Hide table of contents

(Also posted on LessWrong)

 

I just arrived at the CEEALAR. In this post I describe the project I will be working on while I'm here.

 

Background:

I was highly persuaded by the claims in Cal Newport’s book, Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World. Check out this summary on Goodreads. I really recommend reading the whole book--I personally found it more mind-changing and action-inspiring than anything I’ve read in a while. Here is a central passage (emphasis mine):

Assuming I’ve convinced you that digital minimalism is worthwhile, the next step is to discuss how best to adopt this lifestyle. In my experience, gradually changing your habits one at a time doesn’t work well—the engineered attraction of the attention economy, combined with the friction of convenience, will diminish your inertia until you backslide toward where you started.

I recommend instead a rapid transformation—something that occurs in a short period of time and is executed with enough conviction that the results are likely to stick. I call the particular rapid process I have in mind the digital declutter. It works as follows. 

  1. Put aside a thirty-day period during which you will take a break from optional technologies in your life.
  2. During this thirty-day break, explore and rediscover activities and behaviors that you find satisfying and meaningful.
  3. At the end of the break, reintroduce optional technologies into your life, starting from a blank slate. For each technology you reintroduce, determine what value it serves in your life and how specifically you will use it so as to maximize this value.

In the book, the benefits of a “digital declutter” are claimed or implied to include: lower anxiety, more social integration, working more efficiently, rediscovering the time and motivation to {play music/read novels/draw pictures/write fiction}, having a more rewarding relationship with your significant other or your kids, and improved decision-making.

I myself tried a digital declutter last year and got mixed results, in large part because the pandemic prevented me from socializing. I am now planning to run the experiment on myself and several other people here at CEEALAR, semi-rigorously.

 

Project summary:

I will get a handful of people at the EA Hotel who are motivated enough to participate in a digital declutter. I will manage their setup and facilitate self-enforcement. I will take some data and write up a report, which I will post on the EA forum.

 

Motivation:

I want to know if digital declutters are easily doable by EAs, and if they make a measurable impact on effectiveness and/or quality of life. If the answer is yes, I want to get the word out and have specific evidence to point to. I see some potential for high impact.

More personally, I really want to help my old friends from high school and college. A lot of them are struggling with life in weird ways that I would have confidently anti-predicted 10 or 15 years ago. I have multiple hypotheses about this, the top one being that modern device usage is harming their minds: reducing attention spans, interfering with action-reward patterns, creating addictions (such as outrage addiction & compulsive phone checking), displacing social interaction, and both directly and indirectly increasing anxiety. I think it’s not just my friends though; I hear that mental and behavioral health problems are rising in the general population, and especially rapidly in young people. I would be happy to find a way to make even a moderate dent in this.


 

Project outline:

  • I get about 5 people in the intervention group and 5 in the control group. Before any (intentional) intervention begins, all participants track their screen time, mood, and productivity for a week or so, in order to record their baseline.
  • I meet with each declutter participant privately to discuss their personal goals, expectations, and concerns. Each person submits a declutter plan and ruleset. I critique the plan and discourage any rules that are wastefully lax or hopelessly strict.
  • In crafting the plan, I help them put behavior-shaping systems in place. These may include browser extensions, time/location restrictions, device encumbrances, enticements for wholesome activities, etc.
  • I meet with participants a couple times a week to discuss how it’s going, collect soft data, and consider changes to their plans/rules. In the spirit of anti-akrasia, participants are encouraged not to modify their rules before talking it over at one of these check-ins.
  • To help take people’s minds off the painful “detox” phase of the declutter, I organize group activities in addition to the ones that already happen.
    • Group exercise, jigsaw puzzles*, group writing pomodoros, beach walks, board games, mini-hackathons, movie night, etc.
  • After 4-6 weeks, the program is over and I hold exit interviews to gather a final chunk of soft data.
  • I conduct followup interviews/surveys 3 weeks and 6 weeks after the end. I try to get some idea of which things changed, which things didn’t, by what mechanisms, and on what timescale.
  • I write up my analysis, evaluate for effectiveness, make some recommendations, and warn against pitfalls. Post on LW, EA forum and maybe elsewhere.


 

Example ruleset:

Since I am planning to do a digital declutter alongside the rest of the participants, here is the plan I have made for myself.

