So we're the first generation shifting cognitive burden of some kinds of memory (all those phone numbers) elsewhere. I welcome it. My wife hates it, but she likes the books. In a couple of generations it all will be irrelevant.
Socrates absolutely did.
> for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
It fascinated me. The idea that books, that were more or less revered depositories of knowledge, could have been seen as anti-intellectual at one time. It pushed me into memorizing stuff. I think it had an unanticipated effect. I thought it would help my overall cognitive capabilities and make me maybe better at science and maths but instead, it gave me a taste for poetry.
If you learn poetry for the sake of it, not because you have a recitation exercise, after a while, it become easy. It is not like memorizing the digits of pi: good poetry has a flow. A flow of sounds, a flow of words, a flow of meanings and a flow of emotions. It is easy to dismiss them when you simply read it, but having to learn it makes you connect deeply to the meaning. Hearing it also has a different effect. I now understand why poems, that I used to find uninteresting when skimming over them in books were actually so highly regarded back in the time.
That was an interesting experience, but Socrates missed a trend that continues nowadays: the volume of accessible information grows. We need faster processing modes. We need written text so we can skim through a page and dismiss it in a few minutes. We can't do that with oral transmission.
That must not make us forget that deeper modes of thought exist. Once we have googled the words we did not know, wikipediaed the summary of the knowledge we lacked, we must fight the urge to keep the flow of information going, reach out to the off button, and dare to stay an hour or two with our mind. Thinking.
We memorize things by exerting recalls. We understand things by banging our heads over what we don't understand about them. Acquiring the knowledge is just the first step of acquiring understanding.
In this day and age meditation becomes popular amongst intellectuals for a reason, but even if you are not into meditation, do yourself a favor when you learn new things: think about them with only your brain for an hour or two. Thinking does take time but without it information gathering is useless.
It's a been a point of frustration for me and the people I'm closest with for several years now. It doesn't seem to affect work nearly as much.
I've had a feeling that it's because I don't let myself just think. Your comment makes me even more sure of this. I've developed habits since I was a teenager to keep my brain constantly busy, always either consuming or producing something. But never integrating or just thinking. It seems I need to replace some habits.
> I've had a feeling that it's because I don't let myself just think.
I feel your frustration here. The best way I can describe what prescription stimulants do for me is give me just enough space and perception of time that I can pause and think. Otherwise my mind just keeps going on cruise control with shallow cognitive load chores.
Deep in a programming bug or reversing project my mind is stimulated and dopamine is being released. In the zone my brain feels fully alive and attentive (without meds). Outside of things that deeply stimulate me it is always a challenge.
Meditation, exercise, nutrtion, and CBT all help. They chip away at the undesirable behavior. For many it is enough.
But at the same time, basics like exercise, good sleep(+), low stress, healthy eating (fewer stimulants) etc can all affect memory - It's hard to diagnose any particular cause of poor memory with all these variables.
(+) As an aside, I've sometimes found too much sleep can cause me to be less alert!? Maybe it's related to "mind-busyness"? Like how the "Balmer-peak" seems to operate on reducing overthinking via the confidence/fuzz-increasing effect of alcohol.
Memorizing happens when you try to recall. If you want to learn a list of things, spend half of your time trying to remember them. Let your brain push as much as it can to reach the memory before giving it the answer. This helps memorization a lot.
When I was young I took part in a lot of weekday groups in a Christian church (rural Ontario, pretty much the mode out there at that time). One of our regular practices was being rewarded for perfectly memorizing passages. I recall being able to recite entire chapters, and soon entire books after practice. I ended up doing some acting as a kid and had no difficult time memorizing scripts after all of that.
But later in my high school years and into university I loved poetry, and tried to keep a few favourites in memory (and still do) because they inevitably become relevant at some point, and I find it a comfort.
Just find something you enjoy reading first off. The technicals of craft are arbitrary if you enjoy it. If you don't read much poetry and ever want suggestions, I'd love to contribute!
edit: fixed a typo
Otherwise I have only bad recommendations in French, but I learned almost all of Cyrano de Bergerac's play and still remember maybe a third of it. In it, "La ballade du duel" flows very well and "la tirade des nez" is a classic that is a very good exercise.
