[nologic01]

Its not the phone. Its the screen. It could have been in any form factor - it was in another, less usable, form factor. The portability just clinched it for billions and made the issue of the screen more pressing than ever.

The screen is the window to the matrix, our collective digital space.

That matrix is something incredibly powerful. We have not tamed it. We don't even have a theory of taming it. A psychological, political, economic framework that does not drift into toxic, rapacious abominations.

We need to learn to live this dual existence as individuals.

We need to learn to build sane digital communities.

Admitting we have a really serious problem is the first step.

[xpe]

Theories around mindfulness are a good start, don't you think? What is missing?

I have some thoughts here. Traditional meditation practice is accepting of the tendency of the mind to wander. Such is the nature of our minds. Over time, we strive to improve our ability to focus / concentrate / redirect our attention.

But when it comes to socio-technical design we need more than infinite patience around distractions. We probably want and need to evaluate how we do. Tor example:

- how often are we distracted? - for how long? - why? (is it simply due to our 'wandering' brains? And/or it is more causally connected to environmental factors, such as attention-stealing devices?) - what interventions work for certain kinds of distractions?

Sometimes people are drawn to the notions of metrics. There is value in metrics; there are clear mathematical ways to calculate them. Collecting, them on the other hand, can be quite challenging.

But let's not limit ourselves to 'metrics' in the quantitative sense. The reason is obvious: some of our most important goals are not easily put into quantitative terms. Luckily, with vast improvements in text processing, we need not limit ourselves to traditional metrics based on scoring. We must think bigger and broader.

With a good set of evaluation mechanisms (again, not just metrics), we don't have to fall back on some indefinite mindset about 'doing better'; we can actually demand that products and services be designed and adhere to basic principles. These principles will probably be somewhat subjective and culturally contingent, but that doesn't discount that they can also be grounded in neuroscience, broadly accepted notions of morality, and tunable according to cultural and situational factors.

Does this make sense?

[sledgehammers]

You have spoken my exact thoughts aloud, thanks.

Let's start working on the theory!

[twic]

I tend think the transition to living online is basically a repeat of the transition to living in cities. That is, from villages to cities is the same as cities to online. There's more of everything - people, stuff, contact, density, access, coincidences. I wonder if we can learn anything from the previous transition.

[nologic01]

Yes, i really dig this analogy. It also shows that the transition is potentially a game changer of extraordinary significance given the immensity of that global digital city. Even lingustic barriers will soon be a thing of the past.

Its interesting to note that cities were despised from their very beginnings and even today many people cant tolerate them.

But many many social inventions may provide interesting and useful analogies: zoning rules, police, firefighters, quiet areas and parks, thoroughfares. Also, the privacy one enjoys in the countryside is reduced but not eliminated - despite the density people still have private spaces.

[dopidopHN]

ghetto and fenced community are not that great. If you deal with unrest be sure to build large boulevard to replace the narrow streets. Those are more efficient to bring troops quickly and harder to barricade.

[smnrg]

I think there's truth to that. A screen's mere presence can distort focus and commands attention.