Digital Minimalism Book Review

Digital Minimalism – Cal Newport

I first came across Cal Newport when I stumbled across his book Deep Work.

As a Computer Scientist who graduated from MIT and then a teacher of others who engage in computer sciences, I found it fascinating that he didn’t have any social media accounts and encouraged time away from digital technology. 

It turns out, he is right about our human need to protect our attention and focus as one of our most valuable personal resources. He suggests in Deep Work that those who are better able to focus for longer periods (a skill on the decline) are the ones most likely to succeed in the future and become the most sought-after professionals. 

The underlying premise of Digital Minimalism (Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World), is to highlight the value of moving from a mindset focused on Digital Consumption to one focused on Digital Use. 

What I mean by this is: becoming more intentional about how you use your devices, gadgets and apps for your personal and professional benefit while minimising the attention capital extracted by Big Tech from your valuable day.

Cal’s books are always well researched and logically presented in a way that builds a solic argument and reasons why.

He provides a convincing argument for resisting and pushing back on the lure of remaining a consumer of the attention economy – mindlessly scrolling social media and news sites, getting lost for hours in whatever the algorithm churns up – but rather using digital tools for what you can intentionally, productively, efficiently extract from its use, and then letting it be. 

He talks about developing a ‘Philosophy of Technology’ – how you use technology ‘as part of a life well lived’ – and being intentional about the technology that you use to support and amplify what you are doing and to improve your productivity and focus – rather than handing your time, attention and focus over to Big Tech so they can add profit to their bottom line.

If you do not pay for the product, you are the product. The business model for online media is to secure revenue through advertising. What they sell is your attention. 

The main focus of Digital Minimalism is not about removing technology for the sake of having less of it. It’s about digitally decluttering, about creating rules around how you use your technology and apps for improving your life and ultimately about ‘doing tech on your terms’. 

The book’s final section provides some useful options for helping minimise digital distractions. Some may work for you, some may not.

Anything is worth trying if it helps you regain control of your digital tech use and let technology work for you to increase overall productivity and lifestyle while minimising the negative aspects it can have on your attention, time, physical and mental health and in-person connections.

You can watch Cal Newport review his book on this YouTube video. 

About Cal Newport:

According to his YouTube channel descriptor: 

‘Cal Newport is a computer science professor at Georgetown University and is also a New York Times bestselling author of seven books, including, A World Without Email, Digital Minimalism, and Deep Work, which have been published in over 35 languages. In addition to his books, Cal is a regular contributor to the New Yorker, the New York Times, and WIRED, a frequent guest on NPR, and the host of the popular Deep Questions podcast. He also publishes articles at calnewport.com and has an email newsletter.’

Book Review Related Articles
The Psychology of Online Behaviour Article Header

The Psychology of Online Behaviour – Nicola Fox Hamilton

This book can only be listened to in Audible. You can find a link to the book on Nicola’s home webpage

If you are considering studying CyberPsychology, this book is an easy-to-listen-to introduction to the subject.

The book covers the following Cyber topics:

  1. The Science Behind the Big Debates
  2. Is Online Communication Different? 
  3. Who Are We When We’re Online?
  4. Finding Love Online
  5. The Brighter Side of the Internet
  6. The Darker Side of the Internet
  7. A Web of Lies 
  8. Why We Fall for Cybercrimes
  9. Online Shopping
  10. The Big Gaming Debates

A few highlights from the first chapter of the book, ‘The Science Behind the Big Debates’, includes:

  • ‘Many of the conversations we are having around CyberPsychology are emotionally heightened. Often this results in moral panic’
  • The effects on screentime and mental well-being are small or non-existent – to the point that ‘they are of no practical significance’
  •  ‘When we attempt to estimate our time spent on a behaviour, we are not very accurate, particularly when it involves estimating a behaviour that occurs frequently and that is well integrated into our lives, as technology is…only about 10% of estimates are close to accurate’
  • ‘There is a lot of pathologising of normal and healthy behaviour online’
  • ‘Displacement theory helps us understand that our technology use has the potential to displace other healthy behaviours such as: getting a good night’s sleep, exercising regularly, maintaining our close relationships or fulfilling our work or study commitments. If your digital media use is interfering with those essential requirements, then it might be a problem that needs addressing. If it’s not, and you’re enjoying your online interactions, then there isn’t really any problematic use. You’re just doing something you enjoy’
  • ‘Giving a child strategies, and discussing how they might respond to difficult, or potentially even dangerous, encounters is key to allow them to develop the skills they need to keep safe online’
  • Confirmation bias is ‘when we believe something, we pay more attention to something that supports that belief and ignore information that contradicts it – this is something to be aware of when thinking about your own technology and how you feel about the online world.’ 

In this short video Nicola briefly describes her speciality in online dating in a talk at Bright Club Ireland:

In this video Nicola talks about how to talk to your teenager (and some great hints and tips) about Online Dating.

About Nicola Fox Hamilton:

Nicola Fox Hamilton has a PhD in CyberPsychology and is a lecturer in applied psychology and cyberpsychology at the Institute of Art, Design and Technology (IADT).

You can read more about her on her official website.

Book Review Related Articles
BPS CyberPsych Interview 27 Jun 23

Careers in Cyberpsychology

If you were wanting to know more about CyberPsychology, this is a good place to start: The British Psychology Society – cyberpsychology section. The section team have been really active since they first launched the section in 2018 in adding articles, tools and resources to the site pages.

They have also asked me to contribute to the Careers page by writing an article about what I do. You can read it directly on their website page or you can download a PDF of the page and read that here.

Related Articles
Rich Burns Solent LEP at Portsmouth Uni XR Studio

A chat with Rich Burns of Solent LEP on being a Digital Human in the workplace

20 April 2023 (In-person UX Studio) –  updated 7 July 2023

In this interview with Rich Burn from Solent Partners, at the CCIXR building at Portsmouth University, Carolyn talks about technology in the workplace, and the impact this tech use has on us as individuals. 

You can either watch it in situ, or on YouTube. A transcript of the interview is included below:

RB: So, we are here at the Portsmouth CCIXR building at Portsmouth University. Amazing space with this amazing background, which we may decide to change – we may use it, I don’t know, we’ll see how we get on. So, Carolyn, tell me a bit about yourself and what you do.

