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


 

19

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

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
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr