Notwithstanding the need to separate work from leisure life, much of leisure is just attached to this device. Even the less consumptive activities, like writing or playing music, benefit from it. And anything to do with innovation or research is absolutely tied to it. This has been amplified somewhat owing to the pandemic, keeping me from activities out-in-the-world, but even before it all happened I merely had the gym and the odd outing to the coffee shop on the regular, and weekly/bi-weekly outings with friends.
It's a mechanical issue. By which I mean, I enjoy research at leisure and relatively solitary activities, but at the same time I want to pull away from being in front of a screen; it hasn't to do with consumption versus creativity or challenge. I try to remedy this with scheduled walks, and enough social time. Historically I imagine a person like myself would just be stuck in front of books instead, which I do also, but so much info can be gleaned from the web particularly research papers.
EDIT: this concerns me more-so now as we'll be trying for a kid, and I'd like to lead by example.
What I'd like to see in the future is AR tech that rewards mobility and in-person interaction, creating collaborative spaces anywhere. That may seem like more of the same problem, but the marriage with technology will only deepen, so it's up to us to set the terms.
I have a few tricks. I have a work laptop and a gaming computer, and I do all my personal work on the gaming computer. That helps separate the two. I have a workspace which gets me out of the house and keeps me focused while at work, so I can get it done quicker and ultimately spend less time on the computer. I also have a few outdoors hobbies, and a few indoors hobbies that are away from the computer. But of course I can't make progress on my computer projects off the computer, so that's still a conundrum I can't solve.
I am at the point where I wonder if maybe I should work outdoors or offline, in order to regain my online time. But I'm not sure where to take that.
Also I installed EasyWindowSwitcher and assigned it to a shortcut, which gave me window-cycling like in mac.
I just settled to learn both, but I still see myself ctrl+c copying on mac and when alt+c when back on my windows machine.
I have high hopes for WSL2 replacing MacOS or Ubuntu VM's for me, especially because Darwin is simply not a linux system and you really feel the difference once you work on natively compiled code.
That's exactly what I did two weeks ago, after years of working on macos I ditched it in favor of windows. I haven't looked back since. The native WSL-integration in windows' vscode is a blessing; you open vscode, it's already connected to wsl, you write your flask-app or whatever, and can access it from windows' chrome without intermediate steps. This setup feels leaps ahead of anything I've done on macos.
Bonus screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/7p5g5os.png
While debugging a UDP server recently I discovered that any attempt to capture anything via UDP was scuppered entirely by the networking abstraction. Also the bastardised lack of services is problematic.
Thus I’ve gone back to virtual box and Debian. You still can use VSCode but have to jump through some more hoops
There are too many weird compromises and bugs with it. Better to stick with a tidier abstraction.
At home I'm using my computer also for gaming and Windows is again simply the way of least friction.
I've run a hardware switch for my hard drives for a few years to switch between Linux and Windows (effectively cutting off power from some of my drives). However, this means I have to fully shutdown the system to switch environments and I saw myself mostly rather spin up a Ubuntu VM in Windows for personal projects.
I hope WSL2 brings the best of both worlds with the least friction.
I had problem with Windows randomly wrecking the Ubuntu boot sector on separate HDs, but using physical switches seems like a good idea! I'll try that.
Other days I work on the lawn and property.
It seems to work unless I pick up side gigs programming, then I end up spending the whole day behind a laptop anyway, but at least it's all constructive work and not pissing away time on the internet.
On the other hand, if I don't touch the computer before noon, there's a solid chance I'll end up in the garage building things.
Unfortunately, I'll still need my laptop at some point, either to do research for a project or check things off my todo list. Just like that, I get sucked in.
I think everything you said was great up until here. Technology is part of the problem, so instead of just patching the symptom with even more technology, let's remove the cause: stop consuming, or rather, stop being consumed by, technology. You want to get away from the screen? Then get away. You want to go socialize with people in-person? Then just do it.
>marriage with technology will only deepen
It doesn't have to deepen. Nor should it deepen, because such a dependency to something too complex for me to reproduce or maintain myself is tyrannical; it is unhealthy to the individual. Nor can it deepen, because the resource requirements for producing and powering higher technology come at an ever-increasing cost, subsidized by the environment and future generations.
I was more explicit: screens time is the problem. We interface with all manner of technology in our daily lives that I don't find myself attached to, including electronics. Everything we use, all our tools, is technology. Colloquially we use the term to refer to computers.
I can reframe the problem in other ways, e.g. what would allow me to achieve certain things without screens?
> You want to get away from the screen? Then get away. You want to go socialize with people in-person? Then just do it.
I already do this, as described. I spend more time on screens because more of what I actually want to do requires it.
There are types of interactions besides socializing for its own sake. Technology already bridges gaps with the likes of meetup websites. I think something conducive to collaborating on projects in person would be welcome.
> It doesn't have to deepen.
Well Luddites are not suddenly going to gain traction.
> Nor can it deepen, because the resource requirements for producing and powering higher technology come at an ever-increasing cost, subsidized by the environment and future generations.
Innovation by nature will ultimately reduce costs, though an increasing rate of adoption by the population could outpace it.