CF: Ok, so I’m a CyberPsychologist, and I specialise in workplace technology use. So, how we, as adults, use technology in a work environment – and that is in the office, as well as remote and hybrid. Basically, how technology impacts us and how we use technology to get our work done and be more productive. But, really it is about how it affects us personally, and what we can do about it.

RB: So, what is CyberPsychology?

CF: CyberPsychology is a relatively new discipline in the world of psychology. It’s only really been around in the 1990’s when computers started becoming a big part of our lives and it’s grown and developed from there. The majority of what CyberPsychologists do is what they look at how we use technology and how it changes us, both from a society level but also, more importantly, how it changes us as individuals – not just our mental wellbeing, but actually how we think, how we behave, how we engage with others, how we see ourselves.

The majority of CyberPsychologists look at how children and young adults use technology on social media, in the classroom, at home. There’s a lot of mental health [issues] that they look at in terms of cyberbullying, self-image issues – like the impact of social media on eating disorders, addictive behaviour and gaming.

I don’t look at that element of that, I look more at adults. So, it is really about the fact that we make tools (being gadgets) and then they make us and change us, and change who we are as human beings. That’s really what we look at as CyberPsychologists.

RB: And your background, Carolyn, so you come from a Marketing background.

CF: I do.

RB: Which is what led you on your journey, so talk a little bit more about that.

CF: So, I trained as a Marketer and went into FMCG corporate marketing. I did that for 15 years doing New Product Development and Branding and Communication. And then, social media started coming into being a big part of what marketing is. And, I decided that’s not what I really wanted to do, because I have a much broader, strategic background. So, I left marketing completely and went back to Uni and started again from year 1 and retrained as a psychologist. And then discovered CyberPsychology and did a Masters in CyberPsychology.

But one of the biggest reasons I went into Psychology was because what fascinated me most about marketing was how people engage with products from a ‘I’ve got £10, what am I going to spend it on’ [perspective], and why do they do that. Why do they spend it on this product and not on that product? And why do they make those decisions? So, that’s really why I went into Psychology, but then got side-tracked by Cyber, and just went down the ‘rabbit hole’ of technology [use].

And I love it, because I love technology, I love gadgets. So, it was just part of my passion of combining those two things of human behaviour and the engagement with the gadgets we wear and the gadgets we use.

RB: I love the fact that you point out it’s the gadgets we now wear. Because once upon a time, it was just the gadgets we use. Now, it’s the gadgets we wear. It’s such an evolving industry. Now, the marketing bit is very interesting, because I’ve got a marketing background. We’ve talked about this before, Carolyn, on a podcast we did previously, but it is a bit impact that it is having. Obviously seeing the dawn of AI and ChatGPT. I got introduced to AutochatGPT and told I should be using those. Still not gone down that road yet.

But, from the point of view of this Digital Live series, which is what this recording is about… the skills that we use… there is terminology that comes around digital, I mean digital is a vast subject. But there are terms such as ‘digital natives’, ‘digital immigrants’, and they are bandied around to describe those who were born around the turn of the century and grew up with a super-confident use in digital gadgets, and those who had a more analogue-sort-of childhood, so kind-of before this, and are less confident using gadgets. How do we go about improving the skills of those who are digital immigrants and reduce the generational divide around technology use.

CF: That’s one of my favourite questions about digital generations. Because the reality is that in general, generations don’t exist anymore [in the workplace]. I’m 50, I grew up with Donkey Kong and Pac Man. So, I became confident using technology in my younger years, in my teen years. By the time I started work in the early 90’s, or the mid-90’s, I was already using computers at work. I already had my own email address. I had my own mobile phone. So, I was already confident with technology by that point. My contemporaries, who went to Uni with me back in the day, are senior managers in big companies. So, in my head, the majority of that digital divide isn’t in the corporate environment. It isn’t in the work environment at all. The only difference is the confidence that people have in their ability to use technology.

Once people leave work, yes, when you get to your 70s and 80s, they didn’t grow up with that basic [digital] technology that we had when we playing computer games in our youth. So, there is less of a confidence in picking up a new mobile phone and trying to figure out how this new Apple works, or this other phone works, or this new upgrade, and I don’t want to watch because someone is tracking me. There is less confidence in the ability to use it. But, from a work context, I don’t believe there is a generational digital divide anymore. It’s in the confidence level and the digital intelligence level that we see there are some differences.

But, even then, we see some people who are not at all confident with technology and there are older people who will just pick up a new thing and they will be able to figure out how to use the app or the gadget. So, I think we need to drop that whole narrative we have around the digital divide. I think it’s not healthy for us as older people and it also puts too much pressure on the younger people to perform digitally in the work environment.

RB: So, is the difference then just personality traits – you know in terms of, you know ‘I’m ok with using this technology, I won’t even think about it, I’ll just figure it out’?

CF: I think it comes down to digital resilience and digital intelligence. And they’re talking about digital confidence and digital intelligence being one of the big things now, that people measure when using gadgets.

Digital Intelligence is your ability to actually use stuff. It encompasses how you feel and how you operate with technology.

Digital Resilience is about being able to get over stuff quickly. So, if you are a victim of cyberbullying, how quickly do you get over it? If you are struggling with something digitally, how quickly do you figure it out.

Digital Confidence is ‘how quickly can I pick up this new app or new gadget and figure it out myself?’

I think that really is part of what we need to start looking at for people in terms of how they engage with new technology.

So, I don’t think it is around personality. I am a social extrovert, but an introvert by nature. I wouldn’t say it’s harder for me to pick up technology than an extrovert. It does come down to core skills and core confidence in our own abilities – rather than personality type.

Basic demographic factors don’t play into our ability to engage with technology, or even psychographic [factors] – unless it comes to our confidence levels and our resilience and our ability to actually pick up the technology.

RB: You use a couple of terms there. So, you mentioned resilience actually which is a term I’m going to pick up on. And we talked about confidence, and another term is digital intelligence as well, that I keep hearing about. They’re starting to be used a lot more in media and in companies. But, what do these mean, and are there ways to build these skills in people?

