I tend to be a fan of Cal Newport. Professor Newport teaches computer science at Georgetown University. Among others, he has written an important book, titled So Good They Can't Ignore You, that I think you should read.
Newport is a big proponent of what he calls "Digital Minimalism." A main component of this idea is the fact that humans are easily seduced by technology. We participate is various new technologies because they are neat or cool.
We seldom scrutinize whether, or not, these technologies are necessary. Meaning, we do not consider whether the new technologies contribute anything important to our lives.
Cal recommends we stay aware of this natural tendency so that we may keep from overloading our lives with banality. Here is a great article Newport wrote titled "On Digital Minimalism":
The Curmudgeonly Optimist
People
are sometimes confused about my personal relationship with digital
communication technologies.
On the one hand, I’m a computer scientist who studies and improves
these tools. As you might therefore expect, I’m incredibly
optimistic about the role of computing and networks in our future.
On
the other hand, as a writer I’m often pointing out my
dissatisfaction with certain developments of the Internet Era. I’m
critical, for example, of our culture’s increasingly Orwellian
allegiance to social media and am indifferent to my smartphone.
Recently,
I’ve been trying to clarify the underlying philosophy that informs
how I think about the role of these technologies in our personal
lives (their role in the world of work is a distinct issue that I've
already written quite a bit about). My thinking in this direction is
still early, but I decided it might be a useful exercise to share
some tentative thoughts, many of which seem to be orbiting a concept
that I’ve taken to calling digital minimalism.
The
Minimalism Movement
To
understand what I mean by digital minimalism it’s important to
first understand the existing community from which it takes its name.
The
modern minimalism movement is led by a loose collection of bloggers,
podcasters, and writers who advocate a simpler life in which you
focus on a small number of things that return the most meaning and
value — often at the expense of many activities and items we’re
told we’re supposed to crave.
Minimalists
tend to spend much less money and own many fewer things than their
peers. They also tend to be much more intentional and often quite
radical in shaping their lives around things that matter to them.
Here's
how my friends Joshua and Ryan (aka, The Minimalists) describe the
movement:
Minimalism
is a lifestyle that helps people question what things add value to
their lives. By clearing the clutter from life’s path, we can all
make room for the most important aspects of life: health,
relationships, passion, growth, and contribution.
These
ideas, of course, are not new. The minimalism movement can be
directly connected to similar ideals in many other periods, from the
voluntary simplicity trend of the 1970s to Thoreau. But what is new
is their embrace of tools like blogs that help them reach vast
audiences.
I first
encountered this movement through Leo Babuta’s Zen Habits blog
about a decade ago. This was the early days of Study Hacks and these
sources soon played a major role in transforming my writing and
speaking during this period. Most notably, they shifted my attention
away from the technical aspects of studying and toward the
philosophical aspects of creating a meaningful student experience
(the Zen Valedictorian, for example, owes an obvious debt to Zen
Habits).
It
occurred to me recently, when I was pondering my philosophy on
technology, that my thinking continues to be influenced by
minimalism. I am, I realized, perhaps usefully described as an
advocate for a new but urgently relevant branch of this philosophy —
a branch focused on the proper role of digital communication
technologies in our increasingly noisy lives.
Digital
Minimalism
Adapting
some of the above language from Joshua and Ryan, I loosely define
digital minimalism as follows:
Digital
minimalism is a philosophy that helps you question what digital
communication tools (and behaviors surrounding these tools) add the
most value to your life. It is motivated by the belief that
intentionally and aggressively clearing away low-value digital noise,
and optimizing your use of the tools that really matter, can
significantly improve your life.
To be a
digital minimalist, in other words, means you accept the idea that
new communication technologies have the potential to massively
improve your life, but also recognize that realizing this potential
is hard work.
Here's a
preliminary list of some core principles of digital minimalism...
Missing
out is not negative. Many digital maximalists, who spend their
days immersed in a dreary slog of apps and clicks, justify their
behavior by listing all of the potential benefits they would miss if
they began culling services from their life. I don’t buy this
argument. There’s an infinite selection of activities in the world
that might bring some value. If you insist on labeling every activity
avoided as value lost, then no matter how frantically you fill your
time, it’s unavoidable that the final tally of your daily
experience will be infinitely negative. It’s more sensical to
instead measure the value gained by the activities you do
embrace and then attempt to maximize this positive value.
