On the Pleasures and Sorrows of Life Without Screens | Hacker News Reader

On the Pleasures and Sorrows of Life Without Screens

calnewport.com

127 pointsquickben84 comments

The article is quite optimistic about peoples' abilities to transform their newfound boredom into something creative, but as in the example with books, this digital minimalist "healthy" boredom also has its prerequisites to make it work.

By likening social media use to addiction, only the negative effects are highlighted. For example, the waiting line in the supermarket used to be full of aggression, it has become much calmer with phones, and some people might even revert to alcohol or other destructive habits when they feel uncomfortable with being alone. In some cases, distraction can even be beneficial, as playing Tetris reduces PTSD and flashbacks. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tetris-shown-to-l...

Perhaps a better metaphor might be travelling: When I travel too often and move aroung all the time, there is a certain "up in the air" - emptyness - it feels as if I don't ever arrive anywhere, and I spend far too much time in airports and in transit. When I travel less often, it is easier to enjoy the ride and the experience has a positive impact.

It seems to me like they need to differentiate more strongly between "using social media" and "using the computer". If you only ever look through windows to spy on your neighbours then you'd come to the conclusion that windows are bad and you should limit your exposure to them, yet there's nothing wrong with an excavator driver staring through a window at the work they're doing.

> When I travel too often and move around all the time, there is a certain "up in the air" - emptyness - it feels as if I don't ever arrive anywhere, and I spend far too much time in airports and in transit.

I've absolutely had this. The whole world starts to feel unreal and I start to feel disconnected from everything. It really messes with my head.

>the waiting line in the supermarket used to be full of aggression, it has become much calmer with phones,

What?

Grocery lines used to be people reading magazines/tabloids/tv guides or sending their kid to go get something they forgot, now it's people yacking loudly on their phone or playing candy crush waiting for the person in front of them to finish self checkout.

I can't remember the last time I heard someone "yacking loudly" at their phone in line at the supermarket. The Candy Crush part is accurate, but not very different from reading magazines.

Not sure what was the point both you and OP were trying to make.

I can't go to the grocery or my second gym without people shouting into their phones or their bluetooth, or worse, sometimes having a conversation with the other person on speaker (for that matter we have a few people that do that here in my office in the break room).

Perhaps it is a midwest thing.

In some places, people tend to get angry when forced to wait. Maybe they don't express it, but it's there. Other places, most everyone chills.

I was only referring to the waiting line in my nearest supermarkets, people even used to push their cards into the feet of those in front of them, but now they are busy on candy crush or something else on their phomes. This is not to say it is a better use of their time now, just as an example that not everyone is ready to transform a time without phones into something productive

Have you been to a sporting event recently? People browse social media and play Candy Crush while the game is being played.

Once I even saw someone watching a basketball highlights video on YouTube during a live basketball game.

One of the few good things about phones on our brains is it helps us from getting angry after a line takes a few minutes.

I have found that novel novelty is the key to feeling good.

Too much novelty too often becomes hard to cope with, too little is too drab.

I read Digital Minimalism back in February, and did a cleanse in March per his recommendations. One thing I noticed... I normally keep track of books I've read. I jumped from reading two books a month to reading six. Was I seriously reading four books a month in bullshit screen scrolling and arguing with people who are wrong on the Internet? Apparently.

I still use the phone as distraction, but now I do it with the Kindle app. I keep my phone Kindle loaded with books I can read in short bursts without extended concentration (currently about to finish the financial planning book I Will Teach You to Be Rich, by Ramit Sethi), and carry my regular Kindle around for books that require more engagement.

I already avoided video games; I've done so for years, because I recognized that I have an addiction problem. When it comes to videogames, I'm like an alcoholic that doesn't drink for fear of the consequences. What I didn't realize is how carefully crafted the addictions of Facebook and Twitter are, how they sucked me in worse than video games ever did.

I have a long ways to go to fully engage with the world again, but I'm getting better.

Wait, then why are you here?

I thought about that. What I decided was to distinguish between social media driven by deliberately addictive engagement in order to sell ads (Facebook, Twitter), and social media that doesn't depend on ad revenue and invites active engagement rather than passive scrolling (Hacker News, and a guitar forum I read regularly). I don't need to give up all online interaction, just the ones that are actively and deliberately unhealthy.

