There is a bit of that here when he mentions the teenager, I agree. He may have a point that professional environments may have to come up with solutions to deal with this kind of thing, however.
This was a nice read, and I agree there's a problem, but I disagree with your solution (just unplug, at least occasionally).
The kinds of social interactions we're all becoming addicted to online aren't as "real" as offline ones to be sure. I'd rather solve that problem by further improving the technology.
To give you a concrete example, all of my family and many of my friends are in the UK, while I'm in California. We keep in touch a lot using Facebook and Skype. Those are great, as far as they go, but what I really want is something that lets me and my best friend grab a "virtual beer" together in a way that's as good as the "real" thing. Ever the optimist, I think we'll get there soon enough.
I think he's getting at a key point, but never quite gets there. All of our interface technology is oriented towards a single user interacting with a single machine. There's a reason why a desktop PC has been called a "workstation." The design of the interface is specifically for a human who is not interacting with his surroundings. Even our "mobile" computing is really just relocatable computing. It's a "workstation" that you can easily move to a new location in which you can ignore your surroundings. Heck, even the iPhone is designed in this way. (You are not meant to be driving, biking, or even walking when you are using one!)
Interfaces designed for Collaborative interfaces with computers are being researched. It could be as simple as a big rear projection screen with Johnny Lee's Wiimote hack for an inexpensive multi-touch interface.
Yes, this is along the lines I was thinking. Computers need to get better at integrating into our lives in a way that makes them part of the background and doesn't prevent us from interacting with the real world. In fact I'm convinced that, if we get it right, technology can enhance those real world interactions rather than detracting from them.
It seems like you're trying to make some clever point. It's either too subtle, or there's been a mistake made on the "clever" part. Books can be used to ignore someone. But they don't bring you realtime updates of your tweets and emails. They don't have long stretches between save points, and you don't need headphones for the soundtrack.
In other words: He has functional reasons, and wasn't just being a Luddite.
I was just pointing out that he had an arbitrary cutoff line for the technology allowed. In the future, I suppose I will say things to my daughters such as: No immersive-reality goggles for this trip. Just laptops/e-books.
It's not an arbitrary line, it's a line between instant/realtime updates and not. Between short attention span distractions and long ones.
Yes you can read a book and ignore your surroundings, but you can't talk to someone and dip into a book for a few seconds every couple of minutes like you can with a phone or email. You have to give attention to a book, it can't clamour for it or ring.
Hey, maybe that's a good idea... books you like and want to read but keep not getting round to - make them ring and text you to call you back to them.
I don't think the cutoff was arbitrary. Rather, it had to do with the differences in the interruption quotient of those technologies. Books don't vie as aggressively for your attention as the newer tech he's frustrated with. Especially if you're already talking with someone else.
I was just pointing out that he had an arbitrary cutoff line for the technology allowed.
I pointed out 3 functional differences in the grandparent post. The cutoff line is not arbitrary -- it's at interactivity, which is about as fundamental as you can get. As a cutoff, it's continental-shelf sized.
Five hundred years ago, one family went on a trip. The rule was: no printed books. Just scrolls.
No functional difference for the reader between writing on papyrus and printing on paper. Where's the cleverness? (Yeah, you hold it differently -- that's pretty silly, though.)
Although I agree that we all need to unplug sometime, it sounds like he is ranting about a symptom and not the cause. My guess is he needs to work on his presentation content especially if his long winded blog post is any indication.
I think we have all experienced presenters, and ideas from those presenters, that engage us enough that we don't wander back to our "distractions".
My guess is he needs to work on his presentation content especially if his long winded blog post is any indication
(grin) It's nothing to do my presenting. I'm talking about trying to get people to listen to each other. I'm just trying to get people to have normal high-functioning interactions with each other. But they're too distracted by, well, themselves.
They ask us how successful teams operate, so we tell them they all work together -- co-located. So everybody shows up in same room and spends all of their time electronically engaged somewhere else.
I have an instrument rating for flying airplanes. It's one of the most difficult pieces of technology to manage for a single pilot flying alone in hard IMC. And it's life or death. Pilots have to learn this attention span management skill to a much higher level than most people.
What I'm seeing is that technology is becoming more and more distracting, while the human brain 1.0 is still wired for face-to-face caveman communities.
But I'll work on my presentations too. : ) I'm afraid you're stuck with my loquaciousness.
