier to quickly distract ourselves from idleness.

~~~
darkxanthos
I would argue technology has made it more obvious.

------
Lagged2Death
Several times, this article mentions the notion - without really explaining it
- that we have "anxiety of being understimulated."

I think I understand what the author means, but I'm not sure that's quite
right. I agree with the main points that the author is making, but I wonder if
this "culture of distraction" is really a symptom of an even larger problem.
Consider the possibility that many of us are simply highly anxious just about
all of the time, and that the distractions presented by wired life are things
we seek out for relief on purpose. That is, that the distractions aren't the
cause of the anxiety, but a symptom.

Maybe checking in with Twitter over and over again isn't "stimulation," maybe
it's more like a narcotic. It helps us block out genuine, serious anxieties
about money, jobs, work, family, and the future in general with easily-
digested, glittery trivia.

One possible reason to think about the problem this way - although it may
sound like a big change in subject at first - is antidepressant sales, which
have been climbing for years and now stand at record levels. Clearly, for
whatever reason, we've built a way of life for ourselves that leaves a huge
percentage of us desperately unhappy and stressed out for an awful lot of the
time.

Perhaps the explosion of smartphones and tablets, of portable, pocketable
"brain stimulation" is, for many people, a form of self-medication. When you
have a moment of downtime, and you have a chance to think about just how
screwed you and your family are if your name comes up in this next round of
layoffs, you can instead reach in your pocket and check out the latest
celebrity scandal. When a free moment strikes and you find yourself wondering
what sort of fascist nightmare future-US your children are going to be stuck
with, you can instead check out the latest shiny aspirational gadgets.

Regardless of the cause, the "culture of distraction" is still a real
phenomenon worth fighting, I think. But maybe we can fight it more
successfully if we understand the causes more completely.

~~~
zxcvvcxz
Good point, it can be a symptom of something larger. I think with ubiquitous
communications and globalization, the world is just more _competitive_. This
is very stressful, and can cause anxiety and depression.

Anecdote: I was just playing board games with my friends the other night.
After 1.5 hours, I started panicking and feeling anxiety, so I excused myself.
It felt wrong I guess, taking that much time off of work/study. Someone else
might be outdoing me, right? Heh. I gotta say, I definitely didn't get this a
decade ago.

For anyone who feels similar sometimes, it's important to develop methods to
bring your mental state to something more manageable. I like to remind myself
that even if this is true, the anxiety feelings aren't going to help me
"compete" anyways, so might as well be calm and move on.

------
javajosh
This post is dripping with irony because it is, itself, a form of distraction.
Why? Because it doesn't offer any objective evidence for it's assertions. It
is prescriptive distraction, a kind of modern, well-meaning form of muckraking
that is a kind of politically passive aggressive post-apocalyptic self-help
piece. (Don't get me wrong, I love writing these sorts of things as much as
the next guy, but I keep them in my private journal.)

The older I get the more skeptical I feel about any of my own attitudes that I
don't have clear objective evidence for, especially the kind of vague
forebodings that motivate this sort of piece. There are entire "hidden worlds"
out there, where people are motivated by completely different things. "Ours is
a culture of distraction." Which culture? There are so many cultures in the
world, and even in the US, and even in Silicon Valley.

Yes, I too see people walking around with their eyes downcast at their phones,
consumed by far-away happenings. And it certainly _feels_ like "we" are more
disconnected from each other. But these are feelings, and should be treated as
an impetus to look more deeply into the fact of the matter, rather than rush
to diagnose and treat an ailment which you don't understand on any objective
scale. And indeed, the first and best place to start looking is within
yourself, and within your own life. Because the flip side to recognizing any
kind of pan-cultural doom is living the alternative. That's the really cool
thing about culture, is that it is not enforced by law, you can indeed break
from it in very meaningful ways.

An article documenting your experience breaking from the culture, with the
implicit message that you found something lacking and went on a search to find
it, would be far more valuable than subjective analysis. Because, as fun as
your subjective analysis is to read, without action it is merely distraction.

------
mattjaynes
I battle with this and one thing that's been helping me a lot is "Letting It
Cool". By that I mean that I delay reading "new" things until they've had a
chance to lose their "newness".

I've found that _newness_ is a false signal for value. Just because something
is _new_ , we tend to errantly assign extra value to it.

You can combat this by removing the _new_ quality from the item by putting it
somewhere where it can "cool down".