I don't know man. This sounds like:

"I used to have an alcoholism problem. I used to drink wine, beer, hard liquer, you name it. But then I did a cleanse in March, and I stopped drinking hard liquer and wine. I only drink beer now. But that's ok, because I actually like the taste of beer!"

Yeah, it does. And if I felt that HN was intruding on my ability to do other things the way Facebook and Twitter do, I'd quit it, as well.

edit: Maybe a better analogy would be that HN can be chewing gum when I'm trying to quit smoking.

Digital Minimalism was probably my least favorite Cal Newport book, not for the subject matter but because of the reliance on third party stories. I like to hear peoples’ stories first hand.

Even though I ended up being a partially failed case for using this book, I still got value from it. I mostly did the thirty day digital detox but ended up going back almost to my old routine. The difference is that I have perhaps reduced wasted time on my devices by about 1/3. I am more aware of how much time I am spending, while I am spending it reading Twitter, HN, or playing Chess or Go when I have short periods of non-busy time. I am considering removing Chess and Go apps from all my devices.

If you are going to read just one Cal Newport book, I recommend choosing Deep Work.

As I've noted here before[1], Newport is on a 3-book contract on more or less the same topic with minor tweaks. And is likely to subtly market them to the hilt at every opportunity.

Besides unsound fundamentals (relying too much "third party stories", and other issues noted elsewhere), he focuses too much on "quantity" and "productivity" than on quality and effectiveness.

Sure, he has something of value to say, but he should absolutely have compressed it into one book, and avoid the filler content. But my (uncharitable?) conjecture is, as he values "productivity", he happily gives into the demand of publishers to have X number of pages in a book, to sell, lest it looks like a pamphlet.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19047303

You make good points. I used major publishers like McGraw-Hill, J. Wiley, Springer Verlag, etc. for the first ten books I wrote. You really give up a lot of control over subject matter. I now use Leanpub, write whatever I enjoy writing about. I pitch the advantages [1] of writing to people I know, and usually suggest writing one or two books with a publisher and after that self publish.

[1] largest advantage is getting to meet and get to know really interesting people. I enjoy writing but being an author also opens up a lot of opportunities.

Books for general audience are filled with light content. That's just the way things are nowadays. It is not going to change. Any self help, any book about basics of something is going to have massive amounts of filler. I remember listening to Shallows: What Internet Does to Our Brains, and just suffering from being forced to listen to history about reading. How the monks or somebody read in the past, how valueable it was. I didn't care about any of that. I wanted to hear stories about people falling into deep depression because of too much internet. I wanted summaries of research into changes of the brain addicted to the internet. Instead what I got was history of papyrus, and what came after that, how novel it was, and how books became available for everybody, not just select few. How monks read aloud, and how there was one special monk who could read without speaking words. Terrible book.

I remember reading something about geniuses and high performance individuals, and of course examples were about sports. Because everybody understands sports and the book was for everybody. I wanted to read about workings of the minds of best mathematicians or professionals in intellectuals fields, like engineering, programming, businessman. As I was reading I felt physically ill, until I closed the book, yelled as loud as I can "BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH" and made a cup of coffee for myself. I realized that most of the books I wanted to read were fluff written for the publishers and editors. Not for me. I can get the idea from the title, description, table of contents, and maybe a few Amazon reviews.

I notice the same thing with technical books. Sections about history, long winded explanations of what is going to be taught paired with long conclusions. Recaps. I can't tell you how many times I've read history of Linux, and I can't remember anything about it: these mad diagrams of standards, what came from where, and how it was improved, extended and replaced by something else. I wanted to read a book on algorithms, a free one, it had very warm reception on HN[0], and guess what? It starts out with history of numbers. With detailed names of people who came up with ideas, of places, and even pictures. I hate these forms of introduction. But the book still seems to be good. I can recognize whether a book is "heavy" or "light". Heavy books often have exercises, they start fast, and go deep. Light books just can't get to the fucking point.