I have no clue about English poetry. Despite having a decent written English level, I could never get into poetry in English. I think my pronunciation is not good enough and I have a hard time knowing how some more rare words, common in poetry, are actually pronounced. I would love to have the courage to get into Paradise Lost at one point.
I celebrate myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.
WHO has gone farthest? for I would go farther,
And who has been just? for I would be the most just person of
And who most cautious? for I would be more cautious,
And who has been happiest? O I think it is I—I think no one
was ever happier than I,
And who has lavish'd all? for I lavish constantly the best I have,
And who proudest? for I think I have reason to be the proudest
son alive—for I am the son of the brawny and tall-topt
And who has been bold and true? for I would be the boldest and
truest being of the universe,
And who benevolent? for I would show more benevolence than
all the rest,
And who has receiv'd the love of the most friends? for I know
what it is to receive the passionate love of many friends,
And who possesses a perfect and enamour'd body? for I do not
believe any one possesses a more perfect or enamour'd
body than mine,
And who thinks the amplest thoughts? for I would surround those
And who has made hymns fit for the earth? for I am mad with de-
vouring ecstasy to make joyous hymns for the whole earth.
> What has happened to the lost art of memorising poems? Why do we no longer feel that it is necessary to know the most enduring, beautiful poems in the English language 'by heart'? In his introduction Ted Hughes explains how we can overcome the problem by using a memory system that becomes easier the more frequently it is practised. The collected 101 poems are both personal favourites and particularly well-suited to the method Hughes demonstrates. Spanning four centuries, ranging from Shakespeare and Keats through to Thomas Hardy and Seamus Heaney, By Heart offers the reader a 'mental gymnasium' in which the memory can be exercised and trained in the most pleasurable way. Some poems will be more of a challenge than others, but all will be treasured once they have become part of the memory bank.
I'd add that if you want to understand what's going on within a poem you might find The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry useful.
Human nature + escalating technology is the scary formula we are exploring today.
No one is worried about the number of people who have ALREADY been killed by nukes, they are worried about the number of people who might be in the future. But I suppose I fundamentally agree with you. I think we may have more to fear from scientifically engineered diseases than we do from nuclear weapons.
If you observe this then you can see that in the future people will look back at now and think the same. history tells us the same thing. it's human nature to think that doom and gloom now is much worse than before, simply because we are in this moment and without perspective.
We, today, have the ability to dictate what others tomorrow over- or under-appreciate as doom and gloom. Whether there is a cognitive dissonance is irrelevant, but what actually happens is very much only avoidable going forward, not looking back.
Nobody suspects the flue.
Yeah, but without bacteria we wouldn't be where we are today. Whatever that means.
I would not identify rather specific technologies accelerating the reach of the dysfunctional into "technology in general", just like I wouldn't lump together the bacteria that caused the plague and those that live in my stomach.
Today's are engogenous. Several are existential.
Edit window expired.
I don't think so, but a regular decline isn't impossible.
It was just a few decades ago that 80 million people died in a single war.
If most of society dies in pain and hunger to climate change, would the survivors say "bah, just more fear mongering"?
For me, humanity is the sum of human experiences, not the mere presence of the species. The end of the world being relative and analog.
The world did not end for the other billion on Earth living at the same time. You can't just throw figures like that without putting them in perspective.
>The vast majority of hungry people live in developing regions, which saw a 42 percent reduction in the prevalence of undernourished people between 1990–92 and 2012–14.
Most of it is because of conflicts. Poverty is decreasing fast across the globe and there were relatively a lot more people dying from hunger in the 80s.
If even the US government couldn't resist obliterating 2 cities in Japan with Nukes can you imagine what the Nazis would have done? There would have been zero consideration for the loss of human life, possibly large areas of continental Europe and the US would have been bombed.
I think "the world did not end" meaning "it never will despite what's been said and done in the past" is a really dangerous miopic notion
In the end, though nazis didn't value non-arial lives, they were no idiots. Why would they destroy cities and pollute areas supposed to be the part of Reich? The end of the world is both hard and unprofitable. "Nazis would" is a scary tale nicely covering the actual face of war that always remained the same.
What is really scary today is that some countries develop supreme air/space control systems, so those in the club become immune to any sort of dialog.
There was no economic in V1 and V2, yet they did it, harming themselves economicaly more than they harmed the targets.