> Pilots have to learn this attention span management skill to a much higher level than most people.
Perhaps you should mention this to the Colgan training co-ordinator. I don't think the CO 3407 crash had anything to distract the pilots other than their own conversation.
It was different back in the old times. There was even less communication because entertainment then meant TV and books, both completely solitary activities. But since TV was home based and reading books at work was inappropriate people had to fall back on radio.
Radio was always on. Wherever people were working, radio was on, no matter whether it was a construction site or an office full of programmers. Weird.
Back then there was too little communication. Now we're communicating with too many people at the same time. That's how I feel it.
So the problem is growing number of people don't pay enough attention to a particular subject or social interaction. They are in the state of continuous partial attention.
Here's a simple test if you have this condition: Consider news/tweets/blog items you read this morning. How many many different topics they covered? How long did you focus on one particular topic (eg. programming, software industry trends, social psychology). Now think if you REALLY paid sufficient attention to each subject to produce a meaningful and lasting effect (eg. form new opinion about a technology trend, make a technical decision affecting your work, etc.). If the answer isn't clear then you too are in this 'partial attention' state.
The point is, it isn't how people use the technology or tools. It is about how many things people pay attention to and how long they keep that attention.
The fix isn't to unplug, but to reduce time spent in 'continuous partial attention'.
May I suggest you now go unfollow a few people from your Twitter account :)
Great post, Daniel. The more of your stuff I read the more I see how much we think alike. I just realized one big thing we share in common:
We are both 20-something high-tech entrepreneurial free spirits trapped in 40-something bodies in cubicles where we do not belong.
This is a not a bad thing! In fact, it can be pretty good as long as we always remember:
- We were born at a time to now have the best of multiple worlds: modern technology, good work experience, and some domain-specific knowledge.
- No matter what the sitution, the ability to drill down > 1 level is a great personal differentiator. I love being a hacker.
- In large institutions, illogical is the new logical.
- It's OK to be a fish out of water, as long as you realize that you're a fish out of water.
- Always find the "takeaway" from a bad situation.
- There are a whole bunch of things we probably can't change (Ex: everybody being plugged in). The trick is determining what to do with that data.
- Positive mental attitude trumps all. When things don't make sense, always think, "What can I do about that?" When not sure, write some code. That ususally seems to solve some problem somewhere.
I understand that this really can be a problem in a business setting when you really want the people who are physically present to interact with each other. This kind of argument has been going on for a while though, about how we defer attention to distant people, like answering the phone when you're already conversing with someone else, or texting under the dinner table. I've ranted about that kind of thing myself a couple times; it annoys me. (I'm ~30).
But outside of business settings, it really a problem? I don't know that we can really say that in social settings it's necessarily better to be unplugged. Teenagers nowadays feel comfortable enough with their peers behaving the way this guy describes. Eventually it'll become the norm, unless somehow that same group collectively decides to behave differently.
Not sure why so many people are crying foul. Unless it's because they're used to having your full attention, and now they're frustrated with having to compete with the friends you're texting/tweeting/facebooking. That's sort of narcissistic, isn't it? Do you deserve their full attention?
"Not sure why so many people are crying foul. Unless it's because they're used to having your full attention, and now they're frustrated with having to compete with the friends you're texting/tweeting/facebooking. That's sort of narcissistic, isn't it? Do you deserve their full attention?"
If I don't deserve someone's full attention, why are we having lunch together?
I'm just trying to play the devil's advocate here, because honestly the behavior annoys the ever-loving crap outta me. But I think the conversation is interesting...
Why are you having lunch together? To kill time? To work on a deal? To coordinate the secret drop location? Do you honestly need their full attention during lunch? What does the pause (while the other guys replies to a text/tweet) detract from lunch? Maybe context matters more than it used to.
Personally, it doesn't bother me (I'm 25) when people do this to me (though I don't usually do it myself mostly due to not owning an iphone or ipod or any portable gadgets other than a basic cell phone) but I'm really interested in why it bothers some people.
Do you know why it annoys you? Is it because you find it's a lack of respect? Is it just because you yourself have nothing better to do while your conversation partner engages with something remote?
My first instinct when this happens is to say, "Pay attention to me, I'm right here." which feels narcissistic. That feeling caused me to think again about why I get annoyed. Do I really deserve their attention?