CF: Well, digital resilience, I think like any form of resilience, can be built. And digital confidence, again, it can be built. But I think one of the key things with each of those in terms of [the] confidence and ability to pick up gadgets – if someone is working remotely, I think it is about identifying how confident they are in using new technology or picking up new skill sets around app use or technology use. Being able to identify if someone is struggling is an important thing for us as businesses to look into.

I did some research during the first lockdown of the pandemic, and one of the things that came out of that is, about people’s [improvement in] self-confidence in their ability to use technology. If they are sitting in an office, it is easy to say, ‘Jo Bloggs, can you help me with this’, or ‘IT can you sort this out?’. When you’re at home with no ability to actually pull someone in to help you, you had to figure it out yourself. The level of what we call ‘computer self-efficacy’, which is basically confidence, grew exponentially during the pandemic, because we had to figure it ourselves. We couldn’t just lean on someone else, because we couldn’t be bothered [or were too worried] to work it out ourselves.

So, that is really important for businesses to identify and give people the training, and support that they need, to help them through the process of gaining that confidence. So, whether or not it’s sending them on a computer course or giving them links to YouTube videos on how to use this app. Whatever that looks like – it’s about being able to identify those people who struggle with picking up new technology.

When it comes to digital intelligence, I think it’s slightly tricker to train someone in. But I think that comes with confidence and resilience. It’s once you have that confidence and resilience; you then gain the ability to figure stuff out and move onto new bits of technology and new gadgets. Because the more you learn, the more confident you become, the more intelligent you become. It’s like learning anything. When you first start out learning, it’s all very complicated. But, you quickly build up that basic automatic knowledge.

RB: So, when we put that into the workplace, then, where does that responsibility sit, do you think? Is that the individual, or is that the business to kind-of support that, or is it a blend of both?

CF: I think it’s a blend of both. I think it’s very difficult sometimes for individuals to put their hands up and say, ‘I’m struggling’.

RB: I agree.

CF: Because if they are struggling with something, it may indicate that they are not very good at their job. But actually, they could be incredibly talented, have a lot of knowledge and skillset, but if they are seen to not be able to work a programme – like Excel documents – they may think that they are being perceived as not very good at their job. And that may also reduce their productivity levels. So, they may be the most competent person, or the most skilled person in their department, but if they can’t use an Excel spreadsheet, or the tools, they may come across as the least productive, or the least able. So, to put your hand up and say, ‘I’m really struggling with this, I need help’, is one of the first things.

Also, from a team manager perspective, is having that open mind and seeing the difference between their competency – or the skillset they are being employed for – and their ability or maybe not being as familiar with the technology as they could be and giving them the support that they need.

So, it could be really a conversation between managers and individuals. Individuals putting their hand up, managers being open to that, non-judgemental, and businesses providing some element of: ‘this is a fund, or a training programme that we provide that cheap or easy or we can send someone on’. So, having that culture that’s open to … not everyone knows how to use software programmes. You may have used Word or Apple programmes in your previous job, and actually, this is slightly different, so you need more training. And that’s ok. But it’s about having that open culture, having those honest conversations to support people in actually doing the job that they are hired to do.

RB: And then what about potentially measuring that? Would that be an easy [thing]. In my mind, I’m thinking, if you were to ask someone about their confidence using digital on a score of zero to ten, I guess that’s one way. In my mind that you can look at a progression of that. Is there any other…

CF: Giving or asking someone to score from one to ten is very relative.  

RB: Or one to seven. I heard on the radio this morning. It shouldn’t be one to ten.

CF: Or even that, my five could be your three. So, it’s all relative. I think part of that is about outputs in terms of: if someone can’t use Excel, well actually in two months’ time are they better at it? Are they asking less questions? And I think it’s a both/and. I it’s a conversation of: I think I can do this better than I did before, ‘manager, do you think I can do it better, and am I providing the output that you need in order for you to meet the bottom line and do the job that you’ve employed me to do?’

So, I think it’s difficult to measure, and I don’t think there should be, ‘well, you have to get 70% on this Excel test. It is about: ‘are you using the tools that is needed within this programme to do your job well. Yes or no? And if no, or not competent enough, then how do we actually solve that?’

It’s a really difficult thing to say, ‘this is how you need to make it work’.

RB: And I’m so glad to have you involved in what we are doing, because a lot of what I’m seeing with the Digital Skills Partnership across the whole of the South East is because of that difficulty in measuring these things like confidence and motivation and resilience. We are not seeing a lot of it being measured and actually it has been avoided in terms of being talked about [and] discussed. But it’s a massive problem. It’s a massive problem, I think.

CF: It is a massive problem and there could be questionnaires that you can do to measure someone’s confidence in technology. But again, they are self-completion questionnaires. So, again, it’s relative. I can fill in a questionnaire and say, ‘I’m really confident’, but actually I’m not, because I don’t want to give them the impression that I don’t know what I’m doing.

So, there are ways to measure it. But, even then it’s subjective.

How do we solve it? I think it’s a really big project that needs to happen. I think part of it is changing the narrative … If I’m constantly being told that I’m too old to actually figure it out, I’m too old to engage with this technology, I’m going to start believing it and I’m not going to have that confidence.

I did some training with some apprentices who had just come out of University, and one of the things that they said was, ‘well, old people don’t know how to use technology’. And I’m like, ‘well, actually you don’t know how to use business technology. You know how to use social media.’ But in their head, they’ve been told so often that they are the digitally smart ones. And they are actually the ones who know how to make [tech] work, and old people are not actually all that competent.

I think that as a society and, in the media especially, we have to change that conversation on its head and say, ‘We are all competent. We are just competent in different areas.’ There are so many different gadgets, there’s so many different apps and technology. And so many different functionalities we use technology for. Just because I don’t use VR in gaming, doesn’t mean I don’t know how to do a good Excel document – and that’s what I need to do my job. And, on top of that, one of my pet peeves…

RB: Go on, get it all out there Carolyn…

CF: …is that I spend a lot of time with SMEs. One of the big things they do, is they give a 20-year-old their social media platform for their business. And, from a marketing perspective, that really grates against my sense of branding, because they are very good at their personal social media, but they don’t have the communication skills. They don’t have the ability to put forward a business scenario to the right audience. They can do a great TikTok video, but you don’t do a TikTok [type] video on LinkedIn. Or, they’ll put the company communication on TikTok, which is not the audience. The audience is on Instagram, or it’s on LinkedIn, or it’s on Twitter.