Every person has an environmental footprint, and it's greater in the West. Between transportation both public and private, a residence, food, gadgets, etc it adds up and were this something to be curbed, taking devices away would be woefully insufficient at making the difference. The population rate just needs to drop, which can be alleviated by eliminating global poverty. The popularized push for minimalism while watching the population explode is a race to the bottom.
Hey, I resemble that remark.
What if I want to gain sudden traction with my offering to productively reverse the connection of the internet to mission-critical devices?
I'm pretty sure that the "bang for the buck" slope is pointed in the other direction. Thus, I'd re-consider your "nor can it deepen" conclusion.
I see clear lines between things like smartphones and tablets, desktop operating systems, game consoles, and kindles. There's many different types of screens. I'm comfortable handing a non-networked laptop to my kid for her to play with, but wouldn't hand her a tablet or game console.
I wish that I had a solution to that. There are various things that I have tried with varying degrees of success though. A variation on separate computers, as mentioned by others, is having separate accounts on the same computer: one for "entertainment" (what I'm doing now), one for personal use (hobbies, day-to-day tasks), and one for work. Another is to focus upon particular tools and avoid trying or debating the latest stuff. It works to a degree. Alas, the distractions are still a hands reach away.
You are right though. The good stuff happens behind a keyboard.
Personally, I don't view a black/white Kindle as the same as other screens, so a bike ride to a park where I might read a research paper or book I've put on my Kindle.
Kindle: read books
Nintendo Switch: play games
TV: watch films and shows
Getting into the "mental mode" to do one of those things requires using the device built for it, and putting away my general-purpose phone/laptop. The great thing about focused single-purpose devices is it's impossible to get "lost" clicking around and wasting time.
If I'm on my Kindle, I'm not scrolling through the news. If I'm on my TV, I'm not getting lost down some YouTube recommendation rabbit hole.
The more I started turning my laptop into single-use (cutting out social media, focusing on productivity), the more "bored" I was at first, but then I realized that's actually a good thing. In addition to all the above I have my piano I can practice on, too.
Being bored is good. The modern web and especially social media vehemently disagree, and so our incentives have diverged.
I took this approach when I was in grad school because I find it much more enjoyable to read and take notes directly on a physical copy.
The problem with this is that you end up with giant stacks of papers that take up a good amount of physical space. Every physical copy becomes a subsequent judgement of whether you need to keep it or recycle it. It's easy to accumulate a large stack of papers: (1) that you _intend_ to read, or (2) mediocre papers that create a sunk cost situation because you've invested time in printing out and taking notes on it.
On the face of it, a tablet reader seems like it would solve this problem, but I've never had the desire to invest $300-500 in one.
A black/white mobi tablet reader is closer to $100 than $300-$500, just in case you ever decide to change your mind.
At that point the laptop becomes more of a single-purpose "get things done" machine rather than a general purpose device I can waste hours clicking around on. :) Consumption-wise, it's led to me watching more films and TV shows rather than a string of 5-15 minute YouTube videos. I'm still spending 2-3 hours a day watching "video," but now it's (IMO) meaningful content instead of glorified clickbait.
All of this, plus leaving Facebook and Twitter, has done wonders to make me far more productive over this summer. Can't speak for everyone but I highly recommend taking the steps above.
>Non-Personal Information collected through your use of the browser extension and desktop app includes:
>Browsing history information (URLs/domains visited)
Internet Protocol address – but note that we permanently delete and hash the last portion of your Internet Protocol address before storing it, thus preventing us from having the ability to use it to transmit any information to your device or to otherwise identify you.
I think it'd be easier to just build the extension yourself considering the needed functionality is pretty straightforward (webrequest blocking + a minimal interface to add/remove URLs).
From the extension options:
> You may opt out of the automatic collection and sharing of Non-Personal Information described above as follows:
> For the BlockSite browser add-on extension:
> By deselecting the checkbox next to the words “Block Adult Sites” which can be found under the Settings tab of the Options page for the BlockSite extension.
heya, I am working on exactly this with https://app.mirrorspace.net (alpha)
I think this would be great: 3hrs away from the devices, bam! easy.
Please consider this carefully. The coming decades will not be pleasant to live in.
* Except maybe this year, which is an anomaly.
Open your eyes to everything, and see everything.
When your body feels a hint that something is wrong, following that hint will teach you something.
How does your body react when you see a child cry?
I'm sure some people have the self-control to use it sparingly. But for me, not having to constantly fight the urge to check my always-connected magic pocket internet portal has freed up a huge amount of my mental willpower, which I can now redirect to other more important things.
Now that everything is closed, I don't even miss having the convenience of Uber/Google Maps. Additionally, without social media, I remain blissfully unaware of whatever corona hysteria or political drama is consuming the minds of my peers.
These devices have a veritable legion of engineers working to make the smartphone experience as addictive as possible. For some people, the only winning move it not to play.
I have an LTE-enabled tablet, so if I'm going somewhere totally unfamiliar, I'll throw it in my bag just in case I need to look up some information. Otherwise you just have to plan your outings in advance - like we always did prior to 2008 or so.
I have a Garmin GPS mounted in car for road trips, which I honestly prefer since it doesn't tempt me to fiddle with it while driving like a smartphone does. I also carry a semi-nice digital camera sometimes. It's obviously not as convenient as a smartphone camera, but I find I am more thoughtful and appreciative of the photos I take as a result.
