The Mind Illuminated has a catchy spin on “ADD”. The author(s) thinks the real problem is “awareness deficit disorder”. Attention is overused. It is after all a faculty that we feel we can control to a large degree. But our mind (or the untrained mind, meditation-wise) only has so much power/strength. If attention gets over-used then awareness will fail. Because you need a balance of attention and awareness (the ultimate balance is a state of mindfulness).
You can train attention. Meditation helps. But a simpler start is to stop attending so much. Your problem might be overused attention; trying to “deal with” attention head-on (which we so often do—just fixate on the prima facie problem until it is solved) might just frustrate you.
Many years ago I felt like I was emotionally fried. I couldn’t deal with my narrating mind. I guess the real solution was to get a life. But that felt overwhelming. So I started taking walks every day. Eventually they became daily meditation walks (described in the book). Eventually I reached a point where I had so much awareness (due to not attending/fixating every waking second?) that I was more content with the world around me as it happened. I didn’t feel like I had to distract myself as much. It was a start.
It should be noted that The Mind Illuminated defines "attention" and "awareness" in specific ways. This is from the TMI subreddit:
> Attention is what is at the focus of your experience, while awareness Is a broader 'knowing' of your field of consciousness. For instance, while reading this, your attention is on the words on your screen, while you are also still aware peripherally of forms around you, sounds, smells, feelings, etc. Awareness is the ability to be conscious of all thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc that make up your experience. Attention is the ability to focus on one thing, and hold that one thing exclusively as the object of your focus. In other words, awareness might be compared to flood lights while attention might be more like a spotlight.
This is very much in line with Marion Milner's book A Life of One's Own and Les Fehmi's work on "open attention" that have been discussed on HN recently.
I don't think that solving distraction solves attention in an epistemological way because when you have attention you have then the problem of choice. You can't say, generally, if your attention is right or wrong.
Using your meditation example, if you are a zen buddhist attention has a different meaning that focusing on learning math.
(from the same book) The conflict that we sometimes feel between “I shouldn’t be spending my time on this” versus “but I’m gonna do it” can be caused by different subminds (of the mind) that disagree on what would make the organism (you) happy. All the subminds have that same goal but they might disagree on what.
Training attention and awareness through meditation eventually results in unification of mind where all the subminds unify and work together. No more angel/devil on your shoulders. Just your executive subminds with all the other subminds working efficiently together.
That’s the phenomenological answer to the problem.
> It’s not just that we choose our own distractions; it’s that the pleasure we get from being distracted is the pleasure of taking action and being free. There’s a glee that comes from making choices, a contentment that settles after we’ve asserted our autonomy
An interesting take, but I don't feel like I'm making a choice at all. In fact I'm often screaming at myself to stop scrolling and go to bed, but I don't. I never feel more powerless than when I am stuck in a distraction loop. I literally want to stop, but can't. There's no glee, no autonomy in that.
It is typical of addictions that they are ineffective at solving the problems that make us seek them — so IMO it wouldn't be surprising if an urge for autonomy leads to scrolling which doesn't actually satisfy that urge. Note that the article a couple of paragraphs later mentions gamblers and occasional “winning” that is in the long term losing.
But I think a solution, or at least an experiment to test the hypothesis, is suggested by your reaction ("When scrolling I feel powerless, no autonomy") which is itself a desire for more autonomy: what happens if we instead cultivate the opposite value, less autonomy/freedom and more service/subordination/allegiance (to the job or sleep routine or whatever)?
If the theory of the article is right, then a desire for autonomy leads to distraction which, being unsatisfying, only intensifies that desire. So cultivating the opposite (telling oneself "What I need right now is actually not autonomy, but fidelity to higher goals" or whatever) may curb the hunger for autonomy more effectively than our ineffective distraction does?
This is tangential but I watched an interesting video essay about slot machines recently[1], based on the book Addiction by Design by Natasha Dow Schüll, and one of the surprising things Schüll's research turned up in interviews with slot machine gamblers was that for some winning was jarring and not really satisfying. It took them out of the trance-like "machine state," and their goal was not to win but to linger in the machine state.
Eerily I recently spoke to someone who described an opioid addiction in almost the exact same way. He wanted to stop every single minute of every day, but spent every one of those minutes working towards more drugs. It was hard to listen to and imagine the experience of needing the thing you’ve come to hate more than anything. Eventually the “good feeling” it gave him felt faint and yet became psychologically unbearable at the same time.
I don’t know what most people’s experiences are like, but this came to mind as I read your comment. Clearly not the same things, just similar enough to jog my memory. Autonomy, desire, and control are often extremely dysfunctional or even antagonistic of each other in humans.
> Many of the teenage students I encountered seemed to be in a state of what I would call depressive hedonia. Depression is usually characterized as a state of anhedonia, but the condition I'm referring to is constituted not by an inability to get pleasure so much as it by an inability to do anything else except pursue pleasure. There is a sense that 'something is missing' - but no appreciation that this mysterious, missing enjoyment can only be accessed beyond the pleasure principle. In large part this is a consequence of students' ambiguous structural position, stranded between their old role as subjects of disciplinary institutions and their new status as consumers of services.
Perhaps the choice is to refrain from making a more painful choice, even if the pain is fleeting; do you often find yourself too exhausted to prepare for bed, so instead it is more comforting to numb yourself by scrolling in the endless present?
You can train attention. Meditation helps. But a simpler start is to stop attending so much. Your problem might be overused attention; trying to “deal with” attention head-on (which we so often do—just fixate on the prima facie problem until it is solved) might just frustrate you.
Many years ago I felt like I was emotionally fried. I couldn’t deal with my narrating mind. I guess the real solution was to get a life. But that felt overwhelming. So I started taking walks every day. Eventually they became daily meditation walks (described in the book). Eventually I reached a point where I had so much awareness (due to not attending/fixating every waking second?) that I was more content with the world around me as it happened. I didn’t feel like I had to distract myself as much. It was a start.