For me, I save all the articles I want to read for the weekend. I just email
the articles to myself and they go in a special folder and that's where they
cool off for a few days.

When you first start doing this, it is surprising how much some articles lose
their perceived value over a few days. An article that I was really excited
about when I first saw it will often induce a "meh" a few days later.

On the other hand, some articles still retain their value and appeal several
days later.

I end up spending far fewer hours a week reading articles because of this
method. It also helps to keep me focused since I don't let my mind wander to
other topics during my work day.

This also works for other things like movies, tv shows, facebook, etc. If you
want to see the true value of something, delay enjoying it until the newness
has worn off. It helps reduce what you consume and increases the quality of
what you do.

If your goal is to produce more and consume less, then this strategy can
really help.

[http://devopsu.com/blog/productivity-tip-let-it-
cool/](http://devopsu.com/blog/productivity-tip-let-it-cool/)

------
cafard
"Smoking has gone out. To be sure, it is a shocking thing, blowing smoke out
of our mouths into other people's mouths, eyes, and noses, and having the same
thing done to us. Yet I cannot account, why a thing which requires so little
exertion, and yet preserves the mind from total vacuity, should have gone out.
Every man has something by which he calms himself: beating with his feet, or
so."

Samuel Johnson, quoted in Boswell's *Tour of the Hebrides", entry for August
19.

------
speeder
I desperately need to fix this.

Since I was a kid I was known to quickly get bored, and then read something,
annoying teachers. But back then I could sit still at home and make levels for
my favourite games hours at end

Now since I got this goddmn.smartphone for professional reasons ( got phone in
2011, but work making smartphone games since 2008) I am getting more and more
easily distracted and anxious, there was even a day recently that I spent the
whole day looking at Facebook, Wikipedia, Wikis, tvtropes, hn, newspapers, and
other random shit, and when it was time to go home, I noticed that I never
even opened my IDE :(

~~~
mhurron
So basically your issue is you lack self control.

Sounds like a personal problem.

------
reneherse
Powerful stuff. I've noticed that my "long form" mental focus has gradually
declined, I believe beginning from about the time I began using a smartphone a
couple of years ago. It's now so bad that if I can't improve it through
developing good habits, I'll be ditching the smart phone for a dumb one, and
finding other ways to curtail short-form reading and internet browsing :)

A relevant plug: My brother and I are developing a web app to help with this
problem of distractedness. It's a to-do list manager that encourages
mindfulness by helping you monitor procrastination and training your ability
to steadily focus. Launching sometime this fall:
[http://fleur.io](http://fleur.io)

~~~
Florin_Andrei
I've found two things can keep this at bay: reading old-school dead-tree
books, and meditation.

I am an avid reader who is quite fussy about _what_ he's reading. Everyone
around me knows I read a lot, so of course what better present for my birthday
than an e-reader, right?

Wrong. I can't use that stuff. It puts me in the Distracted Mode, whereas when
I do serious reading, I need to be in the Focused Mode. E-stuff automatically
flips on the Distracted switch. You know - the stumbleupon links, the reddit
cats, the endless outpouring of youtube video mud. Old school books do the
opposite.

Also, meditation is pretty much the polar opposite of twitter-driven thinking.

Things like The Long Now Foundation, and the book called Anathem by Neal
Stephenson, are direct reactions and backlashes to the twitterification of the
modern mind.

------
WickyNilliams
Scott Adams, author of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this before. He
argues that we've effectively eliminated boredom and that it really isn't a
good thing. Why? Because bored people are compelled to do stuff, whether it be
creative thinking or seeking out a new experience. When boredom relief is
cheap and readily-available then we lose the need for these things.

It's a great read:
[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/creativity/](http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/creativity/)

~~~
trhaynes
John Cleese's short (13min) lecture on creativity mentions this as well. Very
entertaining, too.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijtQP9nwrQA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijtQP9nwrQA)

------
FrojoS
My personally theory is, that this development has been going on for thousands
of years. As we find better ways to deliver messages, e.g. horses, pigeons,
telegraph, telephone, eMail, twitter, our time horizon has apparently been
shrinking accordingly. Think about the cathedrals which took hundreds of years
to build. The mindset that was required for such undertakings seems almost
alien now.

~~~
6d0debc071
The person making the decision didn't actually have to work on the thing for a
hundred years. If you think of them buying their way into heaven - or making a
show of how religious they were - then it's really just a long-term insurance
scheme that someone else is going to go on to manage the complexities of for
them. I'm not sure that's really any different to paying a pension company
that manages part of it's liabilities via long-term bonds.