I use more paper items (small paper notebook for grocery lists, transit tickets instead of using the app, etc). This can be somewhat freeing, as I've missed my ferry a handful of times because their app glitched out.
My personality tends towards obsession and analysis paralysis, which can be good for programming but sometimes bad for real life. I no longer obsess over which restaurant has the best looking pictures or online reviews, I just walk inside and try it out. Sometimes this is for the better, sometimes for the worse, but it's definitely a more human experience.
Without the smartphone, I also find I am much more inclined to talk to random strangers, since I can't just whip out the phone during awkward silent moments.
With lack of FOMO, I am also much more present with family and friends, which is probably the biggest benefit.
What made you compulsively use your phone, but not your tablet?
I appreciate that you mentioned you still have the LTE tablet - one of my biggest concerns was traveling and the HUGE convenience apps have on my life then.
I haven't gone all the way and actually gotten rid of my phone, but I personally operate in three "modes:"
- Mode 1 where I'm going to need it for a task like navigation, or I'm OK with killing time and letting my mind wander. I keep it near me, always silent/no vibrate, and check it fairly often.
- Mode 2 where there's a remote chance I may need it because I might need to take a phone call or deal with an OTP. It sits out of sight, preferably in another room entirely.
- Mode 3, the phone is physically powered off. This is pretty much always the case after 8pm, it's frequently the case when I'm working, sometimes the case when I'm out with friends.
In practice I'm almost always in Mode 1 or Mode 3. I accept that it's OK/necessary to submit to distractions (though I do keep it on silent), or I just say screw it and turn it off.
In my experience if you develop a habit like always just powering it off after 8pm, after a few weeks the phone starts to lose its hold on you. You start having moments during the day where you're fiddling with it and your brain just goes "screw this, I would rather be relaxed, happy, and living life." That's the moment where Google, Apple etc. have lost the war they're waging against you, your brain is no longer hijacked, and it all gets better from there.
The biggest switch for me would be losing music streaming. What do you use for music on-the-go (at the gym, commuting, walking around, etc.)?
While my musical taste is eclectic (i.e. from classic over techno to glitch) I mostly prefer to either listen to music or do other things, instead of mixing those activities. I do listen to music on commutes, and sometimes while doing certain chores in the kitchen though. But otherwise either or, not both.
I wonder what gyms looked like in earlier generations (I'm only 27). Did people talk more?
Yes. Especially before the televisions arrived.
Gyms were well-known social hubs. You'd meet people, sometimes even work out business deals, at the gym.
The isolation that technology has brought us has reduced the number of serendipitous human connections we used to make as a species. It has also turned us into an us-verus-them society because we no longer have large circles of friends with varying opinions.
Personal music at the gym is not new or anything specific to phones
I gave that up too, replaced with live music venues where I could interact with the musicians.
Although depending on the venue musicians and even patrons will occasionally be wearing hearing protection earbuds for isolation.
Without earbuds it can only be better for personal interaction at the gym, etc. too.
When the Sony Walkman came out, those who took it to the gym were more keenly aware they were signaling that they didn't want any interaction there.
Solo commuting I'm just fine with news & talk now. Driving passengers or being one I can better appreciate anybody's channel selction. Nonmusic is too boring for most people anyway.
I get plenty of live music and that's all I really need.
If you already have to be on a computer a bit to begin with, might as well make the most of it.
When you do close the laptop and revert to normal in-person interaction, you can always walk away from the PC with mere cellular voice, if you really need that, for the duration.
Twenty years ago smartphones didn't have touchscreens. But they would take messages.
When that was the only thing you were carrying around, all you could really do was talk & text like anyone else.
But when you had your laptop, the built-in IR or USB interface to a top smart phone was what made it smart to begin with.
As a virtual COM port device, the analog modem in your phone was then accessible to Windows no differently than the analog hardware modem the laptop used when hardwired to a phone jack having a dial tone.
Even laptops without built in modems back then still had hardware COM port connectors just like desktops, which could be used with external hardwired phone modems (or used for local hardwired RS-232/TTY within the generous cable length limitation without need for modulation/demodulation).
But the cellphone was about twice the speeds the office was getting with 56K hardware modems.
From anywhere you could get a cellular signal.
This was years before each cellular company began to slowly roll out data plans as the phones got _smarter_.
Which were geographically limited ridiculously by comparison for many more years before data coverage got to where it is today.
Anyway you could get to your office network directly by dialing in to (one of) your target server's phone number(s) (and tying up that landline as long as you are connected).
Without having to go on the internet, so security could be through the roof by comparison.
Alternatively you could dial in to any ISP's phone bank when you needed to get on the web.
This could even be simply done routinely from a different Windows partition, physically separating personal from business for instance.
Would that make it a sandcastle compared to a sandbox?
Even with only a common single bootvolume you could connect to two networks at the same time using two modems, using the built-in Dial-Up Networking in Windows 98. You could become a bridge this way and security could be not so good.
You just pointed & clicked your selection(s) and they negotiated or autodialed if necessary.
So many offices had internet that you would almost always be fine to just dial in to that one place, and with more than one modem using more than one phone line W98 could be configured to communicate much faster than 56K using modem sharing.
And with a laptop you had all the power and software for business & internet connection you needed without having to wait for phones to get more powerful on their own.