The counter to the narcissism argument is that I feel like I ought to be preferred because I was there first. Sort of like how you feel when you've been waiting in line at a checkout only to have the cashier turn and answer the phone when you reach the counter. Also, I feel like physical proximity seems like it should count higher in the 'urgency' scheme.
Because it brings an imbalance in the relationship - I am giving them my full attention, and they are not. Now there are situations in which this is okay - for example in a close relationship where these things are understood, so maybe I have brought along a newspaper to read while waiting for the food to arrive, and my lunch date is checking their email.
Contrary to the comment below, the narcissistic person is the one who is texting, not the one who is waiting - because the person who is texting is almost certainly overrating the importance of him sending an immediate reply to his correspondents.
Have you ever tried to get someone's attention when they are electronically engaged? Because the electronic interaction is passive, the engaged party mistakenly believes that they can divide their attention between you and the device. They often can't. Since it's difficult to gauge how fully engaged they are, you are often left wondering whether they are actually listening to you.
Trying to interact with an electronically engaged person is extremely frustrating, and I feel sorry for my wife who has tried to have many a conversation with me while I stared at a computer screen.
It's fine to be together and do independent activities side-by-side, as long as that's the agreement. My wife often watches TV in the same room where I am using my laptop just for the proximity, but we never consider it quality time. In fact, I'd say those sessions often leave us feeling more urgent about spending time together.
A by-product of physical proximity is evaluation of interaction. If I meet a friend for a meal or a drink, I want to interact, not gather up the leftover crumbs of attention.
And, to head off an argument I've heard before, I'll say that it's not the same as if a third party dropped by during our visit. That at least has the possibility of a conversation among the three of us. I might think it rude if my friend did not introduce me, and I would certainly think it rude if my friend spent most of our time together talking to this third person without introducing me.
Without the ability to communicate with people all over the world, you are forced to deal with the people in your own proximity, who might not be the people you would prefer. They might not share your same interests, or they may have annoying practices. However, learning to accept, live with, and even love these people is important for human development.
On the Internet, you can find an affinity group of people like yourself. You can find interesting people who may be much more knowledgable about the things you like than anyone you know locally. If you encounter someone who is annoying, you can unsubscribe or block them and find someone else more to your liking. You might even prefer the culture of another part of the world more than the one where you happen to be born.
This is an old human tendancy. In the old days, if you wanted something different, you could escape with a book, but to have a dialog with different people you had to travel or immigrate, which was expensive. Even then you still had to deal with a group of neighbors and work associates that you couldn't hand pick.
With the Internet, though, it is so easy and tempting to hang out with the cool people in cyberspace and avoid the difficulties of local life that it is easy to become unbalanced. The Internet is wonderful for connecting us with different cultures, the experts in any field, and distant friends and family, but I think it is important to build relationships with the people close by. They will be the ones that will help you when the power goes out.
I will venture a defense for the teenager who came over and listened to her mp3 player. I remember reading that in Japanese culture (specifically in the first half of the 20th century; don't know if it is currently true) close family members might visit each other and, if they had nothing substantive to talk about, simply sit in silence together and count the time as well-spent. I certainly understand that someone might feel the need for human proximity without needing to exchange information. Isn't the teenager's behavior quite opposite of the typical modern tendency, which is to obsessively exchange trivial information without any physical togetherness?
Sitting together in silence is vastly different from sitting together with earphones plugged into one's ears. The first, you are immersed in the others' presence. The second, you are not having a shared experience.
An addiction is a habit to stimulation. Like TV, Internet is very powerful stimulator - it holds your attention (some times partial, as it described in comment above) and allows you to forget or to push aside any challenges of so-called real world. In fact, it works the same way as an alcohol - cheap and low-pleasant solution for wasting your time.
All those tweets, blogs, emails and headlines just keeps you loaded, keeps you away from actual tasks or problems, like a popular radio and then TV shows did.
Of course it is much easy and even pleasant to read tens or even hundreds of short, primitive, mostly meaningless posts and comments than to do something useful.
In this illusion it seems like you're getting new facts, accumulating knowledge in various areas and it raises your self-esteem, but actually you're just switching channels from one advertisement to another.
It sounds like this guy is very annoying and borring, so when he's around people they try to phase him out by using a blackberry or laptop. I do this all the time to needy and annoying people who I don't like that want my attention.
For the inattentive meeting-attenders: Do they want to be there? Is it a mandatory meeting? You might be seeing passive resistance to the meeting itself.