Heavy book: Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective Light book: Practical Object-Oriented Design in Ruby: An Agile Primer

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805624

Having read a couple of Newport's books, I've discovered how he manages to teach university classes, conduct academic research AND write these general-audience books. No, it's not "having a 6PM work shutdown schedule" as he writes (although it's not a bad idea for some work styles):

His formula is to take 50 paperback-size pages worth of good material from his blog posts, and then assemble 250 additional pages of fluff to surround the central thesis and actionable tips.

I don't want to single him out, and this is the MO of most productivity/self-help books, but it's especially noticeable on his, as he's quite distinct from a self-help guru or the ex-CEO types that tend to write books like these.

I don't agree. I've not read the new one yet, but So Good They Can't Ignore You was brilliant.

The 'fluff' was all the examples, and unlike many other writers (Ryan Holiday and Robert Greene are particularly bad for this) he goes in-depth in his examples and references them going forward too. They're well thought out examples and not throw away anecdotes. Sure you could get the basic content from his blog but I genuinely think the books are better as they highlight the theory through good use cases. I also enjoy his deliberately provocative style, it's like a toned down MMM. That might not be for everyone but I find it entertaining.

What bothers me a little is that he preaches digital minimalism, but his newsletter comes by email and seems very frequent.

Maybe he should offer a snail mail subscription to his blog?

I concur; Digital Minimalism is his weakest book, and Deep Work is his best. On the other hand, I think Digital Minimalism is also his most immediately useful and applicable work, and is probably a necessary precondition for engaging in deep work properly.

I did have a slip and started using Facebook again recently, but a two day bout of people I think of as allies being profoundly and loudly wrong on the Internet got me right back off it. Once you recognize the patterns, it's almost self-reinforcing to stay away.

Funny how younger people don't even know how the true boredom looks like. They think they get bored on their phones. Only after they go on screen detox they realise how much more fucking boring the life is. Especially if you don't have an obsessive hobby and do not want to bother other people just because you personally are bored.

I feel bad for people older than me that never got adjusted to the smartphones when they have to wait staring blankly into space or trying to start up a monologue to random stangers because they can't stand how dull the inside of their head is. Before smartphones your only salvation was a book and it was limited tool also not for everyone.

Smartphone as entertainment devices are the greatest social invention so far.

Please tell me you just forgot the /s or were hoping most people were less cynical than me...

Those who are never bored can't detect toxicity

Maybe I'm just too old for it, but what is this "being bored" thing you're talking about? I clearly recall staring blankly into space while solving problems in my mind, or even just feeling the surroundings, as some of the most interesting moments of my life. I don't recall ever getting bored, not once.

You are very lucky. I clearly recall intense boredom from pre-phone times. Every time I was forced to stay in some place and do nothing, like while waiting at the doctor's, using public transport, at school during some classes, at family dinner, at couples dinner, in church, even at the funeral, sometimes even in my own home.

There was a saying that intelligent people are never bored. Untrue. I have IQ over 150 and boredom brought me to tears more than once.

I'd read to kill it, i'd play solitaire with real cards, I'd play one player games with pen and paper.

Now when I'm older I can handle being bored much better. As I accumulated scars I can reminiscence on how effed my life is and daydream of pleasure. Buy I still prefer my phone wherever it's socially acceptable.

If you want people to take you seriously. Never cite your iq unless there is a very good reason. This is not one

I was providing data point disproving (dumb) claim I heard some people make. If I just said I'm intelligent and bored you could just think I'm not that intelligent. I thought it was better to tell you exactly how intelligent I am so you can decide for yourself if that's intelligent enough or not. IQ is just a number like height or age. I just stated it as it was measured by Mensa membership test.

And I don't care much about people taking me seriously.

I'm with you, fellow alien! I don't know how to be bored. Sitting, standing, breathing, thinking, observing - it all seems quite captivating to me, with or without further activity.

>Maybe I'm just too old for it, but what is this "being bored" thing you're talking about?

Something for people that lack all of: personal life, friends, interests, goals, and curiosity.

I feel bored when I have to listen to boring conversations (or worse, monologues), and can't divide my attention without losing the thread.

Boredom is what drives people to accomplish things.

Except when they are in the spot where they can accomplish nothing. Then boredom is an itch you can't scratch. Becomes torture.

You always have your mind. Are you incapable of just sitting and thinking about things? Do you need constant external stimulation?