------
casca
While I agree that this is a phenomenon, it's too soon to tell how it will
play out. It's not possible to be meaningfully productive if you're unable to
focus, so this could just be a function of the ages which are represented.
Perhaps they'll learn through the requirements of higher education? I've
regularly espoused that the biggest advantage to hiring someone with a degree
is that they've shown that they can complete a pointless task that they don't
enjoy.

Direct link to video:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzpX0TLKS9Q](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzpX0TLKS9Q)

~~~
speeder
Not necessarily, some people might finish a degree and get access to broadband
and smartphones after it for example.

------
spindritf
> One step, I think, is to take a weekly holiday from your devices.

You have just lost. Denying yourself something is not a viable way to avoid
it. (Don't think about elephants.)

There are only two solutions here. Either become someone else, change yourself
so that you do not crave it any more, or displace it with something else.

If you want to be fit, or at least less flabby, the psychologically viable
route is to tell yourself "I am the kind of person who does 50 pushups after
getting out of bed in the morning." Or, "I am the kind of person who cooks his
own low-carb meals." And then actually become that person.

If you don't want to stare at your phone in a public place, displace that
behaviour with something else. "Instead of mindlessly browsing HN, I'll go
talk to that cute chick at the end of the bar." Or even just "I will meditate,
I will think about nothing but my breathing while waiting for that coffee."
Though that might be even weirder than playing with your smartphone.

~~~
pachydermic
Sure, but maybe you only have so much willpower to work with
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion)).
It's really interesting how it _really is_ just as easy as making a decision,
or just telling yourself something, but so many of us fail so often to do that
kind of thing. This is something that bothers me deeply. This failure to do
what we know we ought to demonstrates the tension which comes from this
struggle between thinking we're really in control when we might not be.
Interesting conflict there. Definitely worth thinking about - or ignoring
entirely.

Anyways, that doesn't have any impact on other people doing the phone thing.
It's a lot easier to not be nose-deep in your phone when other people are
engaging with you. I find that most people settle into the "trance" based on
whether other people are on their phones. The people who start the "trance"
are often preoccupied or just plain rude.

Another facet to this is that we just don't know where this is going. Is it a
step forwards or backwards. Hard to say that it looks like a good thing, but
many of us didn't grow up with it - what will the story be like in 50 years?
None of us has a clue, to be honest.

Anyways, I think what it comes down to is the "responsible use" cliche. There
are so many constructive things you can do with technology. But here we all
are, reading these comments which don't matter and are just random people
screaming into the void. Shit.

~~~
spindritf
> maybe you only have so much willpower to work with

That's one of the reasons why simply denying yourself won't work. Hence the
trick.

It takes no willpower to do pushups for someone who does pushups. That's just
who he is. Now, go be that person. Or, pretend you are. I'm sure you've seen
some movie where the guy works out every morning? Ocean's Twelve, Fracture,
whatever. Pretend to be him.

> It's a lot easier to not be nose-deep in your phone when other people are
> engaging with you.

You have no control over what other people do. But you have a nearly total
control over what you do. Then go engage with someone nose-deep in their
phone.

Here's the thing, whatever crazy app they have, it's not that interesting. In
fact, the interaction with their phone brings so little value that you don't
even need to chat them up, just looking at someone for three seconds will
likely grab their attention.

------
david_otoole
Careful or you will destroy all the social app crap that makes this website
profitable.

------
normloman
It's not simply that we're constantly hunting for information. It's that too
much information is crap. We use Facebook to find out what our best friend
watched on television this week, read some blog about "10 secrets of
successful entrepreneurs" (they really aren't secret), then head over to our
favorite news site to have our political opinions affirmed by pundits.

The advertising revenue model gives the media incentives to make lots of
cheap, addictive information. They don't have an incentive to make quality
information. So we get what we pay for.

I have vowed to spend less time consuming and more time doing. It's hard. I
cave in often. But I recommend it.

~~~
aestra
We use Facebook to find out what our best friend watched on television this
week rather than calling up our best friend, going out to dinner with them,
and taking about what they watched on TV this week.

Faceboook is very superficial interaction. I liken it to people shouting into
a crowded room.

------
diminoten
Distraction and technology are related, insofar that technology _allows_ for
distraction, but it does not mandate it.

