Skip to main content

Offline

Yes, by now we all know that smartphones and social media are doing us harm. How do we harness the benefits of them without the destructive effects.

The book Offline makes 5 main points. If you've only got a minute, here they are:

  • The addictive design keeps us on online platforms longer.
  • The 'brain hacks' disrupt our brain's ability to function.
  • Humans need "real" interaction, and social media does not deliver this.
  • Technoference (digital over-riding direct interactions at the play ground, coffee shop, dinner table) result in something valuable being lost.
  • Speed of the transformation is astounding. 75% of people are connected, with almost half using social media. We have no idea what the long-term effects of this real-life experiment will be.
Going a bit deeper, here are some of my highlights from the book.

So what are side-effects?

According to various studies, the effects can be grouped into the physiological (poor sleep, neural re-wiring, and increased stress), the psychological (reduced mental agility, mental overload, decision fatigue, decreased attention span, reduced creativity, decreased self confidence) and the social (diminished empathy, increased loneliness and reality distortion).

About the self-confidence; people who spend more time on facebook, and who have a higher number of facebook friends that are actually strangers are more likely to feel that others have got better lives.

Should we stop completely?

Surprisingly, the authors say no. "Conscious use towards a positive and focussed goal can do enormous good. Continuous idle use is probably not going to lead anywhere good."

Why is that? It seems the authors figure that the technology delivers great benefits. For those short deliberate purposeful activities, the benefits outweigh the costs. But when the use is aimless, the damaging effects are way worse than any mild entertainment that we might stumble across accidentally.

The information tsunami

Apparently, 90% of all "information" has been created in last 2 years. Our brains can't keep up with that.

The likes of maps and phonebooks used to store the information we couldn't hold in our heads. Technology can be the modern equivalent. However maps and phone books didn't deliberately distract us for hours at a time.

(Sidenote: there was an interesting tangent about how much of our minute-by-minute actions are driven by our subconscious rather than our conscious. It's often that subconscious mind that the 'brain hacks' are targetting.)

Tech companies are there to make money. Often the product they are selling is our time and attention. The more time we waste on their platform the more money they make.

But we're connecting with people

Humans do have a need for relationship and belonging. These needs appear to be met by social media. But not really. We're tricked into thinking we've gotten what we need, but without having actually obtained it. The authors describe it as "like trying to water a plant with a picture of water".

Why does this happen?

Dopamine v Oxytocin

Both of these are brain chemicals that give us good feelings.

Dopamine is a reward-based stimulant often talked about with regards to gambling addicts. It's what makes it so hard for them to walk away from poker machines.

Oxytocin is related to social bonding. It's why it feels so good to get a hug from a loved one. Or as my (real-life) friend explained to me, Oxytocin is what "makes mums love their alien-looking child at birth".

It's fairly obvious which one of these is generated by scrolling social media, and which one is truly helpful to our wellbeing.

The marshmallow test

In the famous marshmallow test, psychologists would leave a child with one marshmallow for five minutes - with the promise that if it remained uneaten, the child could have two marshmallows.

The child's ability to hold out for five minutes was a measure of both impulse control and of the delayed gratification - both of which are good traits to develop.

The authors describe smartphones as a giant marshmallow test but with two major changes. First, we are rewarded for eating now rather than waiting. Second, unlike eating marshmallows, digitally there's almost no limit to how much we can consume.

The authors fear the consequences of this instant gratification. What does it do to people's ability to patiently study for years to become a surgeon, or to learn a musical instrument, or even listen attentively to loved ones?

Brain disruption

We have a limited working memory. The info we receive would overwhelm our brain. So most of it is filtered out and we pay attention to only a small fraction of it. 

Distractions or interruptions make our brain switch channels. This reduces our ability to function and we make more mistakes.

Other life issues

The authors point out how well facebook knows you (based on likes, clicks etc) and their ability to target you with ads. Advertisers can use re-marketing an other tricks to get you to buy more stuff.

Google skews search results based on your profile. At first this seems like a handy feature, but it can also lead to confirmation bias and social polarisation.

So what's the answer?

In the final chapter the authors surprisingly say that devices and social media are OK. Both the authors use them. But the key is to "use them to the extent that you want to, not the extent you are manipulated to".

Their four step plan involves

  1. Writing "life stories" (how you want life to be) about the four zones of life (family life, leisure life, own-time life, work life).
  2. Map your habits. How much time are you on devices and which zone were you in?
  3. Identify triggers and cues (what activities or situations cause you to use your smartphone)
  4. Work out countermoves.

The counter moves may include

  • leave your phone in your bag (maybe even on silent) or at home if you're at the café
  • turn off notifications (they're an on-ramp to wasted time)
  • set a timer for checking emails (so a 5 minute email check doesn't turn into a 45 minute social media scroll)
  • charge outside of the bedroom (so you're not tempted to use smartphone in bed)
  • turn it off when driving (even hands-free slows down driver reaction time)
Overall it's a fascinating book based on lots of research. I barely scraped the surface of the material covered.

Further reading


My review of Digital Minimalism

Read my other book reviews or subscribe to my monthly email for future ones.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to waste a year's wages

A friend recently asked me why it is that so many people (on good incomes) are struggling to save. Often the big three money areas are housing, transport and food. In one sense these are necessary items. But what we spend on them is often way more than necessary. I crunched some numbers on how much extra my wife and I could spend on these things - if for some reason we wanted to burn our money. 1. Housing Our apartment is fairly nice, but also cost-effective. I've mentioned how choosing it saves us $1,800 per year , compared to a similar one we saw. The high end of 2-bedroom apartments in our suburb is $305 per week more than our apartment. Not $305 per week. $305 per week more than ours is. I cannot get over that. Sure it's new and modern-looking, but that's a lot of money. It's an extra $15,860 per year above what we pay. 2. Transport The Australian Automobile Association lists the costs of owning and running a car. It includes many often-overlooked c

Don't dump on charities

Netflix causes mass dumping. Here's an alternative. January is usually a big month for physical donations to charity. In 2019 it's been over-the-top (literally) as charity donation bins have been overflowing with items. The Netflix series "Tidying Up" by famous declutterer Marie Kondo (see her book ) has inspired many to declutter their homes. But in the process they've cluttered the streets. What's so bad about donating? When the bins overflow the extra items are thrown away. Having been in the weather, the rain and on the ground, they are classified as contaminated and cannot be sold. To make it worse, much of what fills the bins is not good enough to sell, and is also dumped. Bad donations hurt charities 13 million dollars. That's how much it costs charities to deal with all the junk we dump on them - 60,000 tonnes a year. Lifeline says half its stores have stopped accepting donations. We might think we're helping, but that's a lot

This could all be yours

This cartoon kind of happened to me on the weekend. Joking about death My dad has his own unique sense of humour. Flippantly he joked that when he passes away, the first thing I'll need to do is get a rubbish skip (maybe two) and jam it full with all the junk from the garage. I was reminded of Marie Kondo, who says in her book that we have to deal with items either now or later; so it might as well be now. For people who have retired, I guess there's a third option: Ignore it for a few more decades and let descendants deal with it. Don't get me wrong - my dad has plenty of years left yet. But from his joke I'm guessing he's reasonably happy to let it all sit there while he enjoys retired life. Why not deal with it? I can kind of understand. It's an overwhelming task (even to look at). There's also the "I might need that" factor. Which is fair enough, but even if an item is needed, is it findable in amongst everything else? About half the