There's a famous quote from Blaise Pascal that goes "All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room."

I wonder if someone like Richard Feynman would have accomplished anything at all if he had a phone to distract him and he was incapable of simply sitting and thinking. Einstein came up with the central ideas of the Theory of Relativity while he was day-dreaming at work or on public transport.

You can't daydream if you must focus your attention on something boring. I wonder if Einstein would have come up with Relativity if he had to write mind-numbing reports all day.

> You always have your mind.

Yeah. Human mind is very limited tool without external support. That's why writing was such a boon for humans and notation was such a boon for math.

> Are you incapable of just sitting and thinking about things?

Yeah. I can but that rarely acomplishes anything. If you think you can solve a problem just with your mind think again. Most problems are problems because you lack some information. And you won't get any missing information just by thinking. And if you have all the information, you just need to process it then you are still out of luck. Even moderately complex processing let's say roughly as hard as derivating moderately simple calculus requires at least a pen and piece of paper to support you wonderful mind with crappy operational memory that can hold at most seven things at once.

I would much rather do the thinking with my phone than without it.

I'm not Feynman and Einstein had plenty of paper.

You can accomplish all kinds of things with your mind.

Not to mention most people fight "boredom" with endless surfing at places where they have all the tools to accomplish tons of things -- in their home, in from of a screen.

Fits nicely with the Southpark creators views on Pot: it makes you feel fine with being bored and it's when you're bored that you should be learning a new skill or some new science or being creative.

Smartphones and everything that comes with it are more dangerous in that regard, in that a lot of activities on there are designed to give you a sense of accomplishment - finishing a level, getting an award, getting upvotes on the internets, winning at something, being moderately entertained by an endless stream of memes, dog / cat videos, etcetera. It's a continuous stream of short lived distractions.

Disclaimer: I use the phone all the time, Reddit takes up a lot of my attention. That said, I managed to sit down and read a book for a bit yesterday.

I think you got it completely the wrong way.

You can get a lot more bored if you're used to be entertained the whole time.

I can only tell from my own personal experience, that reducing entertainment also influences my consciousness, that I'm feeling less easily bored and I'm better able to just enjoy and see the beauty of my surroundings.

You are right that you can build up resistance to boredom by reducing entertainment.

I gained a ton after sitting through family dinners at my SO parents and grand parents. Initially I was bored out of my mind. Gradually I adapted and suffered less and less.

But I don't see it as something positive. I feel like it broke my mind in some way. It replaced frantically struggling against boredom with nearly catathonic apathy.

It feels more like a learned helplessness than improvement.

If you are in the rain for few minutes you are running and hiding. If you are in the rain for few hours you can no longer give a fuck as your feet melt in swampy shoes.

> But I don't see it as something positive. I feel like it broke my mind in some way. It replaced frantically struggling against boredom with nearly catathonic apathy.

For me the opposite of boredom isn't apathy, but more a kind of freeing your mind from any entertainment needs. If the need vanishes then there's also no pain.

> It feels more like a learned helplessness than improvement.

Needing entertainment is IMHO a lot more a learned helplessness.

> Needing entertainment is IMHO a lot more a learned helplessness.

Needing entertainment and seeking entertainment doesn't really fit the definition of learned helplessness.

Learned helplessness is when you are suffering no matter what you do so you stop making any attempts to lessen your suffering because you learned nothing works.

If human had learned helplessness attitude toward boredom and entertainment he wouldn't even bother pick up the phone because he'd believe that it won't help him be entertained.

You would probably think the guy is depressed and you'd probably be right because bordom and entertainment are such foundational features of the brain that it would require some serious brain damage to end up like that.

> Learned helplessness is when you are suffering no matter what you do so you stop making any attempts to lessen your suffering because you learned nothing works.

I'm really confused by your reasoning, because you also said that you experienced ways of handling your boredom to suffer less, and then you called it a learned helplessness, which is exactly the opposite.

By your definition an addict isn't helpless, because he can reduce his suffering by just taking drugs.

Not being able to handle your emotions, to soften them and to have some degree of control over your actions, is IMHO a kind of learned helplessness.

I think quite a few people learned to handle their emotions in non constructive ways - I certainly have my own bad habits - by doing something to feel better, watch TV, eat too much or whatever else.

