Switching off

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seems that the world has finally caught up with the idea that we are becoming too connected and that a little disconnection from time to time would be a good thing. Then again, perhaps it’s just July/August and some people just want to be left alone on holiday.

It’s interesting to note that the current issue of Fast Company is all about switching off. So too is the current issue of Stylist magazine. They interviewed me on the phone about this issue a few weeks ago (so not quite as disconnected as they’ll have you believe in the magazine!).

 

BTW, here’s a tiny taste of what I was saying in my book Future Minds back in 2010.

CONNECTIVITY ADDICTION

A study from the University of California (Irvine) claims that we last, on average, three minutes at work before something interrupts us. Another study from the UK Institute of Psychiatry claims that constant disruption has a greater effect on IQ than smoking marijuana. No wonder, then, that the all-time bestselling reprint from the Harvard Business Review, a management magazine, is an article about time management. But did anyone find the time to actually read it properly?

We have developed a culture of instant digital gratification in which there is always something to do—although, ironically, we never seem to be entirely satisfied with what we end up choosing. Think about the way people jump between songs on an iPod, barely able to listen to a single song, let alone a whole album. No wonder companies such as Motorola use phrases like “micro boredom” as an opportunity for product development.

Horrifyingly, a couple in South Korea recently allowed their small baby daughter to starve to death because they became obsessed with raising an “avatar child” in a virtual world called Prius Online. According to police reports, the pair, both unemployed, left their daughter home alone while they spent 12-hour sessions raising a virtual daughter called Anima from an internet café in a suburb of Seoul.

Internet addiction is not yet a globally recognized medical condition, but it is only a matter of time. Already 5–10 per- cent of internet users are “dependent,” according to the Computer Addiction Center at Harvard’s McLean Hospital. This is hardly surprising when you stop to consider what is going on. According to a University of California (San Diego) study, we consumed three times more information in 2008 as we did back in 1960.

Furthermore, according to Clifford Nass, a professor of communications at Stanford University, there is a growing cohort of people for whom the merest hint of new information, or the faintest whiff that something new is going on somewhere else, is irresistible. You can see the effect of connectivity cravings first hand when people rush to switch on their cellphones the second their plane lands, as though whatever information is held inside their phone is so important, or life threatening, that it can’t wait for five or ten minutes until they are inside the air- port terminal. I know. I do it myself.

The thought of leaving home without a cellphone is alarming to most people. So is turning one off at night (many people now don’t) or on holiday. Indeed, dropping out of this hyper-connected world, even for a week, seems like an act of electronic eccentricity or digital defiance.

In one US study, only 3 out of 220 US students were able to turn their cellphones off for 72 hours. Another study, con- ducted by Professor Gayle Porter at Rutgers University, found that 50 percent of BlackBerry users would be “concerned” if they were parted from their digital device and 10 percent would be “devastated.”

It’s more or less the same story with email. Another piece of research, by Tripadvisor.com, found that 28 percent of respondents checked email at least daily when on a long weekend break and 39 percent said they checked email at least once a day when on holiday for a week or more.

A study co-authored by Professor Nada Kakabadse at the University of Nottingham in the UK noted that the day might come when employees will sue employers who insist on 24/7 x 365 connection. Citing the example of the tobacco industry, the researchers noted how the law tends to evolve to “find harm.” So if employers are creating a culture of constant connectedness and immediacy, responsibility for the ensuing societal costs may eventually shift from the individual to the organization. Broken marriage and feral kids? No problem, just sue your employer for the associated long-term costs.

A banker acquaintance of mine once spent a day in a car park above a beach in Cornwall because it was the only spot in which he could make mobile contact with his office. His firm had a big deal on and his virtual presence was required. “Where would I have been without my BlackBerry?” he said to me later. My response was: “On holiday with your family taking a break from work and benefiting from the reflection that distance provides.” He hasn’t spoken to me since we had this conversation, although he does send me emails occasionally. I usually pretend that I’m on a beach and haven’t received them.