  • I will turn off all push notifications and badge icons. I will handle messages only during the hour after breakfast and the hour before dinner.
    • I previously found this to be surprisingly easy to get used to.
  • No Twitter, No Reddit, no Tumblr. (My Facebook usage is already well under control.)
  • I can read as many blog posts as I want, as long as I print them out at least 24h beforehand. (Printing out a bunch at once is cheating.)
  • No more than 2h of TV on any given day.
  • Phone can be carried in a bag, not in a pocket.
  • Bedroom is a device-free zone, except for making calls. No screens after sunset. (For reference, today’s sunset will be at 9:21pm.)
  • No idle phone usage. Every time I pull out my phone, I must have a good reason, and then must put it away once that reason is satisfied.
  • Long stretches of laptop usage are to be broken into pomodoros, regulated by a timer.
  • Listen to music as a full-attention activity, not in the background.
  • Keep a pen & notebook within arm's reach.


 

Existing literature:

I did some basic searches on google and google scholar. At present, the literature seems to be pretty thin and not highly informative for my purposes.

This literature review reports “inconsistent findings” due to available studies being highly heterogeneous. Notably, only 4 studies (out of 20) involved detox periods longer than 5 days, and the analysis did not control for this variable.

Also, it looks like a lot of the existing studies are done on undergraduates, and I don’t expect this to change any time soon. It seems possible to me that EAs who are doing self-directed EA work may show significantly different effects than undergraduates (or other groups), in a way that matters.


 

My anticipations:

I expect more of the signal to come from soft data in the interviews than from the survey responses.

I see more than a 10% chance that the declutter turns out to have direct, lasting, and clearly worthwhile effects on every participant. They all end up very satisfied with the results, even though there was a painful adjustment.

I especially anticipate participants emphasizing how important the full thirty-day period was. Things like "I thought that my previous two-day tech retreats were already getting me most of the benefit but I was wrong. I did not see what I was missing until day fourteen, and I don't think I could have made permanent habit changes before day twenty."

I put more than one-half probability on at least one fifth of participants (not including me) saying they feel “highly motivated” to help a friend do a digital declutter.
 

 

Recap:

  • I think the core claims in Digital Minimalism are probably basically correct.
    • There are big personal gains to be had by changing how one relates to one's devices.
    • Small, piecemeal interventions are not enough to get these gains.
    • A life overhaul of 30+ days (aka a "digital declutter") may be enough.
  • If the core claims are true, a declutter may measurably raise both the effectiveness and the quality of life of the EAs (or just people) that try it.
  • I'm going to help a handful of EAs execute a digital declutter.
  • I will semi-rigorously take notes and data. I will publish my analysis & conclusion.


    UPDATE: I have posted part 2, Preliminary Impressions.

 

*surprisingly effective in my experience


 

Comments7


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hey, I'm actually most interested in what kind of data you're planning to collect from the control group - what are your plans there?

I'm still writing the questionnaires, but I think I want to ask weekly for {hours & quality of sleep, subjective sense of productivity, subjective well-being, subjective stress & anxiety, resting heart rate, hours spent socializing}.

As for softer data, I'll also try to get a sense of whether/how much each participant rekindled an old hobby. That's a major promise of the digital declutter, so it will be informative to compare how much it happens in the control group.

I'm only going to ask for a weekly questionnaire and an entry/exit interview since I don't want to scare people off from joining the control group.

Cool! Looking forward for the results and your takeaways from it :) 

The declutter phase begins tomorrow. Including myself, I have 6 treatment subjects and 5 control subjects, which is better than I expected.

I admit to feeling nervous. Some large part of me is convinced that a life with no quick & easy screen distractions is a life with no breaks or rest. Apparently it's hard to fully imagine myself decompressing when only wholesome activities are available. Well, we'll find out. I'm also really not looking forward to going through the withdrawal, but I think it can be mitigated by getting lots of social interaction.


More anticipations:
At least one person will, without prompting, say that (rot13) gurve fhowrpgvir rkcrevrapr bs gvzr unf abgvprnoyl punatrq. Sbe rknzcyr, "vg srryf yvxr guvf zbagu jrag ol fb fybjyl. Vg srryf yvxr vg fgnegrq guerr zbaguf ntb."
I'll be a little surprised if more than 3 people drop out and quite surprised if more than 5 drop out.

I got the idea for this prediction from this Vsauce segment about "the TV paradox". The prediction turned out correct: one person said something very similar to the quoted text.

Isn't 2h TV per day a bit too much? Why not read some books.

I plan to do a lot of reading already. And I don't anticipate watching 2h of TV every day, this is just my upper limit. If I think I'm watching too much, I'll change the rule--maybe to 6h/wk or less, or only with another person, etc.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 1m read
 ·