> By your definition

It's not my definition. It's THE definition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

> addict isn't helpless, because he can reduce his suffering by just taking drugs.

Yes. Being an addict has nothing to do with learned helplessness.

> you experienced ways of handling your boredom to suffer less,

No. I didn't do anything. Just my suffering turned into apathy and I didn't suffer as much.

> Not being able to handle your emotions, to soften them and to have some degree of control over your actions, is IMHO a kind of learned helplessness.

Then update your definition of learned helplesness to match THE definition of learned helplessness. The thing you have in mind is called emotional dysregulation disorder , I think.

I think that's a fair notice. I have reduced my reliance on digital tools for passing time and I'm starting to remember boredom and why I was avoiding it.

Many articles portrait boredom too much as being good instead portraying it like the necessary rest you need between work outs.

Allowing yourself to get bored is good but you should understand why and what's a good/bad way to stop being bored.

>I feel bad for people older than me that never got adjusted to the smartphones when they have to wait staring blankly into space or trying to start up a monologue to random stangers because they can't stand how dull the inside of their head is.

Looks like you have it backwards. You should feel sorry for them for how "dull the inside of their head is" -- not for not being used to having smartphones to compensate.

I don't feel sorry for people for being worse. Not everybody is the same, noone is perfect.

But I feel sorry to see them suffer while they might have not if they were able to use smartphone for entertainment.

>But I feel sorry to see them suffer while they might have not if they were able to use smartphone for entertainment.

Well, they also might have not if they have gotten a hobby, learned to read books, and so on.

Why feel sorry that they're not accustomed with one of the worse options? And one that everybody and their dog seems to want to cut down these days?

Smartphone is not one of the worse options. It's one of the best options. Thanks to it I'm just discusing ideas with you while lying in a garden. Which is at the moment my preferred way of wasting my time.

No other tool would allow me to waste my time this way. If I couldn't do it I'd read fantasy book I got for my recent birthday but it wouldn't be nearly as intelectually stimulating.

>It's one of the best options. Thanks to it I'm just discusing ideas with you while lying in a garden.

Which seems like a totally detrimental use of one's time!

At least it's not passive consumption.

Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good garden. Try looking at a plant for 5 straight minutes. It is amazing the number of details and features and events you can see if you just sit still for 5 mins and look.

I already looked at plants over my four decades of life and they are not that interesting unless you need them for something. And you rarely do.

Besides, I was looking today at small aphid infested tree for few minutes. Even poked some. Then I got bored and went back to discussing you. There are so many minutes to kill in a given day.

There are no boring moments, only boring people :)

True boredom seems to be something that we learn over the years. Watching my 3y old daughter she never seems to get bored. If shes not entertained and realizes she won't get entertained anytime soon she starts singing (improving songs with her own text ;), telling herself stories that evolve while shes talking, exploring things that are around her. She grabs everyday things and looks what she is able to do with them and what the charecteristic of the object is. She knocks it on the table, sees if she can bend it, if they can be stacked etc. Shes not looking at them for what she learned they are, but what she can do with them. I often caught myself when I wanted to say "that won't work or that's not how it is used" just to see her doing something wonderful or funny or stupid.. She does that to not be bored. Getting creative is a wonderful smartphone replacement.

> exploring things that are around her.

That works for first few years of life.

> She does that to not be bored.

Exactly. But at age 7 or 9 she'll have most of the things figured out and when you place hear in novelty lacking, restricted environment like at or near the table adults are eating and talking about same things seemingly forever you'll see her suffer. I hope you'll notice and help her find entertainment.

I grew up without phones, and for the most part without computers (early years). There were many times I was bored as a kid but most of the time I found activities to fill that time. Being bored a is okay and should not be seen as time needed to be filled. Kids require boredom to enable creativity. It takes imagination to go from bored to doing something. It’s actually part of the developmental process and should not be disrupted by screen time.

My guess is you don’t have kids. This certainly feels like an opinion of a younger person and I can’t blame you for thinking that way. We were all once ignorant and if you ask a person yet older, we never stop.

Think about how long it took for humans to involve to get to where we were before instant entertainment. Now think about how long it’s been since we advanced from first mobile entertainment to now. Do you think hay sudden change is good for you as a natural evolving being?

