I think this is overly rosy, particularly the phone stuff. I think I buy the potential explanation that people were always bad at focusing on things and the phone is a perfect distraction and scapegoat. But the constant availability of a distraction machine seems pretty bad in and of itself, no? If we think of our intelligence/mental capabilities as a combination of our brains and the things we have available to us, something that is designed to ping us then suck is into an endless scroll seems like it could very easily reduce our attention span when we have access to it (which is almost all the time) could produce something that feels to the user very much like brain rot, even if it is not literally rotting our brains.
In my personal life, I and basically everyone else I know has put limits on various apps because we don’t like how we behave with them. I think that is different from just putting the phone in another room when we sleep. It sounds like you have an uncommonly good relationship with yours!
Thanks for the comment! I don't disagree that having a constant distraction in your pocket might not be a good thing for many people. The lack of friction with using a phone means we can reach for it at any time, during any activity, and that might be a bad thing if someone is trying to concentrate on something difficult.
But I think there's a big difference between these devices causing irreparable harm to our brains, and them distracting us when we have them on us. If the former, we might want to take dramatic action like banning them (or swearing off of them ourselves at least). If the latter, we might just want to nudge people to put limits on them (as you and your friends have) if they find themselves distracted.
It's a matter of degrees, definitely. I think targeted banning is reasonable, but they're here to stay and, as you say, have many benefits. For example, in situations where sustained focus is important (in school, for example) I think a ban is very reasonable. They may not damage our brains, but I could imagine that having one close at hand would make it hard to read a book you don't particularly want to read but might be good for you.
I do think if phones vanished our brains would not remain permanently damaged, but I do think having them always close by might make us behave as if they are when they are at hand. This paper, for example finds (admittedly fairly modest) effects on cognitive capacity of having your phone nearby: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462
That said, I also think they are blamed for some issues they don't deserve to be.
I think you're arguing backwards from "if this were true, what would the implications be"? But a lot of things do irreplable harm to community at large and it's very difficult to ban or swear off them (see ultra processed foods).
For the past ~15 years, some of the smartest people on the planet have been working day and night to make phones (and especially social media) super addictive. They've used everything known about human psychology to glue people to their screens. And they've succeeded.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying with the arguing backwards bit. I'm pointing out that "phones are distracting" is a different claim with different implications from "phones cause brain damage".
I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts here. Technology, social media, etc. isn't such a bad thing as much of society has made it out to be. Though, the negative perception by society is totally understandable.
The internet ecosystem has strayed so far from its philosophical and foundational origins that most of the original optimism for humanity's future in relation to the internet has waned by now. The internet was originally supposed to be largely decentralized, avoiding placing much power in the hands of a small number of entities. Unfortunately, this is progressively becoming less the case today, as companies like Meta, Google, etc., buy other social media platforms for themselves, thus taking control of their entire user-bases. It doesn't help that social media sites are generally centralized around single corporate entities that have full control over the platform; this was never supposed to happen. Although one could argue that the internet is still decentralized, is that really the case though? If discontinuing the use of one platform from one company can isolate you from so much of society, it's too centralized.
It also doesn't help that internet platforms started to be designed to psychologically exploit their users through short, attention-grabby forms of content. The sheer volume of such fragmented and disordered units of information has really forced all our brains into maximum overdrive; it's no wonder people are generally much more anxious these days. As if that wasn't bad enough, social-media "algorithms" are further optimizing the amount of junk that can be shoved into our brains. This is why I'm so glad that platforms like Substack, among others, still exist and are becoming increasingly popular. Although far from perfect, they are a net-improvement to the status quo. The longer-form content, which requires focused and sustained effort on the part of both the creator and the consumer, is such a refreshing break from the norm.
Personally, I've been musing over some concepts for a new type of social media that is geared toward bringing the internet back to its original philosophical underpinnings, as well as gravitating back toward the longer-form content that didn't fry our brains. I may actually start developing it soon as well; we'll see. I really would like to return to those early days of the internet's expansion, which were characterized by optimism for the future; I do genuinely believe it is possible if we try.
