B.F. Skinner has done a lot of research in reinforcement and one of his findings is that intermittent rewards beat predictable rewards - both for animals and humans. It's the basic principle of why slot machines are addictive and why we get addicted on getting the next "email fix". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement
Aside from the old-school methods for developing willpower and prudence, I suppose we could try some pharma paths to altering behavior and the reward pathways.
What about something like a low dose of Ritalin (low enough to just encourage focus, not force it) and then a time released reward circuit promoter to positively reinforce the focused behavior pattern that the Ritalin helped bring about. Tie the focused behavior to some sensory stimulus (Pavlov's Buddhist attention bell) by association. Then, over time, make the positive reinforcement a bit random and intermittent to exploit that same hook you mention and back down the Ritalin dose to zero as the behavior pattern takes good root. (In retrospect, maybe I learned the wrong lessons from Brave New World. :-)
I think there is a simpler solution than using drugs.
Like noted above Skinner found out that random rewards are much more addictive than predictable rewards. So to make something less addictive you need to make rewards more predictable.
So the tip about checking email (or whatever) a few times each day or in specified intervals is generally good as this will make rewards more predictable and less addictive.
"What about something like a low dose of Ritalin (low enough to just encourage focus, not force it) "
One, finding the right dosage is a trick all by itself; two, Ritalin does not force focus. It ups the level of dopamine available to the brain. An improved ability to focus may be one of the results, but (sadly) it's not so predictable.
Ritalin was just a stand-in that had the right connotations for the discussion. Something that plays the role of enabling/encouraging focus. The real point was surrounding that state of focus with a turned-up reward system, and then using the random rewards to get the person hooked on getting and staying in the desired focus state.
OK, I see. Yeah, the idea of "psychic training wheels" would be good, help get people first doing, then coupling the reward to that action, such that over time one acquires an innate desire to do that action again.
Sometimes that's how things work for me. If I can just get myself over the aversion hump I'm often then able to get on a roll and keep going. By then there's a workable feedback loop of effort and results.
Any discussion on this topic really should include Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (1985), in which he argues Huxley's "Brave New World", rather than Orwell's "1984", more accurately portrays the future dystopia against which we must be on guard.
Good point, Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is really a good reference about our "entertaining society" and especially his concept "Information-Action" ratio. As our society is evolving into fast/ephemeral information and often really distanced from our reality. The effect of this irrelevant information which is limiting our real actions.
Another good reading on this topic is the work of Guy Debord especially "The Society of the Spectacle" where is explaining the degradation of social life due to the spectacular media.
Disable email notifications and check your email on a defined schedule. It is one of the quickest ways to improve your productivity. (I do it when I wake up in the morning and when I go to sleep -- this tends to minimize wait times for customers in America.)
Shining a light in your eyes (the basis of many a type of screen) isn't, though. It can muck with your circadian rhythm (that is the basis of bright light therapy). There are some timer programs that automate turning down screen brightness in the evening..
The worrying thing is this isn't the first time I've though about the irony of getting distracted from what I'm doing by reading an article on distraction.
According to a 2007 study by Loughborough University academic, Thomas Jackson, most of us reply to e-mails immediately - many within six seconds. Then it takes at least a minute to recover our thoughts. Not long after, more e-mails arrive, with more checking, and so on.
While reading the article I caught myself not remembering for a while what it is that I am currently working on :)
This problem strongly influences people who try to start a business. Unfortunately many of them tend to be distracted heavily due to the fact that building a new business is a tough task and they irrationally avoid it.
The more hard (or mind intensive) work you have to complete the more willpower you have to use to not to be distracted.
All I have left is this this sucky golden ratio doohickey, something Euler sent over, and a stack of these things from Feigenbaum. Hard to make a pie with any of that.
Kathy Sierra has written on how this theory applies to Twitter, which is worth a read: http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0...
Solving this issue is probably hard since it's followed by humans and animals... So it must be programmed deep into us.