> My guess is you don’t have kids. This certainly feels like an opinion of a younger person

I'm 40 and I don't have kids, but I remember quite a bit from my childhood and its challenges. My friends have kids and I like them and I see how they struggle to entertain themselves. I buy them legos to enrich their environments. I even occasionally get concerned how much they play on their phones when I'm not playing with them.

> Now think about how long it’s been since we advanced from first mobile entertainment to now.

Since first mobile entertainment device was a stick I'd say quite a bit of time has passed.

Smartphone is not the ultimate boredome nullifier. It's just the best, richest, most versatile tool we have so far. But if you think your kids should get bored don't worry. Boredom will always find the way. Kids get plenty bored when they are on their phones (more than a-dull-ts). Then they seek new stuff, on their phones and outside of them. There are lots of worse ways to fight the boredom like joining some cultish group or trying drugs.

>> exploring things that are around her.

> That works for first few years of life.

I don't think so. If I look around me right now there are hundreds of objects and there are lots of questions I've never asked myself and might be worth thinking about. Why is the cups handle placed like this, what made the designer choose this font on this brochure etc.

But reading your comment again I think we talked past each other. While I was talking about the "I have to wait in line for the next 15 minutes boredom" you seem to talk about something totally different.

> because they can't stand how dull the inside of their head is

This sounds more like you are talking about a state of mind

> I hope you'll notice and help her find entertainment.

Thanks, I'll give my best :)

I sometimes go on 8 hour car rides and don't require entertainment. Maybe it's just my personality, but the key is to foster interests that can live in your head. It's possible to spend 8 hours thinking about musical temperament, or lapsteel tunings, or word etymology, or writing song lyrics. Boredom just means you are used to low-effort stimuli being readily available.

I got asked on a 2.5 hour flight recently why I wasn't reading or looking at my phone/laptop. I like just zoning out and thinking about things. It's almost meditative, and being on a plane without internet access gives me a good reason not to be staring a screen for a change.

"No one is bored, everything is boring." -- K-Punk

Whatever you want to call it, I'm all for digital minimalism these days.

I find modern computing to be filled with stress and anxiety. Computers, at one time, used to sit idle until used. Using a computer was to use a tool to help you get some task done that was previously menial and boring. These days as soon as I sit down at a computer I start getting messages, advertisements, pleas, bargains, warnings, requests... it seems like it never ends. I sit down to get some work done and an hour later I've finally managed to get enough of the messages down and distractions over with that I've nearly forgotten what it was I intended to do in the first place.

And this experience has been following me in my pocket for more than a decade. Since 2008 or so it has been getting louder, more obnoxious, and demanding. Offers for new phones and data plans when I'm trying to bathe my kids vibrate in my pocket waiting to be heard. Advertisements tailored to my interests and desires follow me everywhere. Messages from people trying to contact me whenever the whim comes to them. There is little room for silence in my days anymore.

I have a dream inspired by the folks behind http://screenl.es/ -- a version of computing where there screens are not the primary interface for computing. One that is diverse, invisible, and intentional. I'd like a version of computing that is controlled by me and bends around my needs and not the needs of product designers, advertisers, and whims of others.

Until I can realize that dream or someone else gets it done I think I'm going to continue my trend of cutting out as much technology from my life as possible. I need more silence, solitude, and intentional, meaningful interactions. I don't want a deluge of social opinion on every happening in the world aimed right at my brain.

How about the pleasures of life without other people's music and TV, which adults and children play aloud with no headphones in NYC, on a subway and in a forced, enclosed space?

Should we thank the geniuses who designed phones with amplified speakers and no headphone jack (some people are too poor/cheap for Bluetooth I suspect)? Or do we thank Facecrook and Instascam for out-loud videos cranked up at a higher volume on Android?

Or a breakdown of norms due to being a permissive, some call freer society?

Whatever it is, it's a quality of life detriment for those of us in dense areas, and a personal pet peeve.

People playing their music loudly in public spaces isn't new.

What's new is that it's coming out of a tiny phone rather than a 12 D-cell powered boom box.

>What's new is that it's coming out of a tiny phone rather than a 12 D-cell powered boom box.

