I’ve had this idea for a product. A box that you set up at home that detects when you, or more specifically, your phone comes home. Then it turns your phone off to a degree you specify in the box’s settings (say, limit all internet connectivity + no phone calls after 7pm, or shut off the phone completely within the geofence of my room, etc.). The box ought to be designed in such a way than it’s not trivial to reset it, which would prevent all but the most urgent of urges to get on your phone (which for my case is 98% of the urges I get; a bored look at my phone, a peruse of apps after I end a call and the home screen is just up, etc.) Is this a product for the digitally minimal future? Also, what’s a good community tag for this kind of thing? We seem to talk about it often.
Its not the same thing as to what you're describing, but its similar in spirit. I own a box that has a timer that you can set for anywhere from a few minutes to literally a week. You set the desired time, place whatever objects you want inside it, and then it locks itself. It is literally impossible to open until the timer runs out. Though, it is made of plastic, so if you need to get inside it for an emergency or something, you could easily smash it.
I'm not sure if a physical box could do that, but maybe an app could. A simpler solution (which sadly won't make you any money) is to get a dumb-phone as a second phone and get a twin SIM card (if your operator offers that service). Leave you smart-phone in your jacket or purse so you can bring it when you leave the house, and use the dumb-phone around the house.
My initial reaction to this is that it's more desirable to better yourself than to purposely hamstring your technology. All this seems a bit overkill for something that can be solved with discipline and mindfulness (along with a good percentage of other changes that we may want to make in our lives).
That's part of the problem though. So many of these services, apps, and games are designed in such a way as to pull the levers and push the buttons of your brain to try and get you hooked, to continue to spend time and money on them. They're literally designed with the intention of trying to override our self control. Newport's comparison with food is a great example. There's a lot of factors that contribute to obesity and poor health, but most people agree is that a large part of the problem is the food that's produced for us and how its priced and marketed to us. Lifestyle choices are crucial, but when your environment is saturated with bad options that are cheap, convenient, and enjoyable, its often hard to stick to those lifestyle choices. When viewed in that light, people with poor health due to lifestyle issues aren't necessarily sinful or lesser, more often than not they're just flawed humans living in an world that's designed to take advantage of those flaws.All this seems a bit overkill for something that can be solved with discipline and mindfulness (along with a good percentage of other changes that we may want to make in our lives).
It is hard. Taking control of your instinctual thoughts and overriding your impulses can take a long time, sometimes years. And like you say, the issue is compounded by the fact that apps are intrinsically designed to be addictive. But those things are a given. Whilst you can't ignore them as powerful factors, I feel a lot of people allow themselves to use it as an excuse to not face themselves down and make the consistent, difficult choices. They allow it take away their agency and succumb to a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Oh well, I'd like to stop but I can't because it's designed to be addictive". Yeah, well you're just going to have to try harder then. Regardless of how insidious smartphones and their apps become, you still have a choice. Pick up the phone or don't. Open the app or don't. You know you have these choices. One path will make you feel momentarily good but ultimately bad, the other path the inverse of that. You will succumb to the temptation often. But over time, you will start to make the difficult but ultimately desirable choice more often. In turn, you'll develop the circuitry in your brain for it to become your default behavior. The way the majority of apps are designed is not going to change any time soon and you can't control that, but you can change. I think it can be analogous to learning a piece on an musical instrument. You start painfully slow and fuck up every second note. Just as you're thinking that you've got a handle on one part, you focus on a different aspect and lose it again. But gradually, over many days/months, your brain adapts and reprograms itself. Until, one day, you can play the piece effortlessly. Or, instead of bettering yourself, you can lock your phone in a box, put your fingers in your ears and go: "la, la, la, I can't hear you". And nothing will change.Lifestyle choices are crucial, but when your environment is saturated with bad options that are cheap, convenient, and enjoyable, its often hard to stick to those lifestyle choices.
From my perspective, because the companies behind these technologies are designing them the way they are, people who have a problem with trying to limit their interactions with these technologies shouldn't have to shoulder all of the blame. No doubt, but it's not that binary. Different people struggle with different things to different degrees. Not everyone has a problem with alcohol, but when a person who has a serious problem with alcohol decides to stop going to bars and liquor stores as part of their attempt to tackle their problems, they're not being weak, they're making a mature, responsible decision. Not everyone has a problem with gambling, but when a person who has a serious problem with gambling decides to stop visiting casinos and racetracks as part of their attempt to tackle their problems, they're not being weak, they're making a mature, responsible decision. I could go on with examples forever, from food to toxic relationships to types of media exposure, but you get my point. Sometimes part of taking control of ourselves and our behaviors involves understanding how the environments we expose ourselves to affects us and understanding how changing or limiting our exposure to those types of environments can give us that control. For some people, for some situations, that might mean 100% abstinence. If someone decides that "Yes, social media is too much of a problem for me and the realistic solution is to just completely opt out," that's their decision, that's how they're choosing to not pick up the phone, not open the app. There really isn't anything wrong with that, and there's nothing to say they can't change their minds down the road.Regardless of how insidious smartphones and their apps become, you still have a choice. Pick up the phone or don't. Open the app or don't. You know you have these choices.