With progress phones are much more popular & stylish now.
Posing with a touchphone, one-handed at a characteristic near-45 degree angle as an interested observer, recognizable in silhouette, whether standing (walking) or sitting, is not something that was ever seen in the 20th century.
Likewise the accompanying silhouette with the other hand on the touchscreen as an active operator.
Under laboratory conditions over a period of years, redirecting time otherwise spent in either pose toward actual scientific progress can have much more ideal outcomes when it comes to milestone accomplishments.
Anectdotal data, YMMV.
I do get the idea that more traditional poses such as yoga-style might be more preferable to a great many.
Rumour has it your cognitive capacity can be increased.
This Sony device  even offers Tidal integration. Not sure if Spotify is among the list of supported services.
I wonder if there is a way to accomplish many of these things while still carrying your phone? For example, what if your phone took 5 minutes to unlock? And didn’t give notifications until you unlocked it?
Just a thought.
i've started to just chuck it somewhere if I'm trying to focus
When I got a new phone about 6 months ago, I spent about a week horrified by the number of notifications that I was getting by default.
That, and keeping the charger in a remote corner, helps to park it and forget it.
Also, disable face/fingerprint/pin unlock, and use a longish password, so unlocking it isn't convenient.
A bit different, but good if you want a break.
1) The majority of people disable the feature after a short time (if they needed it in the first place, it's hard to maintain the self-control to keep it enabled, when it's presumably trivial to disable), and
2) Whether the cognitive effects remain, even when it's locked, because the mere presence of the phone makes you think about it, and it being locked makes you think about what you're missing.
(No affiliation, just a happy user)
Of course, on wifi, it can do everything that phone with a normal data plan can do. I just don't bother, because most of the time I'm on wifi, I have a laptop available. Especially these days.
Also, based on location, I automatically disable all notifications while at the gym or in a restaurant. If a had an urge to access it anyways, I might set the brightness to zero too.
I think people often overestimate their need. People act like they can't live without Google Maps, but 90% of them take the same route to work every day. I would argue if you aren't traveling outside your local area, you have zero need for a mapping app. It's true you may not be notified of a slightly faster route because of some unforeseen event, but the difference is probably a couple minutes at most, and you should know your local streets well enough to get along anyways.
There was the rare event where I couldn't participate in some restaurant's rewards program because they only did it via iOS/Android app, and that was annoying, but it also led me to just use that business less.
The maps ("Here") on Windows Mobile were actually not bad at all.
Using this phone taught me not to be obsessed with instant mail notifications among other things.
- 2FA codes, but a self-hosted Bitwarden and a Yubikey solved that well enough
- Maps. This is a legitimate sacrifice, especially for someone with as poor a sense of direction as I have. But between the mapping application in my car and looking things up before I leave somewhere on my laptop, it's not been a huge problem.
I could probably ditch Maps (by using my spouse's when needed, not sure if that counts...), but I have family abroad and other family here), and kid photos to send etc etc. It's true I could do most of that via email, but the rest of the family is on WhatsApp and I would genuinely feel more disconnected from them then I already do.
It sort of supports Maps, but is inconvenient enough to kill the temptation to use it for everything.
As an added bonus, it's water proof, doesn't crack when dropped and the battery lasts a week.
My Galaxy S10e has it.
The people with the best will power have organized their lives so that they don’t need will power.
Source: this is the specialty of Veronika Job, see her work here: https://tu-dresden.de/mn/psychologie/iaosp/sozial/die-profes...
To be fair, I was able to refrain from mindless scrolling all the time. But with the phone nearby, I always wanted to mindlessly scroll during every random quiet moment.
I liken it to an alcoholic keeping an ice cold beer on his desk all day, but doing his best not to take a sip. Why subject yourself?
I experimented without a smartphone and I am happier as a result. This will probably not be the case for everyone. But, if you ever feel like a slave to your own technology, I highly recommend trying it out.
There's a phone at home and one in my office for emergencies, but other business gets done by email, on my terms.
I live in a (non-US) large city, walk or bike to work every day and don't own a car. We have a pretty good public transit system which I used to use a lot, pre-covid.
The biggest inconvenience of not carrying a cell phone was that I didn't have access to live bus and subway schedules, so I would sometimes take a suboptimal route to my destination.
My schedule is done on paper in a pocket schedule book that I always carry. I also carry a pen, a simple watch, a Swiss army knife, and a small flashlight, all of which I use at least once every day. I also always have a book in my bag, for reading while waiting for the bus, the doctor, or other things and people.
I look things up on the Internet at home.
I'm not saying I will never carry a phone, but it seems that not having a phone is the right choice for me at the moment.
I'd have details settled with friends before leaving my connection to the group chat. I'd plan out my route in google maps and try to memorize where destinations were and how to get to them.
Of these two, only the lack of maps is a real step back. I've come to appreciate the need for clear planning that comes out of not having my group chats with me constantly.
The feature phone was doomed from the start, since it only had a 2G connection which is going away. But then that phone broke after a rainstorm, and I got a Nokia 2720 Flip running KaiOS. It has 4G, can work as a wifi hotspot, and has a version of Google Maps that is surprisingly not-terrible. With that, I lost my only real pain points. AND I have a cool retro looking satisfyingly flippy flip-phone.