And that makes all the difference. You cannot possibly compare the number of times you would be bothered by a boom box in the 90s in public transport, for example, and how frequent it is now to be bothered by other people's phones on the exact same circumstances. Let's get real.

Whats also new is that it's become a lot more pervasive.

I am a good dancer, well only Lindy and East coast swing. Not much weight for me to lose. I have a black belt in Kenpo. But I am also a systems administrator, enjoy my Switch, and generally spend at least a few hours looking at a screen each day, more than 12 hours on a work day. So I fail to see the correlation...

Seems like less about tech minimalism being the key and more, learning how to have self control. I am not knocking that, I believe that if you do not have the self control to manage a habit than you should remove that habit if it is a detriment. Nonetheless, the article, IMHO, is off the mark.

I think the value of his work is in helping folk become aware of how much time they waste. You sound like you have a good grip on that already, so probably aren't the target audience.

Interesting topic but is this not just an advert for this guys book?

Is there information in the article that you find useful or interesting? Or that someone else might? If so, then what does it matter that he wrote a book on the same topic and mentions it? Would it have been better if he'd written exactly the same article but not mentioned the book?

Fair point, I just worry about the prevalence of "stealth" advertising. For me at least, the article seems to boil down mostly to "Look what my lifestyle book did for this person". But if others are getting value from it then who am I to judge :)

If the article was valuable, it follows the book is even more valuable.

Isn't everything these days a promo for something?

And this or that technical post is an advert for the company whose devs wrote it.

It isn't just an advert because it has other value for the reader than just promoting the book.

It is promoting the author and his book, because that's how he makes a living and feeds his family.

You get a bit of value from the post, you are exposed to the author, and perhaps in exchange you will buy his other work and give him and his publisher some money.

It's on calnewport.com, so I imagine some pitching is going to happen. Same with pretty much every website these days, it's all mostly content marketing.

If you want to distract yourself while not doing anything you will find a way to do it. Before smart phones there were computers and video games. Before that there was television. Before that there was printed fiction of many sorts, most of it of no personal or social value at all.

It is good to strive to do worthwhile things. The worthless things you do to fill your time are not preventing you from doing anything else. You do what you do...

Good point. I would say that modern day distractions have an extra oomph however. I've never developed an addiction to books, crossword puzzles, or television whereas I've come to the point where I can't have a healthy relationship with video games.

I think video games went from "fun for a while, but eventually you wanna stop and go ride bikes" to "wait, what do you mean it's Monday morning?" at or a little after the 16-bit console era. There were always people who could just play Super Mario 3 all day or that one guy who did nothing but play Doom for six months or whatever, but most kids (and certainly most adults) would knock it off after a while. It wasn't a widespread issue, even among the small segment of the population that played games, even if some did have problems even then.

There was the occasional eat-your-life-for-weeks-on-end game but they tended to be confined to genres like 4x and RPGs (Ultima series, say) and you didn't see multiple high-quality works of that sort every single year. The other big exception was probably MUDs and other games where social, online multiplayer was a major component.

I think a combo of 1) refining and focusing games to drive "engagement", 2) games just getting better over time, in a lot of ways, 3) multiplayer and social elements becoming more common, and 4) digital distribution putting unlimited novelty at one's fingertips, has made the whole artform kinda scary, unless you stick strictly to shortish, tight single-player games. Or local multiplayer, I guess, since it's hard to binge that until 3AM on a regular basis, for obvious reasons. Leveling concepts, lengthy turn-based games, randomness of rewards, and online/social components are all especially dangerous.

Actually point 4 goes for most things, now. It's kinda too fast & easy to get... well, almost everything. I think there's a reason an unfettered will and easy gratification aren't usually things depicted as improving characters in fiction, for example, and often do the opposite.

I think your analysis is spot on. Regarding that last part, I would add another disturbing argument. Some things are definitely easier to get, but the things that matter the most such as strong relationships or a sense of being useful and valued in a community are arguably harder to come by. Modern games and porn mimic having access to these needs and draw people in but fail to provide real satisfaction so the individual ends up like a moth on the lightbulb that burns it. You are under the illusion that your life is going well while at the same time you can sense that it isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com