So, they have competence in a specific area of social media. And a specific way of doing it. But not corporate communication. So, that is one of my pet peeves – is just handing over [the] responsibility of their front face of their media communication to a twenty-something-year-old. And some of them are brilliant and I will not take that away from them. But, in general, they don’t yet have the business acumen and the communication skillsets that they need to do a really good job for a young company, or any small to medium-sized business.

RB: I think, the way I see it in a very simplistic form – when it comes to this kind of using technology and digital is this kind of love and fear. It’s as simple as that. There are those that love it and embrace it naturally. Whether they are people who would love and embrace more things in general, I don’t know, but it’s the fear factor that, you know. That example you just gave of that business owner perhaps giving that responsibility. I think there’s an element of fear in that. Not, ‘I don’t understand it’, But, I’m going to get someone in, and tick that box to be able to do it’. Because there is a lot more fear that I’m seeing – especially for instance, we touched on: AI, ChatGPT. People are starting to do this, and step back from it. You know. Where’s it gonna go, where is it gonna end up? But, the fear is definitely there.

CF: I think the fear of the unknown is true in any area. It’s that, ‘I don’t feel competent enough’. Especially with grown-ups, because we should know how to do things, and I think a lot of times when there is an area where we not competent in, we’re judgement ourselves in that and feeling, ‘well, actually I can’t do it, and I don’t know how to, and I don’t want to be seen as being not very good, and failing. So, I’d rather give it to someone else and not go down that road’. Sometimes, we’re just not brave enough. I think that is one of the things we need to do is just be brave, and just say, ‘actually, it’s ok to fail. It’s ok to mess up slightly. But I’m still better at understanding the communication I need to put out there, so much better at other things that this is something I can relatively easily learn’. It’s the knowledge base – and going back to my example of small businesses, my knowledge base is much more important than not getting the video right. And, I think as grown-ups we also have lived in this world of perfectionism, and expectations around perfectionism. And, the younger generation haven’t done that, because they’ve done TikTok videos and they’ve done filters, and other things to improve their ‘non-perfection’ and they’re ok with that non-perfection. I think as an older generation, we’re not so ok with that.

RB: Yeh, I agree. What about motivation? Cause, for instance, we’ve touched on using technology in the workplace and the motivation there, you would assume, is you being told, perhaps, that that is what you need to do in order to do your role? But I guess more in your day-to-day life, motivation – I don’t know, what’s your thoughts on it? How should we be driven to use technology? How should we see it? How should we be motivated by it – or not?

CF: I think, one of the things we do, generally, is: a shiny new gadget comes out and we embrace it. Well, my friend’s got a new smartwatch and look at all the things it can do, so I’m going to buy one too. We don’t step back and go, ‘well, what impact is this going to have on me?’ So, there is a theory in CyberPsychology about technology being passive or active. And I think that’s really the wrong way to look at it. I think it’s about us taking on technology in an active or a passive way.

So, I chose not to have a smartwatch, for this exact reason that I know my boundaries and I know that if I get a smartwatch, I’m going to go down a rabbit hole of looking at it every 5 seconds and every notification, every email I’m going to be just – my arm is going to get stuck in this position, because I’m going to be looking at it all the time.

RB: I think there should be a new emoji that’s this now – or a dance.

CF: Exactly – a TikTok dance. And even if you do have a smartwatch, maybe it’s sitting back and saying, ‘actually, what impact is this having on me? How has my behaviour changed? How am I thinking about myself? How am I thinking about others? Am I spending that time with others? What is important in life for me? And am I actually embracing those things that are important in life, or am I being distracted by gadgets that I own, and things that are happening in China, or Outer Mongolia, or America or some random influencer? Are they more important – the virtual world – or is my physical world more important?’

So, I’m not so sure it’s about motivation, I think it’s about taking back control and on a semi-regular basis, sitting down with yourself and going, ‘Well, I’ve got this extra technology. I’ve got all this stuff, what am I going to do about it? How am I going to fit this into my life and make it work for me? Or am I okay with being controlled by it and randomly going to dive into Alice’s Wonderland?’ And that’s OK, but it’s about you making that choice.

So many times (I’d say almost 3-6 months, that’s why I say ‘so many times’) I have to sit down with myself and go, ‘I’ve set these boundaries for myself. These are the things that I’m going to do. This is how I’m going to do my workday’. And then I start slipping and go, ‘oh, I’m just going to check this email. I’m just going to do this.’ And then I end up at 11 o’clock at night staring at my phone, when actually my boundary was 8pm, all devices off and in my office and not look at them again. And then I have to take a step back again and go, ‘this is not important. This is important: having conversations with my family, with my friends, going out, doing things with people. That’s important.’ So, I have to do a check and go, ‘no’.

So, motivation can come into that, but I think when taking up new technology, it is about thinking through first what this is going to do to me and then, after 6 months going, ‘how is this really impacting me and others around me?’. I say ‘others around me’, because research shows that grown-ups or adults who use their technology and look at work emails after hours – it doesn’t just affect them. What they found is that children within the household have high stress and anxiety levels and are higher than those who don’t. For the simple reason that if you are looking at your phone, and you get cross and angry, the children see that. They see the reaction. They see the anger. They take it on board as something they’ve done. Because that’s what children do. They don’t rationalise that, ‘that’s their phone, there’s something going on with their phone’. And, it changes the atmosphere in the house, it changes the way the parent engages with them because they put the phone down and they’re still angry. So, there is much higher levels of stress and anxiety amongst younger children with parents who still look at their emails on their phones after hours.

Also, the parents are looking at their phones. They are not giving their children 1-2-1 time. Which means that the children aren’t engaging and learning social skills. And, that is how we learn social skills, by practising – especially when we’re young. So, we often talk about how with children, that we have to reduce their screen time, we have to do this, and we have to give them boundaries. But we forget that children emulate our behaviour and we have to display that for our own children, our own values and this is what I choose to do – or this is what we choose to do as a family. We choose to be present. We choose to not have phones at the dinner table. We choose to not… – whatever that looks like.