Additionally they knew losing WW2 is existential threat for most of them. If they could destroy London with one push of a button - they would.
Nukes at the time were still weak weapons. You could inflict a lot more damage (and a lot more damage happened on Tokyo and many other Japanese cities) by regular firebombing. You did not need nuclear bombs to inflict catastrophic loss of life.
Now when it came to thermonuclear weapons, the magnitude is entirely different, but that only occurred many years later. It would never have occurred at the time of WW2.
It just look like the notion is always morphing from generations to generations : the flood, the plague, the apocalypse, the nuclear winter and now climat change.
From biblical hazards to scientific hazards, maybe humankind is finally like the high school student who only work great when under heavy pressure for it's exams.
And maybe just maybe this is how you can best reconcile science with religion because no matter your beliefs, this is a test for all of us... Are we making enough "good" around to deserve joy for us, our children and all they children after them?
It was written 7 years ago, but it's still relevant as Android and 4G were rapidly rising in usage around then.
"The more words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" - Ecclesiastes 6:11
"Let's start from the premise that more information, more empowerment, is fundamentally the correct answer" - Eric Schmidt
One of these two quotes is not like the others...
Probably he meant "I never make effort to ...".
Which IMO is foolish - for most people - but probably reflects more that he easily memorised facts without effort (something I was fortunate to experience in my youth and which is now sorely missed).
>Education Is Not the Learning of Facts, But the Training of the Mind To Think
Information is only useful insofar as it furthers understanding. It has no value outside that beyond parlor tricks or game shows, especially in the modern internet age.
What good knowing how to think without having the standard inputs; this enables focus on the wider problem rather than interrupting to feed in necessary facts.
E=hf ... but hang on, does that make sense, the trained mind can analyse it. Sure you can look up energies, and Planck and frequencies but having any of those to hand makes your work more efficient. It doesn't just have to make theoretical sense except for v. v. few ... and I say that as an erstwhile theoretician.
Don't get me wrong. Learning facts as a goal is inherently misdirected. But facts are the atoms on which the trained mind works.
Moreover axioms are facts that can't be intuited or derived, they must be learnt of existing systems or defined of new ones.
I think the position espoused in those quotes is hyperbolic.
(poking fun, but only a bit)
Now try reciting the Library of Congress after one hearing. Or Wikipedia. That's a whole nother level of problem.
It's still unclear to me which parts of the Internet provide a good ratio.
Heck, Socrates' own students ignored his teachings on this subject and wrote extensively. That they are what we know him from, and not some oral or memorized tradition, is pretty damning for his opinions on the subject IMO.
This may be over-simplified but appears to be backed up by the general discussion on pages 10-11.
I was tethered to a phone for years. I am retired. I only take it if I am expecting to be idle. Then, I take it so I can browse while waiting.
It feels kinda nice, frankly. I am not a technophobe. It's just nice to not be beholden to my phone.
Your comment about being beholden to your phone reminds me a a great quote that I recalled on that day: "Wearing a watch is like being handcuffed to time."
Later on, maybe by 2010, I had noticed that as my aversion to blackberry vibrations emerged, and I avoided my work-related cellphone more and more, I got really good at ballparking the time to within a margin of maybe two minutes, give or take.
Basically by now, somehow, I'm able to glance at a known clock with an accurate reading (or with a known offset to the accurate time), catch the time once, and usually remain pretty accurate for the next handful of hours, until I get stuck in a sufficiently distracting situation that demands concentration. Up until that point, I try to guess the time to the minute before looking, then look, and often, I'm right on.
I don't have any special method beyond that though. It's just a gut feeling I've accidentally developed. I think it started when I disabled rings and vibrations for email alerts and I'd (with an amount of dread) try to guestimate how many emails would drop before the next time I checked my phone, and the minutes since my last look.
I think the next level up, beyond this skill is memorizing relevant time zones and major cities in each, but I haven't been pushed into caring about something like that quite yet.
I like the quote because that's how I feel when I look at any digital clock or watch. The millisecond accuracy of any NTP-aware device produces anxiety and is unnecessary.
An analog watch, especially if it's a wind-up mechanical watch, which is by its nature slightly inaccurate, is much more comforting. I feel like an observer of time, and not a slave of it.
A car lover seeks out beautiful cars, and maybe owns one or two that they take out enjoy when they have time.
