[bradfordarner]

There seems to be a basic problem in this argument: a lack of definition of distraction or any discussion of its value.

For example, lets assume the consciousness is an illusion, a sort of biological trick of evolution. In that case, I'm not sure why we couldn't say that all the stimuli from advertisements, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are equal in value to "focused conscious awareness". They are stimuli of a different sort but qualitatively no different than the stimuli of "focused conscious awareness". I'm not sure why we would inherently assume that "focused conscious awareness" is of greater value. There are tons of people now who are living in a permanently distracted state and they seem to have a conscious experience that is not qualitatively different than other people's. They don't slip into a coma or get concussions or die.

Heck, maybe distraction is a better state than attention. After all, don't people complain of headaches when they focus on a problem for too long?

[anigbrowl]

They are stimuli of a different sort but qualitatively no different than the stimuli of "focused conscious awareness"

Would you say that there was no qualitative difference between a long massage by a skilled therapist and being attacked by a swarm of angry wasps? From a phenomenological point of view both are simply different varieties of sensation, and it's true that by cultivating a sort of meditative stoicism one could distance oneself from considerations of discomfort sufficiently well to put up with that or even worse pains...but maintaining that degree of detachment is equivalent to sacrificing one's ability to operate and participate in the world.

To the extent that one wishes to to be engaged with life vs. transcending it, the qualitative differences are vast, and increasingly onerous.

[alanbernstein]

Some people have long-term goals, and the distractions distract from accomplishing them. The qualitative difference is that people who can avoid the distractions are better able to make progress toward their goals.

Nobody wants to look back on their life and think "yep, I sure am glad I got all that facebooking in before I died."

[lordCarbonFiber]

That seems a bit reductive. Im sure plenty of people are going to look back and say "Im sure glad I reconnected with that college flame" or "Im sure glad I shared those pictures with my extended family".

For sure there is a whole host of negative effects that can spiral out of social media addiction. But the shear existence of the distraction is more neutral. I feel like we are hesitant to admit that many of our modern distractions aren't particularly "new"; it's just a lot easier to collect evidence and stats. Considering reading a tabloid and gossiping offline vs reading fake news and commenting on FB, etc.

[alanbernstein]

Sure. "connected with college flame" != mindlessly scrolling through facebook feed for 4 hours a day