RB: Do you think we are in a world where most people recognise that – their own self-control in regard to technology? Or, do you think we are more in a world where people aren’t even thinking about it – they are just using the latest technology, the latest watch and they’re just in it, and don’t reflect on it that much.

CF: The latter. The vast majority of people just absorb new technology – because the gadgets are fun, it’s exciting. And it increases dopamine levels. That’s engaging for me and, life can be rubbish, at times, so that’s a really great escape. Before the pandemic hit, there was research done on people who segmented their work and home life, and how they actually managed those boundaries. And they found that only a third of workers actually had a strategy in place. So, whether they segmented work and home completely, or they integrated home and work life. If they had young children, they need to come home at 3, pick the children up, bath and bedtime and go back to work from 8 to 10 and they did a couple more hours. They’re integrators and it worked for them; but they had that strategy. And two thirds didn’t. They just let technology happen to them.

During the pandemic, it just all went out the window and no-one had any segmentation strategies. I would suggest that it has defaulted back to one-third and two-thirds. A third of people have different strategies than they did before because most people have some element of a hybrid work scenario, but they probably still have some element of strategy. And it’s only when people get to the point of burnout or massive stress or anxiety that they go, ‘Something’s gotta change. I can’t keep doing this or else I’m going to fall apart’. And that’s when they put their strategies in place. But, up to that point, often, people just let technology happen to them. And they just take more and more on board. And they don’t sit down and think, ‘What is going on? How am I dealing with this? Am I heading towards burnout?’ And most people don’t know they are going to burn out, until they actually do.

RB: Yes, and then they’ve got to deal with that. Do people, from what you have experienced, associate that with that technology use? Or, is it lots of other factors that come into the world that they probably think it’s that that’s causing the burnout?

CF: I would be very surprised if people say that, ‘Looking at my emails at 8’oclock at night is causing me stress and anxiety and burnout.’ The majority of the time, your technology use is influenced by the corporate culture, your own personal preferences for technology, your own boundaries, your expectations of work, how old you are, where you are in the corporate ladder, how much of a workaholic you are, how ambitious you are. All those factors. Also, actually, home life – in terms of home expectations of whether or not you should turn your technology off. E.g. if your partner is a workaholic and you’re just bored and you just go and work. There’s all these different factors that fall into the realm of the decisions you make about your technology use.

So, what we often do, when we are stressed and anxious, we blame someone else, or we blame other factors. Because it’s not our fault. Because when we take it on board as, ‘Actually, I’m doing this’, we than have to take responsibility for it. Some people do, and that’s amazing. But the vast majority [say], ‘My boss is annoying. He makes me do this. I have to be on Slack at 10 o’clock’ because my whole team is still responding to Slack messages at 2 o’clock, and if I’m not part of the conversation, I get into the office the next morning, the decision’s been made [and] I haven’t inputted into it, so I feel like a bad worker, or I may be seen as someone who is not good enough and may not get promoted’.

So, there is a lot of underlying factors that come into the decisions you make about your technology use after hours. So, it’s really up to the individual to own up to that, in some ways, and put those boundaries in place and get back that control. Make those decisions and have those conversations with their managers and teams saying, ‘this is what I need to do, this is how I need to do my life because…’. And if that isn’t working for the team and the manager, maybe they need to have another think about where they are working. And, I know this sounds quite harsh, but to not burn out, it’s really important to make sure you are looking after yourself. In the same way you look after yourself from a physical perspective, you have to look after yourself from a mental and psychological perspective. So, what choices are you making.

RB: I’m going to put this on you now, Carolyn, as an individual. So, the point of this Digital Lives series is kind-of to showcase from a business perspective, from an individual perspective, from a community perspective, from a school perspective and students. But, it is to look at the individuals and our own associations with technology – and we discussed some of those elements. But, we’ve all got an experience with digital, or technology – whatever you want to call it. So, the question to you: what thing in your digital life would you change to help with either your business, your motivation, your own personal development, mental health – what would you change, for you in your own experiences?

CF: I’m not sure there is more that I would change right not. But there are things I’ve changed in the past that I try to stick to, the boundaries that I put in place and constantly break and then need to reset myself, is that I have different technology for different spheres of life. So, I have my personal phone, I have my personal iPad and my work laptop – and I try my best not to integrate the three. So, I need to set boundaries from a time perspective of: this is work time and this is personal time. Mostly because when I was in marketing, I would work every hour that I was awake. And if something needed to be done, it needed to be done. Working evenings, weekends, through the night. Whatever needed to be done to meet that deadline, that’s what I did. And, I burnt out emotionally and psychologically, I just got exhausted. And I know I can slip down that road [again] very quickly. It’s a very slippery slope for me.

So, I have to put those boundaries in place for me. Doing things like closing my laptop at the end of the day is a great signal for me that my work is done, my work personality is over. Now I’m wife perspective, friend personality, daughter…

RB: So, literally that click of the laptop is your trigger to…

CF: Yes, I’ve got my workbook and I try to write things down as much as possible rather than put everything on notes, because I need to switch off. So, I have an A6 little notepad that I take with me, outside of my big A4 [notepad] that I leave on my desk. I take that with me because if something comes up, if I remember to do something, I write it in there. I don’t pick up my phone and write notes, because I need to put that down, I need to put that away. So, those are the things I have done and continually need to do. So, that’s why I think I probably wouldn’t do anything new. It’s more about I constantly need to is take a rain check on how much those boundaries have slipped. Because, as I said before, they often do. Someone calls and I say, ‘ooh, I’ll quickly take this’, or, ‘I’m meant to finish at 6.30 and ooh, I’ll just finish this and it ends up being 8 o’clock at night. And, I try leave my phone upstairs on Sundays so I don’t look at my screen, and [then I go], ‘ooh, let me just… let me just…’. Those boundaries need to be constantly realigned, realigned, readjusted. And really that’s for my own mental health and just keeping myself present when I need to be. And living. That’s important for me, human connection is an important part of who I am, and sitting on a screen, I don’t get that.

RB: Thank you, Carolyn.

