You shouldn’t rely on technology to help you focus, here’s why

There are many tech tools that purports to cure us of our tech addiction, but this writer believes that it’s something we need to learn for ourselves.

You shouldn’t rely on technology to help you focus, here’s why
[Image and video: restart/iStock; Beachfront/Videvo]

Every year for the last 15 years or so, one item on my list of New Year’s resolutions remains unchanged: “Spend less time on screens.”


It’s embarrassing but it’s true that I’ve never managed to cross this item off, and I bet it’s true for the large majority of the population. And while it’s easy to feel ashamed about it, we have to remember that we’re fighting an uphill battle here.

While we desperately want to take control of our tech habits, tech companies big and small are fighting over who gets more of our finite time and attention. And unlike us, they have highly effective systems in place to achieve their goal.

Distraction by design

This is what Tristan Harris, the founder of the nonprofit Time Well Spent, wants us to understand: Technology companies consciously and unconsciously exploit our minds’ weaknesses in order to get us to spend more time using their products. They achieve this “mind control” through various design decisions: controlling the menu of options we can choose from, providing immediate rewards, among many others.

A document leaked from Facebook last year revealed one of the creepiest examples of these tactics: The company actually had the tools to identify and target teenagers who feel insecure or “worthless.” Worse, this was not the first time the company was blamed for attempting to alter users’ emotions without their consent.

But you don’t have to go that far to find an example of subtle, yet highly effective manipulation. Facebook’s notification icon, which lets the user know of any “likes,” friend requests, and any other activity, was originally meant to be blue but no one used it. The company quickly changed it to red, a known trigger color, and immediately saw a spike in engagement. As users of many apps themselves admit, the need to make the red notification badge go away feels compulsory even if they know they’re not interested in the content.


So what do we do about it?

Do we admit that we’re powerless in the face of technology, go live in the woods, and decide to communicate exclusively by pigeon post? Harris, who has been called the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience, thinks that it doesn’t have to be this way. According to him, technology also has the power to save us from…itself?

Just as companies have designed their apps around grabbing as much human attention as possible, he says they can refocus instead on truly serving the user’s needs and helping us spend our time well.

Harris compares the imagined future of ethical tech with the booming market for organic food. Like organic food, there could be a separate category of attention-conscious apps that users might be asked to pay a premium for. Harris is convinced that if there is enough user demand for ethical technology, companies will respond. With time, he’s hoping to develop a Time Well Spent certification that is given to tech companies that design their products ethically.

Is it really that simple?

On the one hand, I Tristan Harris and his movement inspiring, and I’m convinced that this progress is long overdue. We’re living in a pivotal time as far as our relationship with technology is concerned. People and tech companies are finally starting to figure out how to use technology responsibly. Or at least recognize we have a problem.

Both Google and Apple recently announced new features to help users curb their phone and app addictions. At the Google I/O 18 keynote, the company announced that the upcoming Android P will get a number of features that tackle phone addiction, such as an improved “Do Not Disturb” mode that can now be activated when you put your phone face down, and a “wind down” feature that will automatically start the Do Not Disturb mode at bedtime in addition to putting your screen’s flashy colors into a less stimulating grayscale.


In addition, a dashboard will now show users how much and how often they use each app and even set their own time limits. YouTube will even remind you to take a break.

In a similar move, Apple just unveiled an improved Do No Disturb mode as well as a new Screentime app that will provide users with detailed reports about their app usage and allow them to set time limits. Even Facebook is reportedly embracing the concept of time well spent even as it’s still trying to figure out what it means.

Yet I can’t help but feel like one of those pessimistic environmental activists that says that it’s too late to do anything about the pollution causing climate change.

First of all, who decides what counts as time “well spent”? Harris himself admits that the concept is highly malleable, and I personally worry that this potentially great idea is in danger of becoming just another meaningless marketing gimmick.

Facebook, for instance, has announced it’s commitment to making sure that the “time spent on Facebook is time well spent,” but I’m sure a lot of us will agree that time well spent is actually time spent off Facebook entirely. Is the company committed enough to users’ well-being to create a reward system for time spent away from the site? With all of the economic forces at work to keep eyeballs on ads, I doubt it.


Just because we know something is bad for us, doesn’t mean we stop consuming it. Harris draws a parallel with rising consumer demand for organic food, but a more apt comparison would actually be between “non-ethical” apps and junk food. Like tech companies, the sugar industry has done a lot of questionable things – pouring millions of dollars into misinformation campaigns, for example – to get people to consume and become addicted to their products.

It’s now common knowledge that sugar is bad for your health, but knowing that fact doesn’t prevent us from eating it, often in large quantities. Is the decision to reach for that last cookie in the pack a conscious choice or a reflex from our addicted brain? Similarly, we know that distractions from technology harm our health and well-being, but that doesn’t keep us from reaching for our phones to check our Facebook updates.

At least with junk food, it’s easier to limit our access to it if we’re truly committed. I know that for myself, if I don’t want to binge on candy, I just have to not bring it into the house. Keeping it in the cupboard for a special occasion will be a futile exercise of self-control. But with apps a click away at all times, the same strategy won’t work. Is it really possible to create a kind of world where ethical tech tools exist alongside the “regular” ones and for us to be able to choose how we split our time between the two? And who will prevent me from simply ignoring the time limits I set for myself with Google’s and Apple’s freshly minted “mindful” tools?

What stops us from simply ignoring the time limits we’ve set for ourselves?

Furthermore, when it comes to defining what’s healthy and good, food is much more straightforward than tech. Sure, people argue about primal vs. vegan vs. gluten-free diets. But the major things are clear. Vegetables –definitely good. Pesticides –bad. Processed food and sugar – bad. Even without the organic certification you can look at the list of ingredients and decide for yourself whether you want to get that pack of cookies that have high-fructose corn syrup as the second ingredient or just leave it on the shelf.

But where is the list of ingredients on an app? I roughly know what vitamin A or potassium bromate does to my body (or if I don’t I can Google it), but how do I know what a new feature in an app is going to do to my brain?


Finally, I think that we’re still just at the beginning stages of the debate on what constitutes ethical exploitation of our attention. The fact is that the goal of any kind of media is to capture human attention. Think about visual art. Visual artists know just the right principles of composition and color contrast for engaging the viewer’s interest as long as possible and maximizing the pleasurable effect. In essence, they use many of the same techniques used by apps and websites, but I doubt that anyone would blame artists for exploiting the vulnerabilities of human psychology.

Where does that leave us?

The fact remains that my tradition of writing “less screen time” on my list of New Year’s resolutions started long before smartphones appeared. Even then, I felt that the sheer amount of content available at my fingertips was eating into my attention. And yes, the problem got a lot worse with the advance of smartphones and the ever-increasing amount of content available, but it remains the same problem.

So while I’m encouraged that tech companies like Google and Apple seem to be undertaking a more ethical approach to user experience, we can’t rely solely on technology to undistract us and bring us back to ourselves. We have to be doing our own work to take back control over our attention.

I’ll keep writing those New Year’s resolutions, but for better or worse, I’m convinced that our fight to control our attention and determine what constitutes “time well spent” isn’t something that tech companies will be able to fix for us with a few nifty new features. It’s something we as individuals and consumers need to define for ourselves.

A version of this article was originally published on Doist and is adapted with permission.