The mistaken assumption is that a person must be "distracted" by one's phone,
when that may not be the case at all. Since when was reading a magazine being
"distracted", or reading a book being "distracted"? Why is playing a video
game considered a distraction?

The facts presented in this article, and the conclusions drawn by this article
are orthogonal. Yes, we're bad at multitasking, and yes, people out in the
world are buried in their phones more and more, but the connection between
multitasking and looking at my phone isn't there.

Besides, why do I have to be particularly _good_ when I'm playing Angry Birds
or reading HN? I don't care if I'm performing 10 IQ points or 40% worse than
if I were checking my text messages in a park by myself.

The article makes another false assumption that we must always be at our best
whenever we do something, which is _also_ untrue. Sure, I could use my slow,
deliberate mental system to make all my choices, and I'd be immensely slow but
very accurate. Or, I could use my fast, intuitive mental system to make quick,
if less accurate decisions that _usually_ get me where I want to be, or in a
position I want to be in. I don't need to use my whole brain to hold a
conversation with a friend, and I don't need to use my whole brain to wait in
line for fish and chips.

There is an anxiety towards seemingly doing nothing, and it's well founded.
The author talks about anxiety like it's the enemy, when in reality it's a
necessary motivator.

------
Eleopteryx
A few months ago, I had a brief exchange over Twitter with an artist from
perhaps my favorite band:

[https://twitter.com/edwarddroste/status/343418176454926337](https://twitter.com/edwarddroste/status/343418176454926337)

"Maybe they're trying to catch your latest tweet?" was the reply that I wanted
to send, but I didn't want to come off as cheeky to someone I revered.

Is the article not a distraction in itself? Sure enough, I came upon it this
morning while I was browsing Twitter from my bed. The article itself is over
2000 words long; some of those words being a transcript from a 15 minute
video. Now here I am commenting on it; taking up additional time from my day
to formulate these points rather than attending to other things; reinforcing
the dissonant relevance and irony of the points that the article is making.
This article on distraction is a distraction in itself, and my viewership was
predicated on finding it on a distracting service used from a distracting
device. I found it and read it because I didn't have anything subjectively
better to do at the time.

I'm OK with this.

------
lucaswoj
This has been on my mind through internships at several major silicon valley
social networking companies. There's a line of thinking in the industry that,
when revenue is driven by ad impressions, driving more interactions with your
product is the highest goal. This means two things: getting more users (fine)
and driving more interactions per user (dangerous).

------
krispycement
Posted the guy on the blog with the RSS, twitter, email links prominently at
top right.

There is an assumption that those things he laments are functional parts of
today's and tomorrow's world. Maybe he's just really boring and people would
rather watch a stream of bullshit tweets than discuss the weather with him...
because he seems a bit of a malcontent or judgmental.

One person's distraction is another's attention and purpose. It's the outsider
watching the 'distracted' trivializing the value of the benefits that the
actor is receiving. How smug.

Context is everything. Opinions are nothing. Smartphones only fail at
optimizing the bandwidth of purposeful living in so much as those information
flows have not been built out.

If people are anxious about the next packet that comes to them, it might be
that they feel unsatisfied with the company and activities before them. People
aren't being distracted by the devices. They are hunting for higher purpose.

------
mdup
The funniest part is that this "culture of distraction" is so neglictible
today compared to what it will be in 50 or 100 years.

"Remember 2013 when we didn't have those lenses showing continuous news feed?
When we didn't have 360° vision camera wired directly to our brain? Back then
our attention span was sooo high"

------
gz5
I think our human desire for constant attention, feedback, approval,
communication, collaboration, instant satisfaction, etc. has always been
there. But now technology has caught up.

