Our smartphones aren’t sparking joy, and we need to rethink our addiction to them

Robert Badal says the current belief in technology for its own sake is misguided. Smartphones and computers have not improved education or brought happiness. Most of our digital pastimes are addictive and create empty cravings, not joy

Robert Badal

Published: 11:00am, 10 Feb 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

One of my favourite non-fiction authors, Cal Newport, has just come out with a new book, Digital Minimalism. Although this title might at first suggest an esoteric Zen approach to programming, it is actually nothing of the sort. In simple terms, it means figuring out what you want from technology before you use it. Or, as Newport has stated: “Digital minimalism is a philosophy that helps you question what digital communication tools (and behaviours surrounding these tools) add the most value to your life.”

The starting point is realising that most of what passes for conventional wisdom on technology is actually marketing messages which have been internalised as universal truths. And the underlying thrust of all those marketing messages is enthusiasm for technology: the notion that technology is always necessary and good, making everything in life better. Opposing arguments are brushed aside as old-fashioned attitudes of doddering curmudgeons.

But Newport is a computer science professor with a PhD from MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And while the concept of digital minimalism has been bounced around rarefied circles of the tech world for a few years, it is the accepted wisdom on tech that is, in fact, old-fashioned.

Consider the idea of the ever-more-powerful smartphone. This germinated in an age when laptops were big, clunky things. When I moved to Japan in 2004, I lugged along a then state-of-the-art Toshiba laptop, nicknamed “the Blue Cadillac” because of its size, weight, colour and the chrome strip running around it. It never left my desk. Now my MacBook Air is so thin and light I have to check my backpack to make sure I haven’t forgotten it. And the reality is that even the most expensive smartphone on today’s market is not as good for writing as the cheapest laptop. As the constant tweaking of tablets should make clear, you still need a keyboard to write anything of substance. Basically, smartphones are great for watching funny cat videos on YouTube but not good for getting work done.

In my own field of education, a race began in the 1990s to expose kids to technology. Every school scraped together funding for computer rooms, which were filled with boxy desktop computers and unveiled with speeches about giving lower-income kids an even chance. Today, kids are transfixed by smartphones and the idea that schools have to play their part in exposing students to technology should have become obsolete. Yet, anyone who doubts this thinking is likely to be vilified as a grey-haired martinet of a teacher, or worse, a librarian.

So what does technology actually do to improve student performance? Research has shown that writing on paper is better for note-taking and retaining knowledge than typing on a computer keyboard or a screen. Yet, education technology advocates – usually the departments or companies getting the funding – fall back on the metric of increased engagement, which is almost impossible to objectively evaluate.

The unquestioning belief in ed tech is so extreme, it is epitomising what Newport is most sharply critical of: the use of technology is a goal in itself, when technology should be a tool used to achieve a goal. Today, teachers are expected to give lessons that showcase technology, rather than use technology to enhance lessons. One of my students, a primary school teacher, was recently mandated to incorporate technology into a research assignment.

I suggested that learning how to properly use a search engine, phrase inquiries and how to evaluate the validity of sources would be useful skills for her students in this age of information explosion. Her principal said this wasn’t enough, that it had to be something like “making an app or something internet”. The poor teacher had to find a way to make a social studies report project into something it was not, just to follow the tech mandate.

The key part of Newport’s definition is the last seven words: “add the most value to your life”. What does this mean? Try substituting “value” with “happiness”.

Most digital technology use is addictive behaviour and does not bring happiness. Addiction creates a craving for something, the absence of which engenders a deep hollow need. Satisfying that craving provides relief, but does not bring happiness. Look around you: people are more anxious and less happy now, especially young social media users.

We are constantly being notified of things that are “URGENT!” and living in fear of missing out on even the most trivial messages.

Yet, what actually makes people happy also goes against conventional wisdom: happiness, even ecstasy, can come from doing things that are somewhat difficult. In landmark research on happiness, psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has found that people are happier when they are engrossed in meaningful work than when they are filling time with entertainment.

Think about the things that are important to you: things you want to accomplish in your life, books you want to write and read, people you care about and want to see. You may find that many of the digital pastimes you have – playing video games or endlessly scrolling through social media – are keeping happiness away, not bringing it.

Robert Badal is on Facebook at Ba Lao Shi Perfect English

Post