CF: You are welcome.

Related Articles
623. Women in tech

Why do half of women in tech drop out by age 35?

In a collaborative report involving Code First Girls and Tech Talent Charter (TCC – a government-supported group of over 775 leading UK businesses and organisations) aimed to gain insights into the UK’s diversity talent shortage – and provide recommendations to address the diversity crisis.

It is revealed that half of the women in tech drop out by the age of 35, adding to concerns about the growing digital skills and gender gap.

Additionally, of the 149 million new jobs Microsoft predicts will be created by 2025 in software, data, AI and machine learning only 20% of the 5.8m newly skilled and qualified graduates will be women.

A few barriers for women in tech (and indeed in any industry) is: maternity leave, and work-family balance.

The top recommendations to encourage women to remain in tech include: flexible working, enhanced parental leave policies, and other female-specific family and healthcare policies and benefits.

Flexible working policies have been shown to have a positive impact on attracting and retaining talent. 

Job ads that include job flexibility in the offering have increased applicant volume by 30% and increased the proportion of female applicants.

88% of the 210,000 UK tech employees from TTC’s data reported having access to flexible work options including: part-time working (83%), job sharing (76%), condensed hours (65%) and remote working 47%). Other options available are a 4-day working week during the summer and uncapped holiday.

Although the availability of the report seems to focus on flexible work arrangements that are already available and female-related healthcare policies, the main solutions that seems to be suggested centre around making the tech workplace less of a ‘boys-club’ and slightly more inclusive to women’s family and healthcare needs. 

What the report doesn’t seem to address is the fact that flexible working policies are already available in almost 90% of tech companies and women are still leaving before 35. 

  • Could it be that there are much deeper underlying causes of women exiting the workplace by age 35 and not returning? 
  • Could workplace norms, narratives and job demands expectations also play a role?
  • Could the flexible workplace practices indeed be contributing to the inability to create work-home boundaries, which lead to higher stress, anxiety and feelings of burnout by the mid-30s, and making it less feasible for a healthy work-family life balance? 
  • Could the job demands that come from an industry that is already suffering from a skills shortage and an inherent need to grow and deliver at pace be significantly contributing to a stressful work environment that works for those in their 20s, but not always so well for those in their 30s? 
Related Articles
Amusing Ourselves to Death Article Header

Amusing Ourselves to Death – Neil Postman

In this book, Neil Postman talks through the impact that modern media is having on our culture. It is a public discourse in the age of show-business.

Although the book was published in 1980’s, long before computers became a ubiquitous item within our household, his insights into how digital technology (in the form of television and media-based entertainment) shifts our cultural norms, the way we think, the way we process information and how we view the world around us.

This is a must-read/listen to for anyone exploring the world of CyberPsychology. It provides a useful back-story to how we got to where we are now.

It also helps to shape some of the thinking we should be using when viewing how the ongoing Digital revolution is changing who we are as individuals, and as a society.

It provides a looking glass to view how our favourite gadgets and Apps may impact our present and future selves.

A snippet from the opening sections of this book is probably the most relevant to our constantly changing digital technological world: 

‘People like ourselves who are in the process of converting their culture from word-centred to image-centred might profit from reflecting on this Mosiac junction. But, even if I am wrong in these conjectures it is, I believe, a wise and particularly relevant supposition, that the media of communication available to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the cultures intellectual and social pre-occupation’.

These two interviews (part 1 and part 2) give a taste into the essence of Neil Postman’s arguments within the book.  

Some insights from these videos:

  • People mostly watch television – and they like to watch dynamic, ever changing, exciting images. The average duration of a shot on a network television show is 3.5 seconds.
  • Television has developed along lines that not only accommodate the biases of the visual medium, but the interests of the audience. It wants pictures, it doesn’t want talking heads.
  • TV executives or networks did not set out, in an organised and systematic way, to alter the way people will express themselves in politics, religion, education, etc. Rather, what has happened is that a new technology that tends to supress, undermine and otherwise degrade what we call literate, analytic, rational discourse.
  • The visual and entertainment-oriented TV has become the centre of Western Culture and has degraded public discourse. It may be possible, through some sort of social policy, for us to minimise or mitigate some of the worst effects of the situation.
  • It is the machinery itself that has changed the world of communications.
  • There is a distinction between a technology and a medium. A technology is to a medium as brain is to the mind. Like the brain, a technology is a physical apparatus. Like the mind, a medium is a use to which we put the physical apparatus.
  • From a technological determinist perspective – television will give us a new kind of culture, as did the printing press.
  • Alternatively, people are aware of how technology has been used, what sort of medium it has become and, through education, alert people to the sort of problems that a medium has brought about, and how to make the necessary changes.
  • With the introduction of the computer, American’s are going in to their usual stance in the face of a new technology – which is with a great deal of enthusiasm without much discussion around what its affects will be.
  • If there was some serious dialogue, as part of the education of children, there would be an awareness of how the definitions of debate have changed, the definitions of knowledge have changed.
  • At this point, television has become the command centre of the culture. People go to television.
  • Our habits have been changed and our perception apparatus has changed – we are seeing the world in fragments now and kind of a Las Vegas stage show.
  • There is a logic to a technology, that it asks to be used in a certain way. This logic has tremendous force to it. To the extent that we understand what that logic is … then at the very least we could prepare ourselves to accommodate [the bias from the media]. If [for] nothing else than to protect ourselves through the education of the young, through the seductions of the eloquence of televisions charm.
  • The issue with the television is that it has become the command centre of the culture and moved all other media to the periphery of the culture.
  • Most people don’t see television as problematic. They don’t see that it raises some political or epistemological issues.
  • American education, at this point, has been largely indifferent to the intellectual and social issues that the new media raise. One can say the same the same thing about computer technology … Schools have accepted computer technology without, very often, raising the question for youngers, about what intellectual or epistemological or social effects and consequences such technology might have on the culture.  
  • Looking at the history of technology – technology does have a way of taking over a culture and giving direction to the social institutions of the culture, and even the cognitive habits of the people in the culture.
  • The forces of technological change are enormously powerful and underestimated almost universally by everyone, who like to say, ‘television is neutral, it’s what we do with it that will matter’. Nothing can represent a technological naivety more than that kind of remark. On the other hand, I do believe that people are not powerless – especially institutions are not powerless.
  • The late Jessica Savage … remarked once that ‘viewers have come of age in the 80’s’. She said they have ‘visceral smarts’. Through the viscera they can tell what is true and has merit and what is good. Does this mean that the viscera has replaced the brain as our central organ of knowing? If that is the case, then the question about our humanistic values is even more terrifying than otherwise. That is to say that … our humanistic values have at the centre our reason, and reason has to do with the word.  
About Neil Postman:

The late Neil Postman was a professor in Media Ecology at NYU’s Steinhardt School of Education.