Perhaps though the pendulum will swing back the other way if technology
enables us to get too much instant, constant attention?

~~~
Loughla
I don't think it's 'perhaps', as much as 'eventually'. One defining
characteristic of human (USA at least) generations is their absolute burning
desire to find fault in the social norms of the previous generation.

It stands to reason that the next generation or the one after will take it a
step back from smart phones and everything instantly accessible simply because
that's what their parents or grandparents thought was cool.

You're already seeing this - hipsters are entranced by the pastoral - city
chickens/livestock, city farms, etc.

------
j_s
When "The Net Is a Waste of Time"[1] (an editorial by William Gibson) was
discussed[2] on Hacker News:

    
    
      > The winning quote: "[sic] surfing the Web is a procrastinator's dream. And people 
      > who see you doing it might even imagine you're working."
      > - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5262229
    

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/14/magazine/the-net-is-a-
wast...](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/14/magazine/the-net-is-a-waste-of-
time.html)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5261676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5261676)

------
darkxanthos
I'm not convinced this is new. How would one go about showing that it is?

------
apostate
Mindfulness meditation[1] is an old but very effective way of training the
mind to recognize distractions. I agree with the article that the
opportunities for distraction are at an all-time high, but the human brain has
not changed much in the last few millenia, and the problem of being distracted
is almost certainly as old as the first time a person desired to contemplate
something. To someone who wishes to devote a significant portion of their day
to contemplation (e.g. a Buddhist monk), _any_ distraction can be a setback,
and the so-called "monkey mind"[2] is awfully persistent.

Being able to recognize that you are being pulled away from your object of
focus is the essential first step to reduce both the frequency and length of
distractions. This is one of the goals of mindfulness meditation. Personally,
I have found that the simple act of being able to catch myself in the midst of
a distraction has improved my ability to focus.

After spending time practicing mindfulness, I have developed a wonderful skill
of being able to "switch off" a racing mind and pull myself back down to the
task at hand (or to simply pull myself out of an anxious state of mind and
into a pleasant one). Importantly, practicing this during 15 minutes of daily
meditation has enabled me to do this during any of the other ~1000 waking
minutes of each day. The first time I noticed myself do this "automatically"
outside of meditation, I was amazed that I was able to cultivate such a skill.

If you are interested in a good primer on mindfulness and how to actually go
about meditation, I recommend _Mindfulness in Plain English_.[3] I recommend
it whenever the subject comes up and I'm sure very few people read it, but it
had enough of an effect on me that I would not want others to miss out.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_of_breathing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_of_breathing)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_monkey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_monkey)

[3]
[http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/mindfulness_in_plain_english....](http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/mindfulness_in_plain_english.pdf)

~~~
rk0567
Another one : [http://www.siyli.org/take-the-course/siy-
curriculum/](http://www.siyli.org/take-the-course/siy-curriculum/)

------
adamconroy
Is it that much different to reading a newspaper/mag/book or watching the
shop's TV while waiting for fish and chips?

I'm the first to be pissed when people I'm hanging out with start fiddling
with their phone but I'm also the first to fiddle with my phone if I have a
spare minute waiting for something and there is nobody to offend.

When going out to dinner or a bar, I like the idea of everyone stacking their
phones on the table. Everyone time someone can't resist touching their phone
they have to shout a round of drinks.

------
crux
There's nothing really new in this talk but I have to say it was well-
delivered. Well enough that I want to really resolve to keep my phone in my
pocket whenever I'm with someone - even if they get up from the table. It's of
course unconscionable to start tapping around while you're in the middle of a
conversation, but I'm very well-acquainted with the impulse to check facebook
or email as soon as a friend goes to the bathroom. I'll really try to capture
that valuable mind-wandering time.

------
tekalon
Distracted from what? If we're distracted from socialization, its probably
that whoever we're socializing isn't that interesting. No longer
thinking/pondering? I use those mindless games to 'ponder'\- They are simple
enough it doesn't take much mental process to play, but leaves enough for me
to think about what needs to be thought out (problems, the day, world
problems, etc). The same arguments he's made have been made about books for
centuries.

------
jawr
I just wanted to say that Joe Kraus did an awesome job at keeping my attention
and presenting his ideas. It is extremely odd how much people rely on phones,
but I think it's deeper that that and it's actually the internet that is the
fundamental issue. Yes, it's a great resource; it's a great source of
entertainment, knowledge and potential power. But for something that could be
described as intangible it seems to be quite detrimental to us as a society.

------
queeerkopf
earlier discussion on HN:
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4710217](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4710217)

------
zwieback
I'm sure there's some danger in all this distraction but I also think that
people really weren't that interesting and interested before smartphones.
Smart and creative people will always find ways to do smart and creative
things but lots of people just look for distraction in whatever form they can
find.

The point about kids is an important one, though. Smartphone-parents do set a
bad example for their kids.

------
joshdance
You can't blame a "smartphone" for the distraction. It is merely a tool.
People don't like to think or create, they like to consume. The smartphone is
the best tool for consumption. I try to chose when I want to interact with my
phone. Sometimes that means ignoring texts or calls, and turning off
notifications. Not perfect but it is a start.

