About a dozen years ago, ABC, the TV network, had a promotion to the industry with banners around the Hollywood area. One on Wilshire near Beverly Hills said "All we ask is five hours a day". That refers to the average TV viewing time of Americans. That number has dropped since, much to the annoyance of the TV networks.
We may have passed peak cell phone overuse. I see fewer people walking around while looking at their little screen. It's been several years now since someone walked into me while looking at a screen; in the early days of smartphones, that happened often in stores. I'm no longer seeing people on the California Coastal Trail watching little screens. Society seems to be dealing with this.
I mean, after 9.5 years of playing DotA, what's the point? My grades have improved and I'm overall happier as I invest more time learning skills that I truly want to gain, all while traveling lighter.
I think I hit a breaking point when I was living in my last apartment. I had too much junk around that I didn't want, need, or use. And because there was enough of it, I didn't have a real place for anything and didn't feel like cleaning it. My apartment wasn't dirty, but it was perennially untidy. I did not like that at all.
Now, I'm not saying that's the only time I relax, because that would be a lie. But it is a time that at least speaking for myself, I have to relax or I can't sleep.
My wife and I have been trying the KonMari [1] method of tidying up recently and this dovetailed nicely into that work. Note that I don't necessarily agree with everything the method prescribes, but it was an interesting exercise either way.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Kondo#KonMari_method
This is why the last console system I purchase was the PS2. I can't trust myself not to binge on games.
Second, he needs to take a deep breath and relax. There is a balance that can be achieved through focus and discipline. How about changing the discussion to educating parents on these distractions and nipping the false sense of anxiety at the bud? How about having a psychology class in high school that confronts these desires and shows how artificial they really are?
Regarding use of "we". Clearly (at least to me) he is referring to societal trends that are fairly common. Not a specific groups of "we"s. So clearly there are plenty of folks who are not effected by these challenges. It's fairly pendantic to get hung up on this word.
This happened to me too, years ago. And then I realised, "wait a minute, maybe I am just focusing on that side of my life." And of course on the side of life where more of like-minded people can be found: the Internet. And thanks to this realisation, the idea that everyone is like this, waned.
I do agree with what you're saying - not everyone is like this. I for one am not, I keep focusing on my belief that being in contact with others is not something you do with gadgets - it's what you do with focus. So I don't put much value in the technology, and the older I get, the less importance all this tech has to me.
But that's just me, and I do still often feel like the odd one out. And not only that: I'm also really disciplined in the pursuit of my idea, that the less you have, the more value the things you do have, are. Most of them immaterial too.
Your point about there being a balance... it might be correct on the individual level. However, you cannot deny the problem at the society level. A large number of people (maybe the majority) never learn how to focus, because they grow up in environments that do not promote formation of discipline - either they are left to do as they see fit, or they are told what to do all the time, but only rarely are held accountable to own up the consequences of their own actions until very late in their upbreeding.
He presents distraction as an insurmountable problem, and it is not. Society develops antibodies for everything, including novelties in the later century like propaganda and media mass control, advertisement and even TV.
As tools things like cinema, TV or Internet, or cell phones give us much more options that what is taken from us.
For example, going to the cinema for two hours made people understand places and people living far away much better than any book theater or picture could.
Now if you want to solve distraction finding people that have solved it and developed effective techniques is only a touch away, if you really want to solve it instead of ranting about "we sinners" on Internet.
Having said that "Man shall not live on bread alone". Some distraction in your life is necessary. People are not productivity machines. Curiosity is Ok. I "lost" time on HN, but I always "gain" from things I learn on it. I have cashed lots of money from this knowledge but hadn't I, I will continue reading it.
Using twitter or facebook for getting in touch with the people you love does not need to take so much time and could be very useful.
You can be a complete minimalist, live in a house with nothing in it, and just lay on the floor in the dark surfing the internet on your phone, chatting with friends on facebook etc, and all of the problems the author complains about will still exist.
I know that sounds Manchurian Candidate-ish but that's the nature of Marketing and Advertising.
So perhaps the author is not entirely wrong in positing that distraction is, in a way, fueling meaningless purchases?
I've never understood these "I'm not a racist, but"-type comments. This is offensive, and does not demonstrate care and humility. Someone who learns from such a tragedy principally that others shouldn't have so much stuff is, I think, learning the wrong lesson.
EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean that I don't understand the purpose of the disclaimer, but rather that, if not always then at least in a modern rhetorical environment, it seems like a poor way of achieving its goal. For example, if the author correctly recognises that his statement sounds offensive, and absent care and humility, why not explain why he thinks that perception is incorrect, rather than trying simply to deny it by fiat?
> But why would someone use "I'm not racist, but..."? It sounds to me like what they are saying is: "Look. I know what I am saying is going to sound racist to you. You're going to jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist and not hear me out. In fact, maybe you've been trained to assume that the only reason anyone could possibly assert it is racism and to pattern-match this position to a racist straw man version. But I actually have a non-racist reason for saying it. Please please please for the love of Truth and Beauty just this one time throw away your prejudgments and your Bingo card and just listen to what I'm going to say with an open mind."
> And so you reply "Hahahaha! He really used the 'look I know what I'm saying is going to sound racist to you you're going to jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist and not hear me out in fact maybe you've been trained to assume...' line! What a racist! Point and laugh, everyone! POINT AND LAUGH!"
Poor reactions to such disclaimers have gotten so bad that I'm now seeing disclaimers referencing that fact. "I know racists say, 'I'm not racist but...', but in this case..."
Most often, people who use such disclaimers really aren't racist. Or if they are, it's by accidental ignorance, not purposeful maliciousness. In any case, it's more productive to respond with civil discourse rather than claiming offense and biting their head off.
I don't believe that I bit anyone's head off (but maybe you weren't claiming that I did).
As for a claim of accidental ignorance, I don't buy it in the context of the "I'm not racist, but …" disclaimer. If you are aware enough of how you sound to say that, then it seems too much to claim that any actual racism is accidental.
In fact, what I meant to say here was not that racist-sounding remarks are always racist and should never be heard, but rather that someone who wants to say something that sounds racist, but that he thinks isn't, had better explain why it isn't rather than just asserting that it isn't.
I was reading a book the other day about a guy who chose to sell most of his possessions and live in a van with his wife, and he had several stories of being able to simply drive away from emergency situations, where the people with more stuff were (or felt) stuck and had to suffer through it. He drove away from power outages, flood areas, fire areas, etc. For this and other reasons, he felt a lot happier and safer than when he lived a life with a lot more stuff.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procatalepsis
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/apr...
The ancient way of fitting a potentially offensive statement in is to write it esoterically, so that only the people who really want to analyze get the message. The modern way is to call everything a positive, I think.
I'm not sure that I understand this. Are you referring to some older equivalent of dog-whistle rhetoric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics)?
Cox is the official sponsor of binge-watching.
Addiction sells (see Phillip Morris). The wonderful thing about selling Internet is that you don't create the content, you just provide access to it. As content gets larger and larger (320x240 -> 4K streams..) so do profits. It's bizarre to me how blatantly they want their users to be helplessly addicted.
I think the author is right about tangible things ("stuff") but could spend more time pointing out the intangible addictions: 1000+ RSS feed items to read, 100+ TV episodes to catch up on, 10+ news aggregators to check, 100+ new PNGs to arrow through, etc. These things don't pile up quite so visibly.
Sure, I get peeved with folk obsessing over their phone's Instagrat feed. But then I remember that it's their life, their choice, and who am I to think it's inherently wrong?
I also couldn't help but think of this Louis CK bit the whole time reading this: https://vimeo.com/69662330
1. Contain a grain of truth 2. Might be better understood by reading Csikszentmihalyi (or Heidegger, for that matter) 3. Come in sets of three
> It also becomes a cause of unnecessary stress, as it will take your precious money, time, emotion, attention, and effort to take care all of this stuff.
> The recent massive flooding here in Olongapo City is a testament to that. Visiting houses of families ravaged by the flood, I was reminded by how too much stuff is not a luxury – it’s actually a burden, a liability.
I am not rich. I am poor. The few possessions I have, that you might think are cluttering my rented apartment, I hold to them because I can't afford to replace them. Too many chairs in my living room, too many different knives in the kitchen drawer. I don't have a TV though. But I won't ditch my mp3 collection burned on CDs because I can't afford to listen to it on Deezer. I wish I could go on holidays with only my iPhone and my sennheiser headphone and just buy what I need on the spot. I'll drop some karma points to say this: "Fuck you".