I highly reccommend it to anyone who wants to listen.
I also have a Kindle, and instead of reading on the computer I use the "Send to Kindle" extension so I can read them in depth later. It's just too hard to focus on the screen, especially because I'm usually browsing articles as a means of procrastination anyways.
People find it bizarre and hilarious when I explain my smartphone setup, but compared to a few years ago the reactions are much more understanding, because even non-tech people these days recognize that they have a problem. It has also done wonders for my attention span. I wonder if the reason public discourse has gone to shit is because people struggle to consume info longer than a tweet.
I have several smartphones but don’t use them as phones, and don’t carry them on my person. For cell service I have a dumb phone (Alcatel MyFlip) I keep on me.
I’ve operated like this for years and find no loss of convenience at all. Whatever I need a smartphone for (2FA codes, podcasts, Discord, etc.) I can do at home with Wi-Fi. Everything else I can do on a computer. The only thing mildly inconvenient is having to ask people for directions sometimes (which is really only inconvenient for them, because of their embarrassment at not being able to explain how to get to their own house).
Overall, it definitely helps with social etiquette and living in the moment. It makes you more in tune with other people.
Having to keep a smartphone on you at all times to function is a burden, instead of the other way around. It’s a burden placed on you by corporations and governments.
I could get a dumb phone (I used one up to somewhere in 2018), but currently there is no dumb phone that would take some half decent photos and provide a possibility to navigate offline.
Look I'm right in the middle of something I'll... yeah. I know I ... I KNOW. Look, I gotta go.
Anyway, as I was saying... uh... well anyway. Phones suck.
My only notifications were texts/calls from people that depended upon me (my wife, my parents, my best friends). Interacting with apps and my phone in general after that became something either I chose or chose not to do. My phone was no longer an algorithm or other person controlling me, but instead a useful tool.
This is obviously a luxury that I am able to work and live like this, but I would encourage everyone to turn off any notifications they can and see how they feel after a week or month like that, then revisit and turn off more if possible.
I would also say that some form of control is still required. Whether that is self-control, technological control, or control via absence. I struggled a lot with whether I should delete Reddit from my phone to make sure I don't end up in an abyss of lost time. Eventually I settled on moving it a ridiculous number of empty screens over by itself in an unusual spot. If I want to open Reddit now, it is a very deliberate action that gives me time to ask myself "you sure?" but also doesn't take away that option of my life.
Why is it a luxury?
Most HNers' job is to write code :)
I know the prefix is for all of my key numbers like kids schools, hospitals and simply don’t pick up if the prefix is not right.
If I'm busy then I'll let it go to voicemail and call back.
I know it can be burdensome, but I don't answer in an emergency but if I ever see I missed 3 calls then I know it was an emergency.
If I'm traveling to an area I've never/rarely been before, I'll use turn by turn navigation the first few times.
But once I'm familiar with the area I just look up the specific place for the nearest cross streets before I leave.
I kind of assumed that's how everyone navigated, minus taxi/delivery/other professional drivers who probably use GPS more.
But it's fairly infrequent and it doesn't happen twice in the same place.
1. I have a Mac, and carefully organised contacts. How do I sync them to a Nokia that has 4G tethering (so I can work on my train-based commute) without going through Google?
2. How do you deal with music? I have AirPods and Spotify, which I absolutely love to have with me while walking around. (I'm from the Walkman generation, and the idea of walking around with music in my ears is still magical, particuarly with wireless earbuds).
There's a part of me which thinks about a Nokia banana phone for calls / 4G tethering combined with an iPod Touch, but I don't really want two devices.
2. They're just bluetooth ear buds, they work with every phone that supports bluetooth.
The question is where do you store the music since it's a dumb phone
Perhaps get one of these? They shouldn't cost more than £€$50 for a couple of GB
I've taken to using my smart phone but leaving it at home as much as I can, I only take it out if I'm going out for a long period of time now and I'll take my dumb phone so my wife can contact me if possible.
The smartphone is only a tool for me, for maps when I'm out, for search data, and accessing my files at home on rare occasions while I'm away from home (via VPN). It's my mobile command center.
But when I'm at home - fuck off phone.
I'm also in the tiny minority of people who aren't on zuckface, or other popular social media apps. So maybe I just naturally care less about my phone. I've never had a problem ignoring it. I get very few phone calls, almost none, and since COVID happened, I've reduced my data plan to the bare minimum because I just don't really need it anymore working at home.
But used as a tool and not entertainment, the smartphone is absolutely invaluable.
I don't use it, as I am not a heavy phone user, but I can see where it may be helpful for some people.
I put an estimated cost by each item on the grocery list, total it at the bottom, and note whether the real prices are higher or lower than the estimate as I get things. It's never happened, but I can at least know if the register total is at odds with expectations.
In time you'll stop checking constantly.
Oh you can add that all the researchers are marketing professors at business schools (one now at Snap). Good job on the marketing though, perfectly designed to get headlines.
Dismissing the work of marketing professors out of hand isn't the right approach. What if this is one of the half of psychology papers that do replicate?
While I definitely agree that one shouldn't be overly dismissive without reading the underlying paper, the abstract can actually be surprisingly predictive.