It’s happening everywhere. I have a middle-aged female friend (a journalist) who goes to bed with a small electronic device every night. Her husband is fed up and claims it’s ruining their sex life. Her response is that she’s in meetings all day and needs to take a laptop to bed to catch up with her emails. This is a bit extreme, but I know lots of other people who take their cellphones to bed. How long before they’re snuggled up in bed late at night “attending” meetings they missed earlier, having downloaded them onto their iPad or something similar? Talk about having more than two people in a marriage.

Our desire to be constantly connected clearly isn’t limited to work. Twitter is a case in point. In theory, Twitter is a fun way to share information and keep in touch, but I’m starting to wonder whether it’s possible to be too in touch.
I have some friends who are “Twits” and if I wanted to I could find out what they’re doing almost 24/7. One, at least, will be “Eating marmite toast” at 7.08 pm and the other will be “In bed now” at 11.04 pm or “looking forward to the weekend” at 11.34 pm. Do I need to know this?

Why is all of this significant? In A Mind of Its Own, Cordelia Fine makes the point that the brain’s default set- ting is to believe, largely because the brain is lazy and this is the easier, or more economical, position. However, when the brain is especially busy, it takes this to extremes and starts to believe things that it would ordinarily question or distrust. I’m sure you know where I’m going with this but in case you are especially busy—or on Twitter—let me spell it out. Our decision-making abilities are at risk because we are too busy to consider alternatives properly or because our brains trip us up by fast tracking new information. We become unable to exclude what is irrelevant and retain an objective view on our experience, and we start to suffer from what Fredric Jameson, a US cultural and political theorist, calls “culturally induced schizophrenia.”

If we are very busy there is every chance that our brain will not listen to reason and we will end up supporting things that are dangerous or ideas that seek to do us, or others, harm. Fakery, insincerity, and big fat lies all prosper in a world that is too busy or distracted. Put bluntly, if we are all too busy and self-absorbed to notice or challenge things, then evil will win by default. Or, as Milan Kundera put it: “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

Crikey. That sounds to me like quite a good reason to unsubscribe from a few email newsletters and turn the cell- phone off once in a while—to become what Hal Crowther terms “blessedly disconnected.”

 

Computer addiction

 

 

 

 

 

Cracked it. TEDx is done. It was either the sunshine, the deadline or the Pink Floyd (Wish You Were Here) that did it. Personally, I’d say it was Welcome to the Machine mixed with some good coffee.

In other news (I’d say real news, but I’m not so sure in this case) I saw an article today saying that children as young as four are having therapy for addiction for compulsive behaviour caused by iPads. It was in the Daily Telegraph, so a bit of common sense and cynicism should be applied. Nevertheless, Dr Graham at the Caprio Nightingale Clinic in London has designed a 28-day “Digital Detox” course costing £16,000 (!) to wean teeny weenies off the hard stuff.

Now what did I say in Future Minds about computer addiction clinics? I wonder if they have the same issues in Australia? Maybe not. Every kid I meet last week seemed quite sane – addicted to either surfing or fishing.

Is ADHD related to heavy screen use?

According to the New York Times, almost one in five teenagers in the US and 11 per cent of school children overall have received a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), US government data shows. The figures show a 41 per cent rise in diagnoses in the past decade. Two thirds of those diagnosed are prescribed stimulants like Ritalin.

The image above is UK prescriptions for Methylphenidate, used to treat attention deficit disorder, between 1991-2006 (latest I can find). The image below is UK internet access – households and individuals (ONS, 2012). I’m sure the similarity is pure coincidence.

Why I’m Feeling Anti-Social

I was close to stopping the blog last week. It was becoming increasingly obvious to me that I had nothing of real substance to say. Who really cares where I am or what I’m doing? This thought was inducing a certain level of grumpiness on my part, largely aimed at the other people that I felt were guilty of spreading inconsequential trivia – in less than 140 characters.