41 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadThe kinds of social interactions we're all becoming addicted to online aren't as "real" as offline ones to be sure. I'd rather solve that problem by further improving the technology.
To give you a concrete example, all of my family and many of my friends are in the UK, while I'm in California. We keep in touch a lot using Facebook and Skype. Those are great, as far as they go, but what I really want is something that lets me and my best friend grab a "virtual beer" together in a way that's as good as the "real" thing. Ever the optimist, I think we'll get there soon enough.
I agree with the solution but not for all of the situations the author mentions...
Status meetings in particular seem like inefficient token ring events
Collaborative problem solving and design reviews on the other hand could be more engaging to require an "unplugged" atmosphere.
Interfaces designed for Collaborative interfaces with computers are being researched. It could be as simple as a big rear projection screen with Johnny Lee's Wiimote hack for an inexpensive multi-touch interface.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/johnny_lee_demos_wii_remo...
EDIT: I think this is one of the things that bugs me about Pair Programming. I don't think we have the right setup for it.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/images/FT_xmen_1.jp...
In that sense, maybe you'd be better off using a chat program in DOS, in order to prevent multitasking.
Five hundred years ago, one family went on a trip. The rule was: no printed books. Just scrolls.
In other words: He has functional reasons, and wasn't just being a Luddite.
Yes you can read a book and ignore your surroundings, but you can't talk to someone and dip into a book for a few seconds every couple of minutes like you can with a phone or email. You have to give attention to a book, it can't clamour for it or ring.
Hey, maybe that's a good idea... books you like and want to read but keep not getting round to - make them ring and text you to call you back to them.
I pointed out 3 functional differences in the grandparent post. The cutoff line is not arbitrary -- it's at interactivity, which is about as fundamental as you can get. As a cutoff, it's continental-shelf sized.
Five hundred years ago, one family went on a trip. The rule was: no printed books. Just scrolls.
No functional difference for the reader between writing on papyrus and printing on paper. Where's the cleverness? (Yeah, you hold it differently -- that's pretty silly, though.)
I think we have all experienced presenters, and ideas from those presenters, that engage us enough that we don't wander back to our "distractions".
(grin) It's nothing to do my presenting. I'm talking about trying to get people to listen to each other. I'm just trying to get people to have normal high-functioning interactions with each other. But they're too distracted by, well, themselves.
They ask us how successful teams operate, so we tell them they all work together -- co-located. So everybody shows up in same room and spends all of their time electronically engaged somewhere else.
I have an instrument rating for flying airplanes. It's one of the most difficult pieces of technology to manage for a single pilot flying alone in hard IMC. And it's life or death. Pilots have to learn this attention span management skill to a much higher level than most people.
What I'm seeing is that technology is becoming more and more distracting, while the human brain 1.0 is still wired for face-to-face caveman communities.
But I'll work on my presentations too. : ) I'm afraid you're stuck with my loquaciousness.
Perhaps you should mention this to the Colgan training co-ordinator. I don't think the CO 3407 crash had anything to distract the pilots other than their own conversation.
Radio was always on. Wherever people were working, radio was on, no matter whether it was a construction site or an office full of programmers. Weird.
Back then there was too little communication. Now we're communicating with too many people at the same time. That's how I feel it.
A lot of people visited to have CONVERSATION. I remember that frequently from those days.
Here's a simple test if you have this condition: Consider news/tweets/blog items you read this morning. How many many different topics they covered? How long did you focus on one particular topic (eg. programming, software industry trends, social psychology). Now think if you REALLY paid sufficient attention to each subject to produce a meaningful and lasting effect (eg. form new opinion about a technology trend, make a technical decision affecting your work, etc.). If the answer isn't clear then you too are in this 'partial attention' state.
The point is, it isn't how people use the technology or tools. It is about how many things people pay attention to and how long they keep that attention.
The fix isn't to unplug, but to reduce time spent in 'continuous partial attention'.
May I suggest you now go unfollow a few people from your Twitter account :)
We are both 20-something high-tech entrepreneurial free spirits trapped in 40-something bodies in cubicles where we do not belong.
This is a not a bad thing! In fact, it can be pretty good as long as we always remember:
- We were born at a time to now have the best of multiple worlds: modern technology, good work experience, and some domain-specific knowledge.
- No matter what the sitution, the ability to drill down > 1 level is a great personal differentiator. I love being a hacker.
