Distraction and technology are related, insofar that technology allows for distraction, but it does not mandate it. The mistaken assumption is that a person mu

Distraction and technology are related, insofar that technology allows for distraction, but it does not mandate it. The mistaken assumption is that a person must be "distracted" by one's phone, when that may not be the case at all. Since when was reading a magazine being "distracted", or reading a book being "distracted"? Why is playing a video game considered a distraction? The facts presented in this article, and the conclusions drawn by this article are orthogonal. Yes, we're bad at multitasking, and yes, people out in the world are buried in their phones more and more, but the connection between multitasking and looking at my phone isn't there. Besides, why do I have to be particularly good when I'm playing Angry Birds or reading HN? I don't care if I'm performing 10 IQ points or 40% worse than if I were checking my text messages in a park by myself. The article makes another false assumption that we must always be at our best whenever we do something, which is also untrue. Sure, I could use my slow, deliberate mental system to make all my choices, and I'd be immensely slow but very accurate. Or, I could use my fast, intuitive mental system to make quick, if less accurate decisions that usually get me where I want to be, or in a position I want to be in. I don't need to use my whole brain to hold a conversation with a friend, and I don't need to use my whole brain to wait in line for fish and chips. There is an anxiety towards seemingly doing nothing, and it's well founded. The author talks about anxiety like it's the enemy, when in reality it's a necessary motivator.