"Beyond statistical issues, it strikes me that several of the studies that didn’t replicate have another quality in common: newsworthiness. They reported cute, attention-grabbing, whoa-if-true results that conform to the biases of at least some parts of society. One purportedly showed that reading literary fiction improves our ability to understand other people’s beliefs and desires. Another said that thinking analytically weakens belief in religion. Yet another said that people who think about computers are worse at recalling old information—a phenomenon that the authors billed as “the Google effect.” All of these were widely covered in the media."
But we should be dismissive of any new results from psychology, it just doesn't have systems in place to validate claims. There is some cool stuff in psychology that has been replicated 20 times, across different cultures, and over time. But the chances of a headline psychology paper being true are, generously, 5%.
To be far to the authors, they are in a bit of a bind. In order to get their Phd, and progress in their academic career they have to do "original" research.
For psychology for the last 40 years, this means do stuff like this. Get cohorts together and test claims. When one is statistically significant, publish. They really didn't have much of a choice other than drop their career. They are probably nice people who just want to teach college classes. Misinforming people is an unintended side effect and more an indictment of academia than of them.
Also, in this case their findings aren't even counter intuitive or that surprising. They are just measuring something that most of use believe already (judging by the rest of these comment threads).
That doesn't mean their results are untrue. We just have to be careful not to overestimate the strength of this evidence.
Regarding the folks who are militantly ignorant about the science of soft science, alas I have to agree, they are a bit of a problem.
They need to hold themselves to more serious standards, this makes science itself look bad
The research journal have a similar policy.
For some reason people in the Internet don't like it, so a solution for a blog post is to show both graphs. One that starts at zero and other with the relevant section.
No one is actually replicating the mass of research, they are trying to replicate highly cited results. Of those its half.
The vast majority of social science research is unreplicable, primarily because it uses dramatically under-powered association modelling to make causal claims. It's dressed-up astrology.
+ >500 participants
+ Report not only aggregated values, but also bar charts with confidence interval (you can compare for yourself)
- Charts don't start at zero (gives reader wrong impression about effect size)
Need to read it more carefully though, because I would like to agree with the paper, since I notice this effect myself a lot. Also very related to ego depletion, which doesn't seem to be even mentioned in the paper, weirdly enough. Maybe they wanted to coin their own term.
A paper like this would look pretty good on your resume if you're applying to a social media company.
Phone addiction is in this sense easier. It can also be managed through abstinence or even eliminated cold turkey if you wish because we have no intrinsic desire for phone use, but we do have an intrinsic desire for sex.
And yeah, the passions, when we are ruled by them instead of ruling over them, can darken our minds and enslave us. (In your example, the "daughters of lust" are apropos.) A man has as many masters as he has vices.
I can't agree with those statements. No one, not your spouse, not your significant other and not anyone else is obliged to provide sexual satisfaction to you or anyone else.
What's more, while consent is never optional, pleasing one's partner should be a joy, and if your partner desires objectification or even what you (note that what you think and believe doesn't apply to everyone else) term "sexual abuse," that's between consenting adults.
Your judgement as to what is "moral" is an individual judgement that applies to you. There are more things (as well as kinks and fetishes) in earth and heaven than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
And just so it's crystal clear, consent is never optional and no one, regardless of relationship status is obligated to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone.
Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component. Rights and responsibilities always pair.
>the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset.
Obviously. No one here is trying to police people's emotions.
If someone doesn't want sex, then they have every right to "withhold" it from anyone, without being deemed "unreasonable".
Perhaps I have. However, I don't see how much more "charitably" I can interpret what they wrote. Or do you think that I'm wrong in my assertion?
>If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset.
I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else.
If my spouse/SO decided that she wanted no more sex with me, sure I'd be upset. And as my feelings are my own, I'm entitled to be upset.
However she, as a sentient being, has agency. As such, she (not me) gets to decide what happens with her body.
Should a situation similar to your example occur, that should be a big red flag that something is wrong in your relationship. And if that's the case, going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things.
>Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component.
How do you handle the logic problem set up by your statement?
If consent to sexual activity is not optional, how is someone obliged to provide such sexual activity if they don't wish to consent?
>Rights and responsibilities always pair.
Neither you nor I have the right to demand sexual contact with someone who does not consent. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your relationship with that person might be.
And providing you (or anyone else) with sexual contact isn't anyone's responsibility, again regardless of what sort of relationship you might have with them.
And that's the issue that I have with both your and the parent poster's statements.
You said it yourself: Consent is not optional.
If you truly believe that, how can you even entertain the idea that someone should be obligated, or have the responsibility to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone if they choose not to do so?
I don't disagree that it's customary for those in a romantic/sexual relationship to engage in sexual activity. But no one is obligated or required to do so.
And if you don't think that's true, consider this. Because coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity is called rape.
You're confusing the idea of removing the other person's free will and the obligations that being in a sexual monogamous relationship carry.
In a monogamous sexual relationship, if one person refuses to have sex much more frequently than the other, then that can very quickly destroy the relationship. Humans are sexual beings, and being in a monogamous relationship means you have only one outlet for that sexuality available to you.
Instead of sex, consider conversation. How long would a relationship last of one person started refusing to talk to the other person, at moments seemingly for no reason to the other person? How long would that last? If I said that being in a relationship obligates you to communicate with the other person, would you object on the basis of removing the other person's agency by placing such an obligatiom on them?