- In large institutions, illogical is the new logical.
- It's OK to be a fish out of water, as long as you realize that you're a fish out of water.
- Always find the "takeaway" from a bad situation.
- There are a whole bunch of things we probably can't change (Ex: everybody being plugged in). The trick is determining what to do with that data.
- Positive mental attitude trumps all. When things don't make sense, always think, "What can I do about that?" When not sure, write some code. That ususally seems to solve some problem somewhere.
But outside of business settings, it really a problem? I don't know that we can really say that in social settings it's necessarily better to be unplugged. Teenagers nowadays feel comfortable enough with their peers behaving the way this guy describes. Eventually it'll become the norm, unless somehow that same group collectively decides to behave differently.
Not sure why so many people are crying foul. Unless it's because they're used to having your full attention, and now they're frustrated with having to compete with the friends you're texting/tweeting/facebooking. That's sort of narcissistic, isn't it? Do you deserve their full attention?
If I don't deserve someone's full attention, why are we having lunch together?
Why are you having lunch together? To kill time? To work on a deal? To coordinate the secret drop location? Do you honestly need their full attention during lunch? What does the pause (while the other guys replies to a text/tweet) detract from lunch? Maybe context matters more than it used to.
Do you know why it annoys you? Is it because you find it's a lack of respect? Is it just because you yourself have nothing better to do while your conversation partner engages with something remote?
My first instinct when this happens is to say, "Pay attention to me, I'm right here." which feels narcissistic. That feeling caused me to think again about why I get annoyed. Do I really deserve their attention?
The counter to the narcissism argument is that I feel like I ought to be preferred because I was there first. Sort of like how you feel when you've been waiting in line at a checkout only to have the cashier turn and answer the phone when you reach the counter. Also, I feel like physical proximity seems like it should count higher in the 'urgency' scheme.
Contrary to the comment below, the narcissistic person is the one who is texting, not the one who is waiting - because the person who is texting is almost certainly overrating the importance of him sending an immediate reply to his correspondents.
Have you ever tried to get someone's attention when they are electronically engaged? Because the electronic interaction is passive, the engaged party mistakenly believes that they can divide their attention between you and the device. They often can't. Since it's difficult to gauge how fully engaged they are, you are often left wondering whether they are actually listening to you.
Trying to interact with an electronically engaged person is extremely frustrating, and I feel sorry for my wife who has tried to have many a conversation with me while I stared at a computer screen.
It's fine to be together and do independent activities side-by-side, as long as that's the agreement. My wife often watches TV in the same room where I am using my laptop just for the proximity, but we never consider it quality time. In fact, I'd say those sessions often leave us feeling more urgent about spending time together.
A by-product of physical proximity is evaluation of interaction. If I meet a friend for a meal or a drink, I want to interact, not gather up the leftover crumbs of attention.
And, to head off an argument I've heard before, I'll say that it's not the same as if a third party dropped by during our visit. That at least has the possibility of a conversation among the three of us. I might think it rude if my friend did not introduce me, and I would certainly think it rude if my friend spent most of our time together talking to this third person without introducing me.
On the Internet, you can find an affinity group of people like yourself. You can find interesting people who may be much more knowledgable about the things you like than anyone you know locally. If you encounter someone who is annoying, you can unsubscribe or block them and find someone else more to your liking. You might even prefer the culture of another part of the world more than the one where you happen to be born.
This is an old human tendancy. In the old days, if you wanted something different, you could escape with a book, but to have a dialog with different people you had to travel or immigrate, which was expensive. Even then you still had to deal with a group of neighbors and work associates that you couldn't hand pick.
With the Internet, though, it is so easy and tempting to hang out with the cool people in cyberspace and avoid the difficulties of local life that it is easy to become unbalanced. The Internet is wonderful for connecting us with different cultures, the experts in any field, and distant friends and family, but I think it is important to build relationships with the people close by. They will be the ones that will help you when the power goes out.
All those tweets, blogs, emails and headlines just keeps you loaded, keeps you away from actual tasks or problems, like a popular radio and then TV shows did.
Of course it is much easy and even pleasant to read tens or even hundreds of short, primitive, mostly meaningless posts and comments than to do something useful.
In this illusion it seems like you're getting new facts, accumulating knowledge in various areas and it raises your self-esteem, but actually you're just switching channels from one advertisement to another.