Posts Tagged ‘FOMO’

Infobesity

July 15, 2019

This post is based on a book by Stefan Van Der Stigchel titled “How Attention Works: Finding Your Way in a World Full of Distraction.” This term, “infobesity,” as been coined by the popular media, but it is increasingly being referred to as a clinical disease. The term is the brainchild of a “trend team” employed by a company specializing in identifying trends among young people. Although there is very little scientific literature on the subject, the fact is that doctors are treating more and more teenagers these days for problems associated with a lack of sleep.

Dr. Van Der Stigchel writes, “One of the factors contributing to this lack of sleep is our insatiable appetite for information that is presented to us on-screen.” Obviously this leads to problems with concentration. From the scientific studies that have been done, young people are extremely frequent multimedia users. On average 18-year-olds spend a total of 20 hours a day on various media. Obviously this can only be because different media are used simultaneously, which further exacerbates the damage. The vast majority of this multimedia use is of the visual kind. Functions that rely on the spoken word have been replaced by visual ones. Unfortunately voice mail is becoming a thing of the past because it takes too much time, and people prefer to send their messages screen-to-screen instead. Dr. Van Der Stigchel notes that we are using the telephone less and choosing more often to interact with others on-screen and not only through hearing their voice. If e-mail and WhatsApp relied on the spoken word, they would be less popular.

Dr. Van Der Stigchel writes, “Screens are so efficient at communicating information that we see them everywhere nowadays. The result is a titanic battle for our attention, We have already established that it only takes a quick glance at a limited amount of visual information to know what that information is. In a single moment, we choose the one piece of visual information that is most relevant to us from all the information swirling around us. We then process this one piece of information deeply enough to be able to establish its identity. All of the other information continues to blink away furiously, but it can only become relevant when we decide to look again.”

How does one deal with infobesity? We need to deal with infobesity the same manner in which we deal with obesity. We deal with obesity by selectively controlling and reducing our food input. We deal with infobesity by selectively controlling and reducing
our information input. Unless one is a professional on-call, a physician for instance, there is no reason for staying continually connected. This FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) is irrational. Most, if not practically all, messages can wait until we have time to pay attention to them. When we interrupt what we are doing to process a message, there are two sources of attentional loss. There is additional information to deal with at the same time, and there are also time and attentional costs involved in switching between sources of information and processing them

An examination of different sources of information can lead to deletions of certain sources. Some information is of little value, so these sources of information should be eliminated. Our attentional resources are extremely limited, so we need to spend them carefully.

In conclusion, deal with infobesity by going on an information diet, and processing only those sources of information that have substantial value.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Are you in Control?

April 6, 2019

This is the tenth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Facebook wants you to believe that you are in control. But this control is an illusion. Maintaining this illusion is central to every platform’s success, but with Facebook, it is especially disingenuous. Menu choices limit user actions to things that serve Facebook’s interest. Facebook’s design teams exploit what are known as “dark patterns” in order to produce desired outcomes. Wikipedia defines a dark pattern as “a user interface that has been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things.” Facebook tests every pixel to ensure it produces the desired response. For example: which shade of red best leads people to check their notifications? for how many milliseconds should notifications bubbles appear in the bottom left before fading away to most effectively keep users on site? what measures of closeness should we recommend new friends of you to “add”?

With two billion users the cost for testing every possible configuration is small. And Facebook has taken care to make its terms of service and privacy headings hard to find and nearly impossible to understand. Facebook does place a button on the landing page to provide access to the terms of service, but few people click on it. The button is positioned so that hardly anyone even sees it. And those who do see it have learned since the early days of the internet to believe that terms or service are long and incomprehensible, so they don’t press it either.

They also use bottomless bowls. News Feeds are endless. In movies and television, scrolling credits signal to the audience that it is time to move on. They provide a “stopping cue.” Platforms with endless news feeds and autoplay remove that signal to ensure that users maximize their time on site for every visit. They also use autoplay on their videos. Consequently, millions of people are sleep deprived from binging on videos, checking Instagram, or browsing on Facebook.

Notifications exploit one of the weaker elements of human psychology. They exploit an old sales technique, called the “foot in the door” strategy,” that lures the prospect with an action that appears to be low cost, but sets in motion a process leading to bigger costs. We are not good at forecasting the true cost of engaging with a foot-in-door strategy. We behave as though notifications are personal to us, completely missing that they are automatically generated, often by an algorithm tied to an artificial intelligence that has concluded that the notification is just the thing to provoke an action that will serve Facebook’s economic interests.

We humans have a need for approval. Everyone wants to feel approved of by others. We want our posts to be liked. We want people to respond to our texts, emails, tags, and shares. This need for social approval is what what made Facebook’s Like button so powerful. By controlling how often an entry experiences social approval, as evaluated by others, Facebook can get that user to do things that generate billions of dollars in economic value. This makes sense because the currency of Facebook is attention.

Social reciprocity is a twin of social approval. When we do something for someone else, we expect them to respond in kind. Similarly, when when a person does something for us, we feel obligated to reciprocate. So when someone follows us, we feel obligated to follow them. If w receive an invitation to connect from a friend we may feel guilty it we do not reciprocate the gesture and accept it.

Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) is another emotional trigger. This is why people check their smart phone every free moment, perhaps even when they are driving. FOMO also prevents users from deactivating their accounts. And when users do come to the decision to deactivate, the process is difficult with frequent attempts to keep the user from deactivating.