Less
can be more. A natural consequence of the preceding principle is
that you should avoid wasting your limited time and attention on
low-value online activities, and instead focus on the much smaller
number of activities that return the most value for your life. This
is a basic 80/20 analysis: doing less, but focusing on higher
quality, can generate more total value.
Start
from first principles. Digital maximalists tend to accept any
online activity that conceivably offers some value. As most such
activities can offer you something (few people would write an app or
launch a web site with no obvious purpose) this filter is essentially
meaningless. A more productive approach is to start by identifying
the principles that you as a human find most important—the
foundation on which you hope to build a good life. Once identified,
you can use these principles as a more effective filter by asking the
following question of a given activity: will this add significant
value to something I find to be significantly important to my life?
The
best is different than the rest. Assume a given online activity
generates a positive response to the question from the preceding
principle. This is not enough. You should then follow up by asking:
is this activity “the best” way to add value to this area of
my life? For a given core principle, there may be many activities
that can offer some relevant value, but you should focus on finding
the small number of activities that offer the most such value. The
difference between the “best” and “good enough” in this
context can be significant. For example, someone recently told me
that she uses Twitter because she values being exposed to diverse
news sources (she cited, in particular, how major newspapers were
ignoring aspects of the Dakota pipeline protests). I don’t doubt
that Twitter can help support this important principle of being
informed, but is a Twitter feed really the best use of all the
Internet has to offer to achieve this goal?
Digital
clutter is stressful. The traditional minimalists correctly noted
that living among lots of physical clutter is stressful. The same is
true of your online life. Incessant clicking and scrolling generates
a background hum of anxiety. Drastically reducing the number of thing
you do in your digital life can by itself have a significant calming
impact. This value should not be underestimated.
Attention
is scarce and fragile. You have a finite amount of attention to
expend each day. If aimed carefully, your attention can bring you
great meaning and satisfaction. At the same time, however, hundreds
of billions of dollars have been invested into companies whose sole
purpose is to hijack as much of your attention as possible and push
it toward targets optimized to create value for a small number of
people in Northern California. This is scary and demands diligence on
your part. As I’ve written before, this is my main concern with
large attention economy conglomerates like Twitter and Facebook: it’s
not that they’re worthless, but instead it’s the fact that
they’re engineered to be as addictive as possible.
Many
of the best uses of the online world support better living offline.
We’re not evolved for digital life, which is why binges of online
activities often leave us in a confused state of strung out
exhaustion. This explains why many of the highest return online
activities are those that take advantage of the Internet to improve
important aspects of your offline life. Digital networks, for
example, can help you find or form a community that resonates with
you, but the real value often comes when you put down your phone and
go out and engage with this new community IRL.
Be
wary of tools that solve a problem that didn’t exist before the
tool. GPS helped solve a problem that existed for a long time
before it came along (how do I get where I want to go?), so did
Google (how do I find this piece of information I need?). Snapchat,
by contrast, did not. Be wary of tools in this latter category as
they tend to exist mainly to create addictive new behaviors that
support ad sales.
Activity
trumps passivity. Humans, deep down, are craftsmen. We find great
satisfaction in creating something valuable that didn’t exist
before. Some of the most fulfilling online activities, therefore, are
those that involve you creating things, as oppose to simply
consuming. I’m yet to meet someone who feels exhilarated after an
evening of trawling clickbait, yet I know many who do feel that way
after committing a key module to an open source repository.
The
above list, and much of the thinking behind it, is still tentative. I
should also emphasize again that it applies almost exclusively to the
role of digital technology in your personal life, and is
largely distinct from my thinking about how to integrate technologies
productively in the professional sphere.
But
there’s something coherent lurking in the background here that I
will continue to work through.
Digital
minimalism, for example, has helped me better understand some of the
decisions I’ve made in my own online life (such as my embrace of
blogging and rejection of major social media platforms), while at the
same time challenging me with areas where I could be leveraging new
technologies to even better support some of my core principles. In
other words, like any productive philosophy, it gives me both clarity
and homework.
The bottom line of this general thinking is that a simple, carefully curated, minimalist digital life is not a rejection of technology or a reactionary act of skepticism; it is, by contrast, an embrace of the immense value these new tools can offer…if we’re willing to do the hard work of figuring out how to best leverage them on behalf of the things we truly care about.
The bottom line of this general thinking is that a simple, carefully curated, minimalist digital life is not a rejection of technology or a reactionary act of skepticism; it is, by contrast, an embrace of the immense value these new tools can offer…if we’re willing to do the hard work of figuring out how to best leverage them on behalf of the things we truly care about.