"it touches on this idea of the process itself—slow, inefficient, fickle—being key to the things"
Just as an aside - I think this is the joy of something like playing an instrument or learning a new sport or skill of hand - that a book can only take you so far, and you have to train your mind and muscles to it. That you start off bad, and there's usually an initial bar that's difficult to clear, and then there's rapid improvement, and then you hit a plateau...and decide on whether you want to keep improving or are ok with just being "intermediate." And if you decide not to cross the plateau to get back to skill acuiqisition (usually because of life intervening), you find that the hunger to do the things sometimes dissipates - the fun of it is the learning and getting better. Sure the destination of playing the instrument or surfing a wave is fun - but it's so much more fun when it's NOT automatic, when there's drama in whether you'll get there. It's riding the highs and lows of that experience that makes it worth it.
And typically, to really improve, it helps to have people around you who can help critique and improve your technique, trade tips, ensure your equipment is in good shape. A naturally developed community. I love reading - I read books as often as I can - but they tend to be a bit anti-social (as are personal screens) unless you join a book club. But a sport, even individual sports like biking, or running, or surfing and backpacking - almost invariably require being a part of a community. (Team sports definitely get tougher the older I get and the more other commitments of life intervene).
The New Yorker had a recent article that you'll be interested to read. It's sort of about these issues but also sort of orthogonal, in a very useful way.
I really like your stuff. Wish you had more subscribers. I know you will give all the credit to the piece you are quoting from, but you have added to it significantly.
I appreciate that you had a more patient and measured reaction to that piece than I did. Even though I basically agreed with the substance of it - I think more interpersonal time and less time online would be pretty positive for society - there’s something about the rose-tinted nostalgic way it’s framed that just makes me a little nauseous. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the pre-smartphone era and mostly hated it, or maybe it’s just that whenever people grieve for a time they never knew, my first reaction is always, “so how the hell do you know it was better?” In any case, thanks for writing.
No group is perfect. But I like how the Amish treat technology by deciding if a technology will be acceptable and how much it will penetrate into their society. I may not agree with where they draw the line but I like that they DO draw a line.
"it touches on this idea of the process itself—slow, inefficient, fickle—being key to the things"
Just as an aside - I think this is the joy of something like playing an instrument or learning a new sport or skill of hand - that a book can only take you so far, and you have to train your mind and muscles to it. That you start off bad, and there's usually an initial bar that's difficult to clear, and then there's rapid improvement, and then you hit a plateau...and decide on whether you want to keep improving or are ok with just being "intermediate." And if you decide not to cross the plateau to get back to skill acuiqisition (usually because of life intervening), you find that the hunger to do the things sometimes dissipates - the fun of it is the learning and getting better. Sure the destination of playing the instrument or surfing a wave is fun - but it's so much more fun when it's NOT automatic, when there's drama in whether you'll get there. It's riding the highs and lows of that experience that makes it worth it.
And typically, to really improve, it helps to have people around you who can help critique and improve your technique, trade tips, ensure your equipment is in good shape. A naturally developed community. I love reading - I read books as often as I can - but they tend to be a bit anti-social (as are personal screens) unless you join a book club. But a sport, even individual sports like biking, or running, or surfing and backpacking - almost invariably require being a part of a community. (Team sports definitely get tougher the older I get and the more other commitments of life intervene).
The New Yorker had a recent article that you'll be interested to read. It's sort of about these issues but also sort of orthogonal, in a very useful way.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/06/the-battle-for-attention
Cool, thank you!
I really like your stuff. Wish you had more subscribers. I know you will give all the credit to the piece you are quoting from, but you have added to it significantly.
I appreciate that you had a more patient and measured reaction to that piece than I did. Even though I basically agreed with the substance of it - I think more interpersonal time and less time online would be pretty positive for society - there’s something about the rose-tinted nostalgic way it’s framed that just makes me a little nauseous. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the pre-smartphone era and mostly hated it, or maybe it’s just that whenever people grieve for a time they never knew, my first reaction is always, “so how the hell do you know it was better?” In any case, thanks for writing.
No group is perfect. But I like how the Amish treat technology by deciding if a technology will be acceptable and how much it will penetrate into their society. I may not agree with where they draw the line but I like that they DO draw a line.