Although some may refer to him as a ‘luddite’ as he comes across as being rather negative towards technology. However, it would be more accurate to say that he was an observer and commentator on the historical changes technology made to society and cultural identity – i.e. the ecology (and probably the anthropology) of new media.

What he would have made of smartphones, smartphones and social media would have been a rather interesting guess.

Book Review Related Articles
Creativity

Can technology use affect our creative and lateral thinking abilities?

There is a common misconception, based on research done on split-brain patients in the 1960s, that creativity and analytical thinking activities are either right- or left-hemisphere brain functioning. We often talk about people being either creative or analytical, implying a dominance of either the right or left side of their brain. This thinking has been challenged by creativity research conducted since the 1980s. But the outdated myth has become entrenched as a worldview, an overarching narrative about how we work, and a subconscious bias towards the creative ability of both ourselves and others. We are all creative, we just don’t always realise it, or label it as such

Research on freestyle wrappers indicated that it was necessary for the brain to attenuate (i.e. subvert) the analytical regions in order for the creative regions of the brain to be able to activate and form creative ideas. Both analytical and creative regions could be found on the right and left sides of the brain. This is why we have so many great ideas in the shower, on a walk, or at times we are not distracting ourselves with our cognitively demanding activities or our technology. Research done by Bluhm, R. et al in 2009 demonstrated that when we are bored the central part of our brain lights up. This means that the more distracted we are, the less likely we are to engage in types of self-reflection, or reflection of any kind for that matter. 

A creative idea is defined by Alice Flaherty as ‘one that is both novel and useful (or influential) in a particular social setting’. If our attention is focused on a screen or the analytical part of our brain is distracted or engaged in wrestling with a problem to solve, it seems it isn’t possible to have creative ideas or be able to make lateral thinking connections. 

Our ability to be creative has fascinated me for quite some time. During my corporate marketing days, with a growing sense of irony, I noticed that an analytical mindset was considered to have greater value than a more creative mindset. When there was discussion around ‘being creative’, what seems to have been implied was the ability to think laterally, rather than creatively. Additionally, there seemed to be an underlying thinking that (if DeBono was correct) lateral and divergent thinking skills were teachable. For some reason, this didn’t quite make sense to me. I had always assumed that creative, divergent and lateral thinking ability was inherent in everyone. I also believed that creativity and artistic ability weren’t always correlated  – in the same way as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

In reviewing research literature, I discovered that those who have more of the Openness Personality Trait are more likely to be creative. However, I couldn’t find any previous research that focussed on the link between Lateral Thinking and personality traits. So, as part of my final psychology degree dissertation, I sought to understand if there was a specific type of person who had a greater ability to think laterally and was, therefore, someone that could be more ideally suited to a ‘creative’ role or career than others.

What my research study suggested is that although there did indeed seem to be a correlation between personality and creativity, there was no correlation between personality and lateral thinking skills. This could be because lateral thinking questions used in research are often based on the ability of a person to solve a puzzle by drawing on associations with their past lived experience. E.g. one of the questions is: Five pieces of coal, a carrot and a scarf are lying on the lawn. Nobody put them on the lawn but there is a perfectly logical reason why they should be there. Why is that? The answer is: They were used to make a snowman, which has now melted. The question assumes the reader has grown up where it snows during winter, and they have had the experience of building snowmen using carrots and coal for their facial features. Another question is: A man pushed his car. He stopped when he reached a hotel at which point, he knew he was bankrupt. Why? The answer is: He was playing Monopoly. If someone has never played Monopoly in the past, they would never be able to come up with that answer. 

What the research suggested is that lateral thinking ability is directly linked to age. The more life experience a person has, the greater ability they have to make connections between seemingly random pieces of information to solve a unique puzzle. 

Going back to how this creativity and lateral thinking are related to technology? The reality could be that spending more time online or staring at a screen, can limit our ability to engage in alternative lived experiences. It also limits the time our brain has to engage in free association while not distracted or thinking analytically. This can potentially lead to lower levels of creative time and possibly a sense of creative ability. The less experience we have at being creative and thinking laterally, the less creative we think we are and the lower the chances are that we will give ourselves the freedom to recognise that we are by nature creative and allow ourselves to engage in more creative tasks. 

Related Articles
Social Media Love Affair

Confessions of a CyberPsychologist: Why I ended my obsessive social media love affair.

6 months ago, I was semi-obsessed. I often checked my phone on the sly – making sure others didn’t notice. My WhatsApp was popping through notifications telling me to ‘quickly check the latest message’. I was flicking from one social media app to another, to make sure I’d caught all the potential messages that had come through. It had gone beyond the point of the teasing flirtation and the fun of the chase… It had even gone beyond the romantic thrill of the love affair… It had progressed well beyond that… I was, after all, doing the very thing I was encouraging others to try to avoid – I’d become obsessed with seeking that mini-feeling of satisfaction and the mini-brain-infused-dopamine-hit each time others engaged with my social media or blog posts. 

Don’t get me wrong. Like any relationship, spending time on social media has plenty of benefits and can be hugely rewarding. But we often don’t realise that we are headed into an obsessive relationship until we are in it. It’s only after we start to see the warning signs, that we may come to realise we don’t quite know how to get out of it. Or it may even be that we don’t even see the warning signs but wake up one day fully entrenched in a controlling ‘virtual relationship’. 