A technophile is the same. What this discussion is about is addicts, not technophiles or technophobes.
I have it scheduled to turn on every night so I'm not disturbed by spam calls at 3AM, with a few family members excluded.
I feel I would benefit greatly from being able to truly turn my phone off one day a week.
The stress may well be cumulative, and it's insidious.
They had amazing memories, but they couldn't memorize large works like that after just one hearing. There are techniques that allow one to remember information like that, but it still requires effort.
Here are two great books on that subject:
- The Art of Memory by Frances Yates (covers Greece, Rome, and Europe)
- The Memory Code by Lynne Kelly (goes back further into prehistory)
And two quick articles about memory feats in ancient Greece and Rome.
- Preface to Plato, by Eric Havelock
Is this a true fact, or just a story people keep repeating because it sounds interesting?
If it were true... how would we know? Presumably you would cite sources from Ancient Greece where people reported that they knew bards who could memorize a whole story with one listen, but like, there are sources from Ancient Greece claiming to know of a woman who was so ugly that looking at her could turn a man to stone.
We can kind of sanity check the claim by looking at modern peoples. Anthropologists have extensive experience with pre-literate peoples, and they do have fine memories --but not magical ones .
If it were true, how would they know?!?
It's like if my nephew came to my house and saw Star Wars, and then on the drive home with his mom, he told her the story and she (who never saw the movie) said "He recited the entire movie after one hearing!"
No, what he did was remember most of the plot outline (imperfectly), and describe several scenes (imperfectly), and reproduce the gist, more or less, of some of the dialogue... He's not some incredible savant, he's just a normal person who paid attention to a story. I mean, sure, he "can recite the whole thing after one hearing", but in a pre-literate society, how would you even double-check? It would take someone else with total recall to verify that the bard had total recall. So you have to assume storytellers have perfect memory in order to demonstrate that a storyteller has perfect memory.
From whom did this person hear it repeated over and over, perfectly, without variation? And who did THAT person find, capable of reciting a quarter million words in a specific order, multiple times without mistake? And so on.
At some point in the chain, you either have a person with an unverifiable claim of single-hearing perfect superhuman memory, OR you have a story repeated imperfectly which no one is capable of validating.
In your Star Wars analogy, remember that there's no DVD copy, and no way for me to have "seen the movie multiple times" without just pushing the whole "perfect memory" claim back one generation.
For example, look at formulaic rebooted sequel Hollywood movies. Given less than a paragraph outline, you can recite the details of most movies pretty well. Consider the first Star Trek Reboot movie, doesn't that compress down to only a couple lines, even if you talk for hours about lens flare and pew-pew sound effects? The second reboot movie compresses down to perhaps one or two complete paragraphs worth of raw data, its at least twice as complicated as the first movie.
Something like the iconic original Star Wars was tight because it provided a new formula, a pretty cool formula, but within that formula which admittedly is difficult to learn, the story is also not terribly long.
I guess I'm getting at teach a Bard about Hollywood Star Wars films for awhile, then learning specific movies only takes one viewing and is easy to memorize.
If you know the Adventure Time world and in-jokes, each episode is like two lines of text to memorize, maybe.
I recently proposed error correction codes for an entirely separate purpose: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/enzymaticsynthesis/WvDidIldm...
I would like to also add my support for some of the ideas expressed earlier in the thread regarding the questions around whether literacy negatively impacts human memory, especially in children or in studied aboriginal populations. There are even studies that show that the vividness of mental imagery is reduced in people who wear eyeglasses: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/imagery/Refractive%20e...
Of course. That's why I stipulated a pre-literate society.
there are many mnemonic devices strewn throughout the text of the Illiad and the Odyssey, for example, 'rose-fingered dawn' shows up many, many times as a 'stopping point' for remembering.
There are many, many different manuscripts of the Homer's works which all had minor or major differences, depending on who wrote them down - there's one project that tries to pull them all together: http://www.homermultitext.org/about.html
Only relatively recently has there been 'one' Iliad, before that it was whatever the orator remembered, and memory isn't perfect
I wonder how that subset of the population would rank on their evaluation.
- Oral communication priorotizes memory (as mentioned) but also personal trust, since knowledge is always obtained directly from another person. Hence oral cultures tend to place high value on communal social structures.