In short, Web 3.0 is fuelling greed for attention (validation) and I felt that I was falling into the same exhibitionist trap as everyone else. I tried to explain this to a journalist who was interviewing me about connectivity last week, but she was having none of it. The future, as far as she was concerned, was social and if you are not part of this epidemic of over-sharing you clearly have something of substance to hide.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not this post is inconsequential trivia, but I was in Oxford last week giving a talk. You don’t need to know this in a sense. It’s either me showing off or, more likely, me attempting subconsciously to offset the fact I haven’t been to Oxford. Here we go again with the exhibitionism, to some extent, but the debate I took part in did convince to me that I might be on to something important and that it wasn’t only people of a certain age – my age – that are feeling that something is not quite right in our new technological utopia.

The discussion was about whether mobile addiction, automation, networked intelligence and predictive systems are demeaning us as human beings. This was interesting in itself, but then things got even better. I picked up a couple of new books. One, which I have yet to open, is Who Owns the Future by Jaron Lanier. The other, which I’m deep into already, is Digital Vertigo by Andrew Keen.

Keen argues lucidly that the mobile internet, in particular the online personal revolution sometimes known as Web 3.0, is debasing society. Among other things, sites like Facebook and Twitter are redefining success as the ability to momentarily attract attention and are transforming friendship from a private pleasure into a profit centre. He also says that over-sharing online is a gift for authoritarian governments, but I’m less convinced by this.

The issue for me is twofold. First, the cult of social is creating a rigid orthodoxy and conformist group culture. This cannot be good. Second, we know not what we do: We are giving away huge amounts of information – our identities to some extent – in return for what? I don’t mind profit-seeking companies collecting some data if this allows them to serve me better. But I do object to companies seeking vast amounts of data – where I am, whom I know, what I buy, what I think – and then selling this data for a profit to other companies without my consent.

More on this subject soon. For now I’m offline.

The rise (and fast fall) of digital culture

Hard to know what to highlight today. The woman who fell off a cliff whilst texting and trying to light a cigarette at the same time is tempting. More over taxing than multi-tasking. Apparently the women lived but a few more feet and she might have been a candidate for the Darwin Awards. Thanks Lynda for sending me this delicious digital gem. However, I feel peoples’ attention should go instead to Mary Meeker’s overview of key internet trends for 2012, which, essentially, says almost every conceivable human activity is in the process of being transformed.

 

Our Contact-less Culture

 

 

 

 

 

 

In London one of the latest things you can do is attend a cuddle workshop, where people wander around a cushion lined studio spooning total strangers. Apparently the idea is to rediscover non-sexual touch and affection.

These parties, which started in the US and have also appeared in Australia, are clearly a fad, and I’m sure they attract more than their fair share of Harry Potter-reading, pyjama-wearing weirdos, but they’re also perhaps an early indication of the fact that an increasing number of people, many of whom now live alone, crave the sensation of being physically held and touched.

Like many fringe ideas, it may also represent an unmet need – in this case a remedy for sadness or loneliness. In Japan, for example, the latest fad is a cat cafe where people wander around a room littered with free-roaming cats whilst sipping a latte. These Cuddle Parties and cat cafes represent a safe form of intimacy-on-demand that appeals to singles and married couples alike, many of whom are either too busy or tired to become involved with any other form of shared physical activity.

On one level this craving for instant intimacy is ironic because in many other areas we are being told to accept as “normal” behaviour that is exactly the opposite. Physically touching a colleague at work (and I’m talking here about affectionate hugs) is now strictly verboten.

Research by Manchester Metropolitan University also says there is a growing anxiety in childcare circles about touching children. Recent panics include a male teacher who instructed a small child to apply a plaster himself because the teacher was too afraid to touch the child. This is clearly insane but the madness isn’t restricted to loony politicians and pediatricians.

Organisations are also trying to convince us that reducing human contact is a good thing because it saves us time and money. It’s the new economy dude. Society 2.0. They are liars. Reducing human contact saves them time and money.