------
floobynewb
I experience this. But my addiction is for information, technical articles,
scientific papers in mathematics, physics, machine learning, biology. Now I
can do it all on my phone anywhere, anytime. Texting and social media are of
little interest to me... Do you think this is still something I should worry
about?

------
jackmaney
Hmmm, this appears to be an insightful article. I think I'll read it thoro--
oooh, coffee's done!

~~~
yaddayadda
I do love my latte in the ... squirrel!

------
Millennium
What is this "are creating"? We've had one for decades. We've refined it
tremendously over the last 50+ years, by taking advantage of new technological
achievements, but the fundamentals have been in place a lot longer than the
article's author seems to think.

~~~
smacktoward
Yeah, Neil Postman wrote about this same basic issue in his book _Amusing
Ourselves to Death_
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death)),
and that came out nearly 30 years ago.

------
DougN7
This resonates so much with me and my kids. On Saturday when school is out,
they'll spend 80+% of their day engaging with one screen or another. And
during my non-work time, blogs and forums (ahem), online news and magazines
are where I end up spending a lot of time...

~~~
aestra
Maybe your family should try what the person in the video has, a weekly "non-
screen" day where everyone turns off their cellphones, computers, and TVs.
Your kids might object at first, but it will be good for them in the long run.

~~~
tekalon
Wouldn't that just open up the family to be 'distracted' by something else? If
the family wants social time, yes, there should be a social time set up for
games or mutual activity, but otherwise it will just open up for kids to be
distracted with books. I've heard very social parents complain that their kids
rather read than go play with other kids (and been complaint since
books/learning has been around). I knit to keep my hands busy when watching
anything or in church listening.

------
diydsp
interesting point about the notifications from cellphones being random (and
thus addictive like gambling). Perhaps mine would be less random if I were to
use the "different sounds for different people" feature...

------
dnautics
to play devil's advocate (I don't necessarily believe this; I just don't know)
- why is this necessarily a problem? For example, one possibility is: Over
time, an increased culture of distraction will through social selection filter
itself out into "improved multitasking ability". There are always growing
pains associated with any seismic shift in society, especially those created
by technology. What makes this one different, or are you someone who laments
that time given over to learn cursive is now used to teach children to type?

------
qwerta
Phone can be switched off. The real problem are open-plane offices.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Nah. There's a reason why god invented headphones. :)

~~~
brador
To save others some time:

Inventor of headphones: Nathaniel Baldwin.

------
doubt_me
This is one of the major problems pointed out in Noam Chomskys manufacturing
of consent (1992). Its a really nice documentary. I think the entire thing is
uploaded to youtube

------
avodonosov
Fully agree with the title. But haven't read fully - too many characters,
don't want to distract that much from the current tasks :)

------
mathattack
I hope the irony of this story being posted on Hacker News isn't lost on
everyone. :-)

------
noptic
TL;Look a cat!!!

------
dpweb
More first world problems..

------
drewsears
tl;dr

------
contextual
This is why I walk. I don't drive, or even have a car. I do my best thinking
when I walk and my mind is free to roam. VOW of NOW[1], Summon the Warrior[2]
and my upcoming Self Experiments[3] are all products of walking and gap time.

Not only does walking spark creativity, but I've met a lot of new people this
way.

[1] [http://vowofnow.com](http://vowofnow.com) [2]
[http://summonthewarrior.com](http://summonthewarrior.com) [3]
[http://selfexperiments.com](http://selfexperiments.com)

~~~
return0
I think driving is a less distracting experience than walking

~~~
agumonkey
It's contextual. If you walk or drive in a disrupting location you won't be
able to wander or think. Taking the bus works sometimes when they're almost
empty. One disappointing thing I learned is that the less efficient is biking,
I thought I'd be able to day dream while riding but it's the fastest path to
injuries.

~~~
vanderZwan
Depends on where you live - I grew up in the countryside of the Netherlans,
which has excellent biking infrastructure, almost no traffic, and a calm
environment in general. Biking to and from school every day was very good for
my mind.

~~~
agumonkey
Probably, but then you must ride slowly, otherwise not paying attention can
lead to collision.

~~~
vanderZwan
Nah, did 18 kilometers in 45 minutes every morning.

There's really, _really_ little traffic, and it's mostly long straight roads.

~~~
agumonkey
Oh okay then, the main bike lane in my area has regular curves and vicious
intersections, with people/kids walking by. I don't stare at girls anymore
since I don't like kissing trees that much.