Sex should never be forced. But entering into any relationship carries with it rights and responsibilities. If you are refusing sex for no good reason, then it is a sign that you no longer wish to meet the obligations of a monogamous relationship. The two people can either break up, or try to work through things. But such an arrangement can't be endured forever.
Yes, it is reasonable to expect some level of sacrifice. That it is given voluntarily is part of making a relationship work well. But just that being unwilling to make certain sacrifices would put a strain on the relationship does not in turn imply an absolute obligation to them.
> How long would a relationship last of one person started refusing to talk to the other person, at moments seemingly for no reason to the other person? How long would that last?
Having been privy to a (non-amorous) relationship in which exactly this happened, I can tell you that trying to obligate the non-communicative side to communication is exactly the wrong thing to do. That doesn't mean that the relationship is over, but it does mean that there is a grave problem. Solving that problem is the way forward, not insisting on some "moral obligation".
> If you are refusing sex for no good reason
I'm a bit confused what you consider "good reasons". Do I need a "good reason" for not wanting to dance? Or for not wanting to go to the pool? Is it necessary that I communicate my entire mental state in a way that makes the decision retraceable for you, or do you trust me when I say that I really don't feel like it? Or is it only physical incapability that counts?
I don't believe that I am. I agree with just about everything you wrote. Where we diverge is that I do not agree that anyone, regardless of relationship status is obliged or required to engage in sexual activity to which they do not consent.
>In a monogamous sexual relationship, if one person refuses to have sex much more frequently than the other, then that can very quickly destroy the relationship. Humans are sexual beings, and being in a monogamous relationship means you have only one outlet for that sexuality available to you.
That is absolutely correct. That said, just because two people are in a monogamous sexual relationship, that does not mean consent for sexual activity isn't required.
If one partner is unwilling or unable to consent, whether at the frequency the other partner desires or at all, that's going cause stress in the relationship.
And if that continues, it's likely that the relationship will fail.
The question then is why doesn't this person wish to consent, given that they are in a romantic/sexual relationship?
In order to avoid that eventuality, the people involved need to communicate and work out how to maintain the relationship together.
If that's not possible, then the relationship should probably end, as you correctly point out.
My points are simple and two-fold:
1. Consent for sexual activity, regardless of the nature of a relationship is never optional;
2. No one is, or should be, obligated or required to engage in sexual activity if they don't wish to do so.
Sure, there are times when folks may not be feeling particularly frisky, but in a healthy relationship that shouldn't be a big deal.
What's more, in a healthy relationship, the partners desire each other. In fact, there are few things in this world that are hotter than being desired.
And if there is a genuine disconnect in the level of desire, that needs to be worked out through strong, open communication, honesty and the hard work that's required to maintain any relationship.
However, in an unhealthy relationship (there can be many reasons for those, as Tolstoy opined), it may not be possible to work these things out. This may cause discomfort, hurt and pain for those involved. It may be possible to make such a relationship healthy, but expecting that someone who, for whatever reason, is unwilling to consent to sexual activity should engage in such activity because they are obliged to do so due to the nature of the relationship is being abusive.
To be clear: Yes, people in romantic/sexual relationships, including monogamous/exclusive relationships generally do engage in sexual activity. In fact, that's one of the wonderful things about such relationships and I'm all for it!
And when there is an issue surrounding sexual activity (or anything else for that matter), it's important to communicate clearly and honestly with each other and make the effort to work through such issue(s). I'm all for that too! IMHO, clear, honest communication is the most important thing to maintaining a healthy, happy relationship.
All that said, please review these points one more time:
And explain to me how they are inappropriate in the context of any relationship, including exclusive, monogamous ones.
I'd be very interested to read your thoughts.
If I was in a monogamous relationship where I had agreed to not have sex with anybody else, and the other person for the duration of that relationship refused to have sex with me - is that not abusive? There are two sides of the coin here.
How do you draw the line between consent and obligation in everyday life? If you are compelled to do something by your boss that you'd rather not do (a boring task), have you consented to doing it if you do the task but you would rather not? If you're obliged to give way on the road, have you given consent even if you would rather not, but you do anyway?
You need to distinguish between things that we do even though we wouldn't of there were not external factors, and things we do because we know we ought to do them. If my wife asks me to take the trash out, even if I don't feel like it, I know I ought to do it and I will. If I ask her to help me with something, I know sometimes she might groan but then do it anyway. In a world without obligations, would she choose to do the task I've asked of her? Or would I do the task asked of me? Probably not. But life has many obligations. There is so much more nuance beyond what you've tried to summarise through a framework of consent.
Absolutely. But the response to such a situation shouldn't be to push your partner (who, presumably, you care about) to do something he or she doesn't want to do.
If someone is in that situation, there are clearly issues with the relationship that are bigger than just whether or not you get to stick it anytime you feel like it.
As such, if you value that relationship, it would probably be of value to communicate about what may be behind the issue.
And if your partner is unable or unwilling to at least attempt to do so, that's absolutely abusive and detrimental to the relationship.
At that point, you need to ask yourself if it's possible to rescue the relationship.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I view relationships only through the lens of consent. I do not.
In order to make a relationship work, everyone must be willing to communicate, be patient and compromise. And that extends to sex too.