Great job Tommy. The phone is a pretty good example in a long string of technologies that come along with a mix of some good and some bad. It might be more like an accelerant, making the dumb a bit dumber but also allowing the smart to become a little smarter...like finding my way back to a trailhead. Now it's time to move on to A.I. - making the dumb dumber? the smart smarter? That's what I've been thinking about a lot lately.
Thanks for reminding us that we're not all doomed...just some of us. LOL! Anyhow, my son uses this app called Clear Space to help him manage his phone use. Apparently, it asks him to do something else before opening up his social media...maybe take deep breaths or do a few push ups. It adds that friction you were writing about.
As a sidenote, there is a lot of evidence that free markets fosters more social trust. Capitalism and liberal democracy can hence be seen as compliments rather than the opposing forces the leftists will like to claim it is.
Interesting points, Tommy! To me (a former ad agency huckster), the phone has become a handy gateway to the multi-trillion dollar fear-stoking industry - tapping in, of course, to the negativity bias you mention. What concerns me is that the Engagement Farmers never sleep and are ALWAYS beholden to the Money Changers. Because of that (because of "follow the money trail"), the EFs will always find new ways to make the phone and its contents the most interesting, beautiful and attractive (and yes—addictive) thing in the world.
I think this is overly rosy, particularly the phone stuff. I think I buy the potential explanation that people were always bad at focusing on things and the phone is a perfect distraction and scapegoat. But the constant availability of a distraction machine seems pretty bad in and of itself, no? If we think of our intelligence/mental capabilities as a combination of our brains and the things we have available to us, something that is designed to ping us then suck is into an endless scroll seems like it could very easily reduce our attention span when we have access to it (which is almost all the time) could produce something that feels to the user very much like brain rot, even if it is not literally rotting our brains.
In my personal life, I and basically everyone else I know has put limits on various apps because we don’t like how we behave with them. I think that is different from just putting the phone in another room when we sleep. It sounds like you have an uncommonly good relationship with yours!
Thanks for the comment! I don't disagree that having a constant distraction in your pocket might not be a good thing for many people. The lack of friction with using a phone means we can reach for it at any time, during any activity, and that might be a bad thing if someone is trying to concentrate on something difficult.
But I think there's a big difference between these devices causing irreparable harm to our brains, and them distracting us when we have them on us. If the former, we might want to take dramatic action like banning them (or swearing off of them ourselves at least). If the latter, we might just want to nudge people to put limits on them (as you and your friends have) if they find themselves distracted.
It's a matter of degrees, definitely. I think targeted banning is reasonable, but they're here to stay and, as you say, have many benefits. For example, in situations where sustained focus is important (in school, for example) I think a ban is very reasonable. They may not damage our brains, but I could imagine that having one close at hand would make it hard to read a book you don't particularly want to read but might be good for you.
I do think if phones vanished our brains would not remain permanently damaged, but I do think having them always close by might make us behave as if they are when they are at hand. This paper, for example finds (admittedly fairly modest) effects on cognitive capacity of having your phone nearby: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462
That said, I also think they are blamed for some issues they don't deserve to be.
I think you're arguing backwards from "if this were true, what would the implications be"? But a lot of things do irreplable harm to community at large and it's very difficult to ban or swear off them (see ultra processed foods).
For the past ~15 years, some of the smartest people on the planet have been working day and night to make phones (and especially social media) super addictive. They've used everything known about human psychology to glue people to their screens. And they've succeeded.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying with the arguing backwards bit. I'm pointing out that "phones are distracting" is a different claim with different implications from "phones cause brain damage".
I meant with this reply in particular. My beliefs are closer to the "brain-damage" end of that spectrum. Especially on a societal level.