I don't think people should have to shoulder all of the blame either. These thing have been designed to manipulate us and it sucks. My point is that you have more power to change yourself than to change the way people are designing apps. I don't disagree with abstinence if a person feels that's the only option. But if that's the case, sell your smartphone and buy a dumbphone. My objection is to those who know they have a problem with something but essentially just pretend to deal with it by temporarily treating the symptoms instead of working on a permanent cure. An alcoholic who sips from their hip flask all day and then locks it away for a few hours each evening isn't really helping themselves.
So your issue with the "box" idea is that it doesn't go far enough? You think hamstringing your technology shows a lack of self control, but getting rid of the technology altogether doesn't? Doesn't seem like a consistent view to me.
No. My issue with it is that it only pretends to solve the problem. As stated in my original reply, my idealistic solution is to keep using your phone but gradually exert mindfulness and discipline to retrain you relationship to it. This too me is the quintessence of self-control. However, as binder said, the idea of trying to moderate something you're so deep into sometimes just doesn't seem possible. And it's futile to attempt something you don't believe is possible. In those cases, I think that abstinence is an acceptable secondary solution. I don't believe it to be as good as my ideal solution and I don't think it's an ultimate representation of self-control. But if it stops a person abusing something and makes them happier then I say 'go for it'. Furthermore, I believe abstinence can be gateway to reintroducing something back into your life once you've had space away from it to reset. From there you can then practice 'true' self-control. In comparison, the box idea is a middle-ground that accomplishes nothing. It doesn't teach you to use something responsibly nor does give you enough space from it to reapproach it with a newfound mindset.So your issue with the "box" idea is that it doesn't go far enough
I find that to be a pretty nonsensical point of view. Your issue seems to be about purity, only "true self control" is good enough to be worthy, it's either that or complete abstinence. Why? What makes you say that the box accomplishes nothing? What's wrong with a practical solution that doesn't involve true mastery of the self? Most of us aren't Buddhist monks. If not keeping chocolate at home helps you not overindulge with chocolate consumption, what's wrong with doing that? Are you suggesting someone should only eat chocolate if they're able to keep it in their house without eating it on impulse?
Yes, that is my point view. If I want to make a change in my life, I want to do it properly. Halfhearted solutions do not satisfy my need for self-improvement. Do I expect everyone to share this approach? No. Firstly, absolutely nothing is wrong with it, but for me personally it is not the way. I guess the way I chose to word my previous posts didn't do me any favours here. I only meant to share my opinion on my approach to self-improvement. I don't care what other people choose to do. They can live their lives how they see fit and I certainly wouldn't look down on anyone for choosing to lock their phone in box during the evening or not buy some chocolate every so often. Secondly, an anecdote. I used to be addicted to sugar. The amount of cakes and chocolates I'd get down me each day was not good; I could eat a share size pack of my favourite chocolates in minutes. And it started doing a number on my teeth. Under the advice from my dentist, I stopped eating anything with added or refined sugar. I kept this up for 5-6 months. Then slowly I reintroduced it into my diet in a controlled way. A month or so back, I made a choice to stop eating a smaller pack of my favourite chocolates halfway through. I put them to the side and actually ended up forgetting about them. When I remembered them the next day, the positivity that I felt from having mastered myself was worth 1000 moments of halfhearted happiness. I had treated something that had previously caused me problem with a newfound responsibility. I had my cake and ate it too. And they weren't left in a shop or locked away in box, they were just to side of me within arm's reach. Is that really nonsensical?Your issue seems to be about purity, only "true self control" is good enough to be worthy, it's either that or complete abstinence.
What's wrong with a practical solution that doesn't involve true mastery of the self? If not keeping chocolate at home helps you not overindulge with chocolate consumption, what's wrong with doing that? Are you suggesting someone should only eat chocolate if they're able to keep it in their house without eating it on impulse?
The nonsensical part for me was that it sounded like you thought it was wrong for people to do "half measures" that work. If you're just talking about your personal preference, that's a different matter. Personally I agree that the optimal solution is to have self control, and I do have a fair bit of self control. However, I don't always have perfect control, so I try not to put myself in situations where I'm likely to do something I don't think I should. The problem is that life can be very stressful, and in general I find it demands TONS of self control. I go to work five days a week, I have to keep my apartment and clothes clean, I have to be polite to people even if I might not like them; in short there's a lot of stuff I have to do that I don't really feel like doing. I find this pressure keeps building as I get older. I don't need some extra source of temptation around to challenge my self control, I already exercise enormous self control just living life.
This for me has been the issue. In the main, I'm pretty intentional about my attention. But at the margins, I keep creeping toward smartphone usage. I believe it's because the phone and its contents are just so crazily well-designed. I forgot who said it, but our generation's best brains are being hired in droves by FAANG to get us to spend 10 more minutes a day on their products. They're well past the point of digging into what casinos have been doing to override our self-control.They're literally designed with the intention of trying to override our self control.