And there's a difference between "Oh honey! The kids just wore me out today. Let's get some sleep and we can get my sister to take the kids for the weekend and we'll smear every piece of furniture with our bodily fluids!" and "Don't touch me, asshole!"
In the former scenario, you might reasonably take some steps to encourage your partner to push past their fatigue and enjoy each other.
However, even in that instance, if your partner for whatever reason, is still unwilling, you do not have the right to demand sex.
In the latter scenario, one would expect that rather than pressing the issue, you'd try to understand why your partner is not only unwilling to to have sex, but why they're so hostile.
In either case, you do not have the right to insist that your partner do stuff they don't want to do.
Why is that so hard to understand?
>going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things.
Going on about consent isn't either.
Marriage is a huge responsibility. Entering into it means you agree to the responsibilities it carries. Each person should be well aware of these responsibilities before entering into one.
If your partner is in the mood for sex but you aren't on a regular basis, maybe a little bit of self sacrifice is needed. I'm sure the other person has helped them out doing their chores when they weren't feeling like it, or going out of their way for them in some way. Marriage is all about each person trying to give more to it than the other. I don't know why sex I suddenly a taboo topic when it comes to rights and responsibilities.
Put another way, both withholding sex and insisting on monogamy simultaneously is a shitty thing to do IMO, so I sort of agree with you. But it is also tough for me to judge someone too much for doing so in a culture where anything but strict monogamy is taboo.
For a concrete example, let's say a woman feels nauseous from the smell of cooking while she is pregnant. I do not think it is the duty of that woman to soldier through it and continue to cook. But in this situation the partner can obtain food from anywhere else that is willing to serve. If the partner instead was only able to eat food that one of them had cooked, it would be tougher on the relationship for the woman to not cook at all for 9 months straight.
So yeah compromise and sacrifice are part of a relationship, and I don't think sex should be excluded from that. But at the same time it is unrealistic to reach a good solution with mismatched libidos, because even a perfect compromise can leave both parties dissatisfied/uncomfortable. Is the solution to just end the relationship? If it is otherwise a good one I don't think so, but strict monogamy makes this a harder call.
More generally I think people are looking for too much in a single package. To find someone that would be compatible with you over nearly your entire lifetime as a housemate, a co-parent, a friend, a financial partner, etc. all rolled into one is hard enough. When you start prioritizing sexual compatibility in this choice, good luck not having to compromise on other features. But if sex wasn't seen as exclusive it wouldn't need to be considered to the same extent in choosing a life partner.
I suppose that may be poor communication on my part. If so, you have my apologies.
However, I'm not going to continue repeating myself.
Good day, sir.
i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will. culturally, societally, or otherwise, well--that's a different story
Ah, sure they are.
By the nature of events which preceded you and produced both your DNA and all entirely external circumstances, you are obligated to carry out your free agency in exactly the way you do.
Of course, in civilized countries, you are now free to choose another agreement, including "fuck whoever you want" to slave contracts if that's your kink. None of them are legally binding since you are free to do what you want with your body, including "cheating".
There are a few remnant with regards to marriage. For example in France, both cheating and not satisfying your partner are cause for divorce. It is mostly symbolic though, "winning" the case doesn't give you much rights.
I mean, it makes sense too. When my girl wants good D, I'm (morally) obliged to give it to her. That's part of the premise of a sexual relationship. I'm not going to deprive her of something that she relies on me for- after all, by virtue of our establishment of monogamous mutual exclusivity, she has to come to me for the fulfillment of that primal desire. She could go get the D from any guy she wants. I have good D, and she knows she can rely on me not to deprive her (and I mean truly deprive, not just playing hard-to-get-i-know-you-want-this deprive). The same goes for her. There is a metaphorical refusal to take no for an answer that comes with a healthy sexual monogamous relationship.
Yeah, color me skeptical. You're in a study currently, and you're asked to place your phone on your desk for a later study. This is quite different from just having your phone around, because you're basically thinking about 'phones' and 'studies' together while you're in the study.
That's very different from 'mere presence' in my mind.
>Five hundred forty-eight undergraduates participated for course credit. [...] Our final sample consisted of 520 smartphone users.
520 isn't as bad as I was expecting, but it's still an order of magnitude away from being meaningful. And, obviously, a study population consisting only of students attending the same class is maybe going to be slightly biased.
The presence of a distraction reduces cognitive capacity? Other than superficially padding their "researchers'" resume, what is gained by this "study"?
We've know this for years. It's why teachers insist kids put away their smartphones, etc.
Thought the same thing. Sure I can put my smartphone out of sight while working but I am on a computer with the same exact level of access that my smartphone provides. Sometimes I can get in a zone and sometimes I flip between work and distracting myself with sites like HN. I can answer SMS and DMs for all my services and social sites in the browser. Pre-pandemic you can throw an open office plan into the mix as a big distractor as well. I listen to non-vocal chill electronic music while I work and I bet there's some study out there showing that listening to any type of music while trying to work reduces cognitive capacity (I'm speculating here). I feel like managing distraction just a big part of life these days.
'Developer options' --> 'Simulate color space' --> 'Monochromacy'
I couple that with:
+ Turning off all notifications.
+ I don't use any of the run-of-the-mill social media for about 7 years.
+ Most of my serious reading is largely via old-fashioned books.
All of the above makes it for a damn calm device.