- written communication priorotizes rationality since all communication can be scrutinzed before and during reading. It also prioritizes individual assessment and independence. You could argue that the broad adoption of print as a medium of communication lead to individualism, the scientific revolution, the Renaissance, and the Reformation (i.e. the fundamental contributors to modern Western Civilization).
There are obvious merits to digit communication, but the full effects on our minds and culture are not known. A blind belief in some salvific and inevitable march of progress is unwise. We may be trading immediacy, emotivism, and impulsivity for rationality and that should give us pause.
The comparison to today is not whether you can find someone who can recite a book on first reading, but someone who can recite a song the first time they hear it, or parts of a stand-up routine.
Epic recitation was probably not fixed until someone wrote it down. Different recitations of the same plot varied (and were expected to).
That sounds highly unlikely. Do you have a legitimate sources to back this up? Certainly bards had great memory and were able to recite whole epics (perhaps with a level of improvisation akin to "freestyling" in rap), but under what circumstances would they only hear an epic once?
This is extremely unlikely. What the Bards could do was improvise on themes. And often that theme was ancient Troy. They would actually improvise to music in a well-known meter, not unlike a Jazz musician would.
"Yet if Homer was strictly an oral poet, how could he keep such long works as the Iliad in his head? It would take days to recite all of the Iliad or the Odyssey! It is now thought that Homer worked some time between 725 and 675 B.C., when the alphabet borrowed from the Phoenicians was just coming into use among the Greeks. It seems likely that writing helped Homer in collecting and composing."
Apply stories and mnomics to information you want to remember. Leverage your spatial memory by associating particular locations in a familiar place with a memory. Get into the habit of reviewing your situation at opportune times, i.e. when you get home or enter your car, and remember things you wanted to do there.
A good approach to this makes it a lot easier to effectively apply your digital memory, and is also useful in situations where electronics are inappropriate (i.e. recognizing someone IRL).
And maybe we over relied on some senses and made an education system which relied on certain sense organs more than other senses.
But talking about Smartphones,we may be coming to a full circle with Voice assisted AI is gaining ground.
I would suggest you to read The book 'A brave new world' By Aldous Huxley which predicted how the information overloaded numbness works in a beautiful way
How can anyone remember 10+ mins music piece for 9 voices is beyond me. Granted, Mozart had some music superpowers, but still...
For example, if I asked an advanced programmer to read a professional implementation of some basic data structures and algorithms, they could likely later recreate the exact same thing. Obviously they didn't memorize the file character by character, but a sensibly written implementation is going to have the same shape and form as something the expert has done hundreds of times.
I recognized that my mind started to become a mental index of information at some point. This is to say that I hold memories of compressed information that I can expand with key search terms to hook onto the information I am actually seeking. One recent example was searching for "Milton Friedman Thalidamide FDA" because I knew it would snag an Uncommon Knowledge discussion I shared with a developers group recently.
If one is up for reading a book written by a Christian, this book describes the world well.
Reciting a story accurately pre writing had a different meaning (not word for word)
Attention is precious, and our society gives it away like free candy. Anything with a screen magnify this, and this has important consequence on learning, social interactions, self growth, mood, hapiness and health.
smartphones are not what you say they are, without internet smartphones are close to tracking, privacy invasive, useless bricks. Something like computers with no arms and both knees broken.
3 months ago I changed my phone's language to Japanese. Everything is Japanese - maps, services, apps that read from the default phone language.
Oddly enough, instead of learning Japanese, I just use my phone less.
Similarly, I stopped listening to any music on my iPhone once I got an iPhone 7. Unexpected side effect of having no headphone jack, but I always forget the dongle somewhere. So, no more music from the iPhone. I listen to old am/fm talk radio again instead.
(mind you, I do not listen with in-ear headphones when I actually want to enjoy music, but they sure are a lot easier to bring with me than my "real headphones")
Edit, as a bonus, as I almost always have my in-ears with me, is that I most often also have access to the dongle while in new environments as well.
I have no inherent issue with the removing the headphone jack since the included earpods do use a lightning connector. Not sure if those existed at launch
One of the most annoying situations was when I had a great podcast I wanted to share with someone on a long drive, pulled out the iPhone 7 to plug into their car stereo and.... new-ish car.... but AUX only.... no dongle..... never mind!