The same process of not realising you’re heading towards the issue until you’re in it is when you find yourself over-stressed, highly anxious or in burnout. We, humans, are generally a rather optimistic lot. We tend to think we are able to cope, that we’ll be fine, that ‘just one’ won’t hurt, that we can easily stop and that it’s easily fixed. We are familiar with these narratives. We’ve heard them before. We even tell ourselves these same stories. But the further we let ourselves go down the path, the more difficult it can be to get out – until something actually breaks. 

For me, it was the sensation of being overwhelmed by life. Even though I’d turned off most notifications, the constant WhatsApp messages, the regular flipping between social media accounts to check for engagement from others, the mental distraction of what was going on online while trying to be physically present offline, the regularly ruminating about the previous or next post and what needed to be written…. There was enough going on in the real world without the online world layering all its messages on top. I know what my tech boundaries are. But I’d let them slip. Again. For too long.

Although research has shown that taking a 1-month hiatus from social media doesn’t actually work in the medium term – in the same way as doing a ‘dry January’ doesn’t change your overall drinking habits, I knew I had to do a hard break from the online world. In a confession to a good friend, I was told ‘Psychologist, heal yourself’. They were right, if I was going to be genuine in my ability to help others with social media, online addictions and gadget obsessions, I couldn’t be up to my eyeballs in the mire myself. Fighting in the ditches with clients is not the same as being overwhelmed by the sinking social media I’d found myself in. 

So, I took the decision to break up with social media and the world of blogging. It was originally only meant to be a few weeks, but those few weeks quickly turned into a few months, which eventually turned into 6 months. And that’s when I noticed things had changed. I found myself being able to focus again. Reading physical books became enjoyable. Giving myself the space to be ‘bored’, i.e. not looking at my phone every time I was in a queue or in between tasks had shifted me back to myself again. Neurological research has shown that when we are not distracting ourselves with gadgets and allow our minds to wander, a midsection of our brain kicks into gear. The researchers called this the ‘idling brain’ and referred to by Bessel van der Kolk in his book ‘The body keeps the score’ as the Mohawk region of the brain. This part of the brain is what lights up when we are self-reflecting. So, if we are constantly distracting ourselves with gadgets, we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to self-reflect. And it seems that this has an impact on anxiety levels and self-image. Which, kinda makes logical sense. 

And what we do every day changes the structure of our brains. As the saying goes ‘neurons that fire together, wire together’. There are some interesting studies on this, from the classic psychology research of the larger hippocampus (the region of the brain involved in spatial memory) found in taxi drivers and a more recent study done in China with restaurant workers who have a greater ability to use their working memory due to constantly memorising orders and the customers who made them (https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/your-job-can-shape-your-cognitive-abilities).

I know that I am fortunate to be able to take a time-out from social media – with limited negative impact on my work. Not everyone has that luxury. But I would suggest that we all need to semi-regularly take our relationship with gadgets, gaming (or any other form of internet use) to ‘couples counselling’ and ascertain the mental and physical health of our relationship on our own mental well-being. 

In doing so, we need to actively decide how we are going to move forward with our gadget use. Even if things stay the same, it becomes our individual choice to do so, meaning we feel slightly more in control (as it was our choice after all) of the gadgets we use every day. We each have our individual abilities to let go, change things up and put boundaries in place. 

Regarding my future relationship with social media and blogging, social media and I are back together again. But, with conditions. I’ve put a 3-monthly reminder in my diary to do a ‘tech-check’ and make sure I’m the one in control of my gadget use, not the other way around. Having an obsessive relationship with gadgets was never my intention. I feel like I’ve now got the control in the relationship, and I fully intend to keep it that way. 

Divergent Mind Article Header

Divergent Mind – Jenara Nerenberg

Humans tend to categorise and group others according to specific physical, behavioural and mental states or characteristics.

We do this because we need shortcuts to minimise excessive energy consumption. Getting to know someone on an individual basis takes time, effort and energy. So, if we can quickly classify someone, we can group them according to our biases and constructed categories, so we can quickly either reject, accept, embrace or alienate others.

‘Judging a book by its cover’ is part of this natural default.

So, categorising and pathologising a certain type of behaviour and psychological or neurological condition is a quick way to understand and behave towards another. 

But, even boxes have nuances and not all boxes are created equal.

Culturally, we have expressed and embraced certain historical biases and narratives of people, mostly based on medical/psychological categories based on ‘common’ symptoms that align with the diagnostic criteria and descriptions.

The current mental health criteria (especially according to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual – DSM) used can be really helpful for some to identify the cause or reason for their way of thinking, their behaviour or the way their mind or emotions work.

But, it can also be a label that is used to judge both others and self

This label can also be used as an excuse for a specific behavioural pattern, to either justify or defend against unhealthy ways of being. 

This book helps to unpick some of these cultural and self-limiting biases. Looking at the historical and contemporary perspective of neuro-divergent ways of thinking and being can create a new narrative and thinking pattern to empower individuals to embrace and treasure their abilities as valuable assets or even super-powers.

If you fall into the category of ‘neuro-divergent’, Jenara Nerenberg helps to explain different forms of neuro-divergence that can co-exist or present in different ways for different individuals.

Working through the book can help you understand more about how and why you think, act and respond to what you do.

This book can help both those with neuro-divergent abilities and those who love and care for them, to be more understanding, forgiving and adaptive to specific needs – in a way that can enhance, empower and maximise a life well lived. 

This video (which will take you through to YouTube) is an introduction to the first Neurodiversity Project conference.  

Search on YouTube for other videos and interviews that Jenara has conducted on neuro-diversity

About Jenara Nerenberg

Jenara is the founder of The Nerovidersity Project

As a renowned journalist and author who discovered that she was neuro-divergent as an adult. This book is an extension of the research and interviews that she has conducted in her search for her own answers. 

Book Review Related Articles
Carolyn-Freeman-200-x-200-pt

Carolyn Freeman – Adult Problematic Digital Technology Use

Problematic technology use amongst adults

Connect:

Email her directly at:

carolyn@cybercolgy.com

Main CyberPsychology Expertise:

Problematic Adult Behaviour 

  • Online Addiction (incl. Social Media Use)
  • Internet Gaming 
  • Work-Home Boundary Blurring

Underlying Causes and Drivers

  • Adult ADHD/ADD
  • Stress and anxiety
  • Life Coping Mechanisms

Research Articles