It’s the same with social networking sites. People have an average of 150 friends on Facebook. But these are digital acquaintances. These are superficial friends and we are confusing familiarity with intimacy. Hence our growing need for physical contact. Even the environment has been roped in to help sell us the lie that less human contact is healthy. But even if these e-vangelicals are right they are still wrong. For instance, sociologists at the University of Arizona and Duke University North Carolina have found that Americans have fewer real friends than they used to.

In 1985, the average American had three people to talk to about their problems. Now the figure is just two. The results of this study have been disputed, but the fact remains that we are drifting away from physical contact and communication.

Longer working hours are one reason for this, but the real culprit is technology. Use of the internet and mobile phones has reduced face-to-face contact. People need to intimately connect with other people.

If they don’t, there is a danger that they will spend too much time inhabiting virtual worlds like Second Life. This is not good for them and is not good for the planet either. People need people because happiness comes from intimate interactions with friends and family.

Moreover, as everyone instinctively knows, new ideas are born serendipitously in places like stairwells and over lunch, not at overly orchestrated brainstorms or government summits where most of the solutions are so small that they could be mistaken for homeopathic remedies.

We need to establish an intimate relationship with the thought that a life lived remotely, or at a physical distance from others, is ultimately unbearable. Time, in other words, for a physical revolution.

Finding the time to think

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two days ago I was in London speaking at a conference on resilient water resources. My brief was to speak about how people in the water industry could think differently in order to become, you’ve guessed it, more resilient. I was given 15-minutes, which rather points towards an answer that says something about giving people more time.

A lack of time for thinking was something that came up again yesterday in Rome where I was attending a workshop on megatrends organised by the House of Ambrosetti, a firm of management consultants. What was rather lovely about this event was the pace. It started at a very reasonable 9.30 and went on to 4.30, but there was ample time for a proper sit down lunch.

This fitted rather well with a presentation given in the afternoon by Tal Ben-Shahar, a psychologist that teaches at the interdisciplinary Center at Herziliya (Israel) and was formerly at Harvard, who delved into the creative process and highlighted the much forgotten fact that the brain needs sufficient time for it to work effectively, especially when it comes to the generation of original thinking. Immersion in a subject is the first phase and this cannot be rushed. Equally, incubation, the second phase needs time too and especially a period of relaxation and there are no short cuts.

I especially liked the research study he quoted saying that if you have your email permanently open (or Facebook up) and are trying to do something else at the same time (like thinking, for instance) this is equivalent to the loss of ten IQ points, which is comparable to being awake for 36-hours straight. Smoking cannabis results in a loss of a mere 4 IQ points (yes, I too thought about the impact of being awake for 36-hours, being on Facebook and smoking cannabis all at the same time).

Takeaways? Find the time to think and make switching off (switching of digital devices but also switching off and slowing down yourself in the sense of rest and relaxation) a daily ritual rather than an annual resolution.

 

Image of the day

Just been cruising around Lynda Gratton’s blog on the future of work and found this gem of a picture. Question is, of course, is this an indication that Apple has peaked and one should sell shares or an indication that the company is still going up and one should buy shares? The other question, perhaps, is whether or not anyone in the picture is paying attention!

Afternoon update. Just found this too – the world of work that awaits…

 

Classic counter-trend

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently sales of fountain pens are on the rise. For instance, according to Amazon, sales have doubled this year compared to last and are up 400% on 2010. But why?

I suspect the reason is that this is a counter-trend. Things have swung too far in the direction of email and texts and people want something more tactile and ‘special’.

A tweet or text saying “Sorry for your loss ;-( ” doesn’t carry the same weight as a handwritten note. As they say (well, as I sometimes say), ideas come and go, but often they come and stay. The serious point here is that very strong trends tend to create weaker counter-trends moving in the opposite direction. These are either growth opportunities or risks depending on your orientation.

More on this from the BBC here.