I believe Apple removed the headphone jack 5 or 10 years too early. Bluetooth is not that great, and it's also not that widespread. AUX is not a floppy or CD drive, it is everywhere and works great and allows for high quality audio, no troubleshooting, no compression, no hassle. The alternatives (dongle? Bluetooth?) is comparatively nowhere and does not work great.
Personally I bought Bluetooth headphones and that's it, imo people are being too dramatic about it.
Problem solved. Enjoy
I'm using a 1,5€ BK8000L module (http://www.electrodragon.com/w/BK8000L) that I soldered to my old stock autoradio, replacing the tape audio circuit, and the quality is much better than FM.
Of course if the person is willing to attach something to the car audio as you have, that's the best!
I didn't think about that, yeah, but the OP said they had an AUX input, so quality should be good with a (even cheap) bluetooth adapter on that.
I suppose it's not "can't", but "won't."
(On a more serious note, 6-month girlfriend fluency in Japanese is something I've observed a few times, and it's a great stepping stone but mostly just barely functional. Especially when your situational choice of e.g. verb form broadcasts so much about your educational background)
When you play the game, listen to what's being said and read the subtitles, you can actually learn the alphabet while playing the game. I still can't read Russian fluently, but I can now decipher/map each individual letter to a Latin version and such at the least understand what's being written! Sadly, a lack of time made me stop playing.
The last few days I really feel the effect of having to check my phone every hours or so. This article motivate me to turn it off for the week. Thanks!
Edit: Well, except for the part where they admitted they just started to use their phone less.
I have, in reality, seen 2 people do this and they were both already quite grounded in the Japanese language (several years).
This has been part of a larger life exercise in practicing general moment-to-moment mindfullness, and I think I'm going to keep this up for a while and see how long I can go without a smartphone before people start asking me questions at work. So far, so good.
It's like I've withdrawn from a drug and some of my attention is back under my control, where my mind can better keep its peace. I guess I didn't exercise proper discipline when I had the phone.
Writing on it is very natural/paper feeling, there's no erasing or anything. With the more expensive models, it can sync the notes to a computer/cloud service.
I already have three pocket-sized notebooks filled up already with tons of art and ideas from my fountain pen!
(Love that pen. Now I write in a crude Spencerian script for extra fun points.)
Half the features on the phone are dead though, the Nokia servers are gone.
I didn't miss the calls, or anything. Only the possibility to take pictures on the spot.
It's fun to review old photos, so I enjoy taking lots of them. But anytime I put my camera between myself and whatever I'm photographing, it also feels like a removal of being in the present moment and just enjoying it for what it is.
I never really felt like this. Snapping a photo takes a few seconds and I can continue enjoying whatever I was doing, not that I'm not enjoying taking a photo :) To me it's just shrink-wrapping my mood.
I can do the former without removing myself from the moment, while I find the latter requires it - at least thus far, I haven't worked out a way to both remain present in an experience, and also engage in the kind of analytical thought and modeling that goes into producing photographs which are (or at least strive to be) worthy in their own right, whichever camera I happen to be using to do so.
I love the style and simplicity
Though I have to agree it looks pretty cool.
I have family and friends in other cities and a girlfriend across town. Texts are just too convenient not to have when you need to coordinate. Just last week a friend passed through town looking for a new car and we met up for dinner - never would have happened without a phone. GF gets into a minor accident (not her fault, she would like to point out) and I can be over there in minutes thanks to a couple of texts. Father breaks his knee and I can follow how he's doing in real time, rather than finding out at the next family gathering.
I could do without the "smart" part of the phone. I really just need texting/calling (mainly texting). But I don't want a land line, and I'm pretty sure my relationships with friends and family would quickly deteriorate without my cell phone.
Why not just buy a "dumbphone"?
When I realized how dependent I became on the phone for my well-being I decided to go through a painful-ish withdrawal to get back my own sense of self. Definitely wasn't comfortable, which prompted me to continue the practice!
Low point was feeling impatient to check for updates when a loved one was dying and I was visiting at the hospital. Where in the world was my head? I was there to spend quality time with someone while they were still in the here-and-now! And I was anxious to check notifications from some random social website that'd be there tomorrow? WTF.
That's when I knew I had an Internet addiction, and that the phone enabled it.