I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts here. Technology, social media, etc. isn't such a bad thing as much of society has made it out to be. Though, the negative perception by society is totally understandable.
The internet ecosystem has strayed so far from its philosophical and foundational origins that most of the original optimism for humanity's future in relation to the internet has waned by now. The internet was originally supposed to be largely decentralized, avoiding placing much power in the hands of a small number of entities. Unfortunately, this is progressively becoming less the case today, as companies like Meta, Google, etc., buy other social media platforms for themselves, thus taking control of their entire user-bases. It doesn't help that social media sites are generally centralized around single corporate entities that have full control over the platform; this was never supposed to happen. Although one could argue that the internet is still decentralized, is that really the case though? If discontinuing the use of one platform from one company can isolate you from so much of society, it's too centralized.
It also doesn't help that internet platforms started to be designed to psychologically exploit their users through short, attention-grabby forms of content. The sheer volume of such fragmented and disordered units of information has really forced all our brains into maximum overdrive; it's no wonder people are generally much more anxious these days. As if that wasn't bad enough, social-media "algorithms" are further optimizing the amount of junk that can be shoved into our brains. This is why I'm so glad that platforms like Substack, among others, still exist and are becoming increasingly popular. Although far from perfect, they are a net-improvement to the status quo. The longer-form content, which requires focused and sustained effort on the part of both the creator and the consumer, is such a refreshing break from the norm.
Personally, I've been musing over some concepts for a new type of social media that is geared toward bringing the internet back to its original philosophical underpinnings, as well as gravitating back toward the longer-form content that didn't fry our brains. I may actually start developing it soon as well; we'll see. I really would like to return to those early days of the internet's expansion, which were characterized by optimism for the future; I do genuinely believe it is possible if we try.
Great job Tommy. The phone is a pretty good example in a long string of technologies that come along with a mix of some good and some bad. It might be more like an accelerant, making the dumb a bit dumber but also allowing the smart to become a little smarter...like finding my way back to a trailhead. Now it's time to move on to A.I. - making the dumb dumber? the smart smarter? That's what I've been thinking about a lot lately.
Thanks for reminding us that we're not all doomed...just some of us. LOL! Anyhow, my son uses this app called Clear Space to help him manage his phone use. Apparently, it asks him to do something else before opening up his social media...maybe take deep breaths or do a few push ups. It adds that friction you were writing about.
As a sidenote, there is a lot of evidence that free markets fosters more social trust. Capitalism and liberal democracy can hence be seen as compliments rather than the opposing forces the leftists will like to claim it is.
Yeah I suspect that's true. I recently read Storr and Choi's book, "Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals?" which makes this argument and it seems reasonable
I agree the scaremongering isn't helpful, and the panic means the realistic solutions (that manage rather than dismiss) get overlooked.
Let's remember that books and TV, and music have all been treated similarly in the past.
Yes, we need to hold awareness, but we don't need another Satanic Panic!
Thanks so very much for this important article, Tommy.
Pessimists Archive is a great source of how oldsters (like me) have always said The Sky Is Falling re: Kids These Days! https://pessimistsarchive.org/
I think the saddest thing is we've become addicted [natch] to our Doom Religion
https://www.mattball.org/2025/01/up-is-down-red-is-green-love-is-hate-we.html
Oh interesting, I'd never seen the Pessimists Archive, thanks!
Thank you for elaborating your perspectives so clearly to remind us of the nuances of life, Dr. Blanchard!
I liked that philosophy better when Epicurus told it 😆
Interesting points, Tommy! To me (a former ad agency huckster), the phone has become a handy gateway to the multi-trillion dollar fear-stoking industry - tapping in, of course, to the negativity bias you mention. What concerns me is that the Engagement Farmers never sleep and are ALWAYS beholden to the Money Changers. Because of that (because of "follow the money trail"), the EFs will always find new ways to make the phone and its contents the most interesting, beautiful and attractive (and yes—addictive) thing in the world.