3 ms·

> How long do you wait after waking up before you pick up your smartphone and check your texts, notifications, or social media apps? This narrative has bothere

> How long do you wait after waking up before you pick up your smartphone and check your texts, notifications, or social media apps? This narrative has bothered me since I was a teenager, though back then it was just "using the computer". I have always looked at these devices as multi-purpose tools. I did not want to "use the computer" -- I wanted to play a game. Or learn how to code. Or create music. Or read news. Or talk to my friends. Or watch a movie. The device is merely a means to an end, not the goal itself. In other words, I was not interested in coding because it meant using a computer, I was interested in coding because you can build things and solve problems in interesting and mentally stimulating ways. I enjoy messing around with electronics and working on my house for the same reasons -- not because I was looking for an excuse to use a soldering iron or circular saw. To lump these activities together makes no sense. They happen to use the same device, but that's it. I wake up and turn off the alarm on my phone. Once I actually get out of bed, I'll also notice if there are any texts -- it rarely happens but if someone texts me really early in the morning or overnight, it's probably something really important. What I don't do is check work e-mails or social media. There's usually some notification sitting there for that, but there pretty much always is, and it's easy to just ignore.

vertexFarm 8y ago
That's kind of reductive. The medium matters for any activity or information. You can't just discount the medium. Whether for good or bad, the existence of phones has changed the human condition. Perhaps irreversibly. It's not just how we consume news or work. It's a very personal change. Remember in the nineties how we'd all have to plan ahead of time to meet up with friends or family or go on a date or whatever? You had to wait until evening, call when they would be home or leave a message, set up a time and place, and stick to it because once you left the house you couldn't coordinate further. So whether or not that's good or bad is beside the point. It is a profoundly different method of socializing. Communication was sparse and delayed and you couldn't change plans or cancel 30 minutes ahead of time without looking like a dick. We are different for this. In some ways good, in some ways bad, but we have such a poor understanding of how it's working for us in the greater scheme of things that this fact alone should be somewhat alarming. And no, you can't just choose not to participate. Not having a smartphone on your person at all times and being always connected, always reachable, and always able to be obliged to work or respond or go do something at another's command is now tantamount to not participating in society. Before this existed, we did a lot of the same activities in other ways as you said, but the restrictions of the medium we had available truly did change how it all worked in a tangible way. Yes, a similar thing happened with radio and land lines and other forms of technology before, but the extent of the change was lesser. The developments of the past ten or twenty years are so much more efficient and powerful and difficult to evade that they deserve unique consideration.
- axelrosen 8y ago
  Both points are very important. One tells you that there's a systemic issue, while the other reminds you that you can adapt and be better off at the end of the day. I find the discussion around sugar very similar, where some stress how sugar made everyone fat and caused diabetes and then you've got the other side pointing out that inherently there's no problem [0], sugar just causes some to overeat, and you should watch your calorie intake. [0] it's a little different in that whether there is or isn't inherently a problem still isn't exactly settled science
- nitwit005 8y ago
  It's not always socializing though. Plenty of people have canceled their paper newspaper subscription in favor of getting the same paper on their phone. There's some difference in medium, but it's not a particularly significant shift.

vertexFarm 8y ago

That's kind of reductive. The medium matters for any activity or information. You can't just discount the medium. Whether for good or bad, the existence of phones has changed the human condition. Perhaps irreversibly. It's not just how we consume news or work. It's a very personal change. Remember in the nineties how we'd all have to plan ahead of time to meet up with friends or family or go on a date or whatever? You had to wait until evening, call when they would be home or leave a message, set up a time and place, and stick to it because once you left the house you couldn't coordinate further. So whether or not that's good or bad is beside the point. It is a profoundly different method of socializing. Communication was sparse and delayed and you couldn't change plans or cancel 30 minutes ahead of time without looking like a dick. We are different for this. In some ways good, in some ways bad, but we have such a poor understanding of how it's working for us in the greater scheme of things that this fact alone should be somewhat alarming. And no, you can't just choose not to participate. Not having a smartphone on your person at all times and being always connected, always reachable, and always able to be obliged to work or respond or go do something at another's command is now tantamount to not participating in society. Before this existed, we did a lot of the same activities in other ways as you said, but the restrictions of the medium we had available truly did change how it all worked in a tangible way. Yes, a similar thing happened with radio and land lines and other forms of technology before, but the extent of the change was lesser. The developments of the past ten or twenty years are so much more efficient and powerful and difficult to evade that they deserve unique consideration.

axelrosen 8y ago
Both points are very important. One tells you that there's a systemic issue, while the other reminds you that you can adapt and be better off at the end of the day. I find the discussion around sugar very similar, where some stress how sugar made everyone fat and caused diabetes and then you've got the other side pointing out that inherently there's no problem [0], sugar just causes some to overeat, and you should watch your calorie intake. [0] it's a little different in that whether there is or isn't inherently a problem still isn't exactly settled science
nitwit005 8y ago
It's not always socializing though. Plenty of people have canceled their paper newspaper subscription in favor of getting the same paper on their phone. There's some difference in medium, but it's not a particularly significant shift.