Facebook along with other platforms work very hard to grow their user count but operate with little, if any, regard for users as individuals. The customer service department is reserved for advertisers. Users are the product, at best, so there is no one for them to call.

READER COME HOME

October 18, 2018

The title of this post is the same as the title of an important book by Maryanne Wolf. The subtitle is “The Reading Brain in the Digital World.” Any new technology offers benefits, but it may also contain dangers. There definitely are benefits from moving the printed world into the digital world. But there are also dangers, some of which are already quite evident. One danger is the feeling that one always needs to be plugged in. There is even an acronym for this FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). But there are costs to being continually plugged in. One is superficial processing. One of the best examples of this is of the plugged-in woman who was asked what she thought of OBAMACARE. She said that she thought it was terrible and was definitely against it. However, when she was asked what she thought of the Affordable Care Act, she said that she liked it and was definitely in favor of it. Of course, the two are the same.

This lady was exhibiting an effect that has a name, the Dunning-Krueger effect. Practically all of us think we know more than we do. Ironically, people who are quite knowledgeable about a topic are aware of their limitations and frequently qualify their responses. So, in brief, the less you know the more you think you know, but the more you know, the less you think you know. Moreover, this effect is greatly amplified in the digital age.

There is a distinction between what is available in our memories and what is accessible in our memories. Very often we are unable to remember something, but we do know that it is present in memory. So this information is available, but not accessible. There is an analogous effect in the cyber world. We can find information on the internet, but we need to look it up. It is not available in our personal memory. Unfortunately, being able to look something up on the internet is not identical to having the information available in our personal memories so that we can extemporaneously talk about the topic. We daily encounter the problem of whether we need to remember some information or whether it would be sufficient to look it up. We do not truly seriously understand something until it is available in our personal memories. The engineer Kurtzweil is planning on extending his life long enough so the he can be uploaded to a computer, thus achieving a singularity with technology. Although he is a brilliant engineer, he is woefully ignorant of psychology and neuroscience. Digital and neural codes differ and the processing systems differ, so the conversion is impossible. However, even if it were understanding requires deep cognitive and biological processing. True understanding does not come cheaply.

Technology can be misused and it can be very tempting to misuse technology. However, there are serious costs. Maryanne Wolf discusses the pitfalls and the benefits of technology. It should be understood that we are not victims of technology. Rather we need to use technology not only so that we are not victims, but also so we use technology synergistically.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

(Dis)connected

July 20, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Kirsten Weir in the March 2017 issue of “Monitor on Psychology.” This article reviews research showing how smartphones are affecting our health and well-being, and points the way toward taking back control.

Some of the most established evidence concerns sleep. Dr. Klein Murdock, a psychology professor who heads the Technology and Health Lab at Washington and Lee University followed 83 college students and found that those who were more-attuned to their nighttime phone notifications had poorer subjective sleep quality and greater self-reported sleep problems. Although smartphones are often viewed as productivity-boosting devices, their ability to interfere with sleep can have the opposite effect on getting things done.

Dr. Russell E. Johnson and his colleagues at Michigan State University surveyed workers from a variety of professions. They found that when people used smartphones at night for work-related purposes, they reported that they slept more poorly and were less engaged at work the next day. These negative effects were greater for smartphone users than for people who used laptops or tablets right before bed.

Reading a text or email at bedtime can stir your emotions or set your mind buzzing with things you need to get done. So your mind becomes activated at a time when it’s important to settle down and have some peace.

College students at the University of Rhode Island were asked to keep sleep diaries for a week. They found that 40% of the students reported waking at night to answer phone calls and 47% woke to answer text messages. Students who were more likely to use technology after they’d gone to sleep reported poorer sleep quality, which predicted symptoms of anxiety and depression.

FOMO is an acronym for Fear Of Missing Out. In one study, Dr Larry Rosen a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University and his colleagues took phones away from college students for an hour and tested their anxiety levels at various intervals. Light users of smartphones didn’t show any increasing anxiety as they sat idly without their phones. Moderate users began showing signs of increased anxiety after 25 minutes without their phones, but their anxiety held steady at that moderately increased level for the rest of the hour long study. Heavy phone users showed increased anxiety after just 10 phone-free minutes, and their anxiety levels continued to climb throughout the hour.

Rosen has found that younger generations are particularly prone to feel anxious if they can’t check their text messages, social media, and other mobile technology regularly. But people of all ages appear to have a close relationship with their phones. 76% of baby boomers reported checking voicemail moderately or very often, and 73% reported checking text messages moderately or very often. Anxiety about not checking in with text messages and Facebook predicted symptoms of major depression, dysthymia, and bipolar mania.

When research participants were limited to checking email messages just three times a day, they reported less daily stress. This reduced stress was associated with positive outcomes including greater mindfulness, greater self-perceived productivity and better sleep quality.

In another study participants were asked to keep all their smartphone notifications on during one week. In the other week, they were asked to turn notifications off and to keep their phones tucked out of sight. At the end of the study participants were given questionnaires. During the week of notifications participants reported greater levels of inattention and hyperactivity compared with their alert-free week. These feelings of inattention and hyperactivity were directly associated with lower levels of productivity, social connectedness, and psychological well being. Having your attention scattered by frequent interruptions has its costs.

The article also stresses the importance of personal interactions, which are inherently richer. The key to having healthy relationships with technology is moderation. We want to get the best from technology, but at the same time to make sure that it’s not controlling us.