Time exchanges

(copyright istockphoto.com)

Have you ever felt your phone vibrate in your pocket, when in fact, your pockets are empty? The dependence on phones and screens, is felt the most in their absence. I discussed many aspects of screens before. Their impact on society, our identity, the future. Admittedly the most driving motive behind this topic has been self interest. Personally I want some of the time back that I have spent looking at screens. It has an eerily similar emotional context to time spent drinking alcohol. It has its temporary flush of fun and excitement, without the quality of a memory that is spent having fun with friends/family/ a partner.

Studies show that the way a phone delivers dopamine is similar to cocaine, in very small and more frequent doses. This is likely not a shocking fact to most people. The fundamentally distressing feature of this effect is the self-reinforcing nature of it. Over time this stimuli changes our associations and motivations in the world. Eventually it not only psychologically directs us to increased usage of screens in our lives, it biologically changes our brains.

The dopamine reward system is set up to increase its effectiveness when we receive a reward unexpectedly from an activity. Essentially, the more unpredictably a stimulus rewards us the more enticing it is. The outline presented by my rudimentary neurological research seemed simple enough. However when stepping back and applying it as a measuring guide to anything screen-related it starts to become eerily similar to everything I do.

For instance, imagine if everything you posted got the same amount of likes/views. Or if when you played a video game you got the same prize (“loot”) regardless of the amount of attempts to find something else. These unpredictable reward mechanisms are effective and ubiquitous in apps and games. That one key element of the design of how reward systems work is difficult to not observe after learning it. Its every other phone app that exists in some form.

There are many beautiful things about the technology we have available today. Just as there are many corrupted aspects to it. The most invisible of costs seems to be time, due to how innocent it feels to contribute a mere “ten minutes more” to see if that reward will suddenly appear this time.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/

Can we slow down?

(source: sale products @ ebay.com)

A self reporting 60% of college students admit that they may be addicted to their cell phones. Spending an average two hours a day on them. Its odd to think that the very individuals that would benefit the future integration of our technology, in a healthy way, may themselves be addicted. Not only this, but the method in which you conduct research, and are informed about how phones/screens are changing our lives, are on screens.

There are many established benefits that you can potentially quantify for time spent on screens. It feels that they have plateaued compared to the insidious future of how this technology will grow. In other words, there may be equal pros and cons now, but what about the future?

If our most enlightened and informed researchers rely on the technology they are attempting to be impartial to, to do the research, is there really an alternative? If so, what could an alternative look like?

Perhaps it’s the physical format. As in, the nature of the screen, or the functionality. I think that, as unlikely as it is, or strange as it is, our devices should work more slowly. Maybe not literally slower but, some sort of format that browses at a more comfortable pace. To support my argument with anecdotal evidence, I can prove my own tech habits. I have both a Roku and a Playstation. I notice that when I use the roku to watch tv/movies, I sometimes get frustrated at the pace it takes to navigate the interface. Overall the process is quiet, and slow, with even a soothing screensaver when the menu is left idle. On the other hand my playstation makes a sound with every movement of my cursor through the menus, that respond instantly. Maneuvering towards what you want to watch is so quick that it starts to feel like a game in itself and to me, can be less mindful and more tense.

If marketed and developed properly, perhaps devices could be less dopamine inducing, and addicting. Although what company would want to invest in that?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4291831/ The invisible addiction: Cell-phone activities and addiction among male and female college students JAMES A. ROBERTS,1 LUC HONORE PETNJI YAYA,2 and CHRIS MANOLIS3

A future covered in glowing rectangles.

(image copyright Marta "Carabea" Niemczynska Environment / Prop Artist @ Ubisoft Berlin)

Ive looked into the ridiculously highly priced contact lens screen. But judging by how google glass performed after its release, it’s not exactly a likely future. There was an extensively researched, presentation by a collective of media firms, known as Deloitte. I found it very valuable to look into a source that wasn’t strictly scientific, but quite relevant, due to its business interests. In other words, if you want to inquire where the money is going, ask a collective of businesses. Regardless, they accumulated their own supporting research as well.

The predictions were split into “critical trends” and non critical. Critical trends are the business arcs that are so consistent its safe bet on them for the near-financial future. The study does its best to predict what screens will look like in 10 years.

The critical trends that also align with scientific research are increases in screen time, network infrastructure, voice control, and cloud service computing. The future will really arrive when there are no longer places to go, where there isn’t a signal. Ten years may not be enough, but it’s interesting to imagine a world where you can check the NYSE in the middle of the mohave desert.

The more fantastic and illusive predictions are the format and functionality of the screens. There are four likely scenarios, though fundamentally they are still guesses, one of them will likely present itself.

To summarize, the possible scenarios are, Ubiquitous interfaces in everything, single high end, personalized device (contacts?), the escape from reality “giant tv and VR set” scenario, and interestingly the “irrelevant ubiquitous screen” scenario. This is where there are so many screens, especially in public, that they lose their personal, relevant, interesting quality. They are often ignored and taken for granted. The price of screens has plummeted making them as costly as books.

These are financial investment outlooks. Looking at this objectively and realistically leads me to the conclusion that businessmen don’t consider what poor people are doing. Which will affect what the future is going too look like. This is why I don’t think all screens migrating into our contacts, or into a giant indoor media center are likely. I can’t say if the screens will become worthless or valuable. I do think its foolish to think they won’t be everywhere, and that indigent people all over the world will not be willing to spend 30 dollars for the cheapest screen available. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tmt-future-of-screens.pdf

Effects of “screen time” on children. A few years ago I was visiting my friend Eric who had a 2 year old and a 5 year old at the time. As in my family and other families in my own childhood, their TV was on most of the time that the family was awake. One night I was there his 5 year old daughter was put to bed at around 10. Later Erics wife went upstairs because she had not gone to bed and it was 2 in the morning, and she was laughing and yelling. Apparently they had given her a tablet to play games on before she went to bed. She had gotten back on it and stayed up for hours playing it. I could hear her mother taking it away from her as she pleaded and screamed to have it back. I personally couldn’t image what the kind of stimulation a tablet produces, could have on the mind of a 5 year old. I looked into some studies done on this topic and(no surprise here) the results are not promising. Children as a whole have been estimated to sleep one hour less than children of the early 20th century. Sleep issues in adolescence is linked to externalizing, internalizing, and peer issues within their lives. I am wondering if society will merely adjust to the effects. In other words, this technology is something irrevocably linked to us. We are going to have to grow biologically and culturally around its place. As long as humans have time to do so perhaps it will turn out ok eventually. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/Adverse%20physiological%20and%20psychological%20effects%20of%20screen%20time%20on%20children%20and%20adolescents:%20Literature%20review%20and%20case%20study.pdf

"Screen time and mental health”

(copyright istockphoto.com)

The way that tvs, phones, laptops etc, affect the mind will not be fully understood until the generation that was exposed to it since childhood (gen z) is studied in adulthood. However analysis of how it (m“odern phone usage) affects adolescence is gaining data.

It seems that its another ongoing issue that is being diverted from direct intervention. In other words its rare for individuals to abruptly tell their social group that they don’t want any phones present or, to not buy a tv and so forth. Smart phones are nearly a requirement, most jobs and universities require apps specifically. Its possible that the current societal environment of issues is so saturated with dire circumstances, that it is understandable that phone usage is not the first on the list of issues to solve.

However I think it should be, issues are addressed socially, and currently social approaches are digital. Even when in person there are usually phones being used so social engagements are often at least partially digital. This simply must wear on our psyches in a negative way that we all seem to be ignoring as best we can. Studies have shown that time spent on social media decreases cognitive control, emotional functioning, social functioning, self image development, suicide rates, sleep, and problem solving in a negative way.

Perhaps awareness is the initial step towards a reduction in daily exposure to social media. Or perhaps it is permanently woven into society. Much in the same way alcohol is everywhere it is left up to the individual to manage their own abuse of the substance/item.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7012622/

(copyright Kaspersky Online dating apps security and privacy in 2021 | Kaspersky official blog)

There is a show on Netflix that came out in recent years called “love on the spectrum”. There are some success stories that come to fruition between autistic couples. The show is quite inspiring, and at the heart of it, there is a great deal of technological innovation. The awareness and advancement in research of how people on the spectrum date has grown. The fact is that without the internet, phones, and dating apps there are many people that may otherwise lack the social skills to break the initial barrier of meeting someone.

Personally I found it difficult to meet people romantically when I was younger, before okcupid/tinder etc, existed. I think that discussing the advantages and disadvantages of meeting strangers online is compelling. Ultimately, to give people an outlet to find love, is a beautiful thing. If society is honest with itself its easy to agree that some people simply will not go out and meet people. Should crippling social anxiety exclude you from happiness?

The amount of time one can spend swiping on strangers on tinder can be exhausting. Shouldn’t it be this way? For those that do not believe in fate, combing through 200 people on a phone will produce better results than dating one of the 4 people at your job.

If you spend hours drying your eyes out on your phone, which we inevitably will, it is incredible that you could be sparking a chain of events that leads to marriage. For some they might otherwise be waiting for a blind date to come their way, and settling for whoever shows up.

Not only is it granting a new method for dating. It opens a more discreet line of communication for those that are not comfortable with their sexuality. Research has shown that individuals that identify as belonging to the LGBTQ community have increased self esteem and freedom, on average, with the implementation of internet dating in their lives.

Cyber Dating in the Age of Mobile Apps: Understanding Motives, Attitudes, and Characteristics of Users Pavica Sheldon American Communication Journal 2017 Summer (Volume 19, Issue 2)

How sitting with your phone can maintain roots.

At this point most readers will likely grow weary of the negativity and gloomy analysis of everything terrible about screens. So there must surely be positive sides to discuss. Is it a balanced amount of pros and cons with this technology or is my own subjective cynicism affecting the scale?

(copyright istockphoto.com) What is likely the most apparent advantage is the interconnectivity social media provides. Especially when it is needed as a backup system in the case of, some sort of catastrophe, such as a pandemic….

Social outreach, civil rights organization, the sharing of concepts and friendship can all be obtained instantaneously with a single pay wall. The concern is the diluted nature of the social connections. Are they as valuable, or are they diminished and false in some way? Or is the value of them in the initial connection which can lead to a personal connection in real life?

The advantages of social connection on a screen is the initialization of contact. Especially the reinvigoration of a friendship that has been dormant. I think it can be safely said that the middle part of a digital-only social connection is lacking.

https://journals.lww.com/acsm-tj/Fulltext/2017/09010/The_Ubiquity_of_the_Screen__An_Overview_of_the.1.aspx