WIRED FOR DISTRACTION

1383

An essay by Tony Schwartz in the New York Times, “Addicted to Distraction,” has created a lot of buzz, including being the most emailed piece from the newspaper in the days after it appeared. The buzz is deserved: Schwartz describes a phenomenon that plagues many people—the seemingly irresistible draw of the internet for “the brain’s craving for novelty, constant stimulation, and immediate gratification”—and he compellingly describes his own efforts to overcome it.
As a neuroscientist who has worked with organizations and their leaders for three decades, I would like to expand a little on Schwartz’s observations and suggest a larger phenomenon that might be even more important. Schwartz attributes our distractibility to a specific “addiction” to various forms of instantly-available information, and writes, “Like lab rats and drug addicts, we need more and more to get the same effect.”
It is valuable to recognize that our brains are wired for distraction, not for paying attention, and so distraction is just our brains having their way with us, as they always do if we don’t consciously manage them. In many ways, not only related to distraction, our brains’ hardwired tendencies move us away from our hopes and expectations for ourselves, not closer to those hopes and expectations. We are hardwired to be at less than our best most of the time, as our best intentions are hijacked all day long by our brains.
Regarding distraction, our brains have two independent systems related to attention: one for paying attention, and another one for being distracted. The paying-attention system is what scientists call “top-down”: you manage it with your conscious mind, but the being-distracted system is “bottom-up”: it happens automatically. The top-down paying-attention system has to be deployed by you; the bottom-up getting-distracted system has a life of its own. As one neuroscientist has put it, “The mind is always trying to wander, every chance it gets.”
Schwartz quotes Nicholas Carr: ““The net is designed to be an interruption system, a machine geared to dividing attention.” No, the net is what it is. We, and our enthusiastic brains, find interruptions and diversions appealing, and the net simply services that. Research shows that we’re just as distracted walking down the street as we are in front of a computer. It’s how we’re built.
It’s easy to imagine why our brains might be wired in this way. Flitting attention might have kept our distant ancestors safe from sudden attacks from predators, or more attuned to opportunities for hunting or foraging. It also could be that often the things we switch our attention to are just as important or valuable as the things we divert our attention from. Whatever the evolutionary or practical reason, our brains are as they are, and they want what they want.
There are scores of other kinds of brain wiring that are detrimental to our biggest dreams. They might not be as apparent or infuriating as the urge to distraction, but they’re unhelpful individually, and cumulatively their effects can be very severe. For example, there’s the inclination to view situations, other people, and even ourselves negatively—“negativity bias,” as neuroscientists call it. How costly can it be to have instant negative reactions (which often are not even apparent to the conscious brain) that hold us back from constructive engagement, or that cause us to dwell on our current and past shortcomings instead of our strengths or our future potential?
There’s the brain’s incessant observation of ourselves in relationship to others, the comparing and calibrating that can leave us satisfied with less than our best if it’s as good as others are doing, or that leads us to seek to fit in rather than being our own unique selves. When neuroscientists isolated the parts of the brain that enforce conformity to social expectations, the lead researcher said, “We have shown the mechanisms of what is probably the most fundamental social mistake—that of being too different from others.”
Other brain wiring has other potential negative consequences. It can make us too fearful of change; too committed to less-than-fully-effective reactions and habits; too quick to judge others; too ready to give up before we have given our best; too inclined to drift, on autopilot, through too much of each day.
In short, our brains often make choices for us that are different from what we actually want for ourselves at our best. Tony Schwartz put in a lot of effort to change that regarding distraction, and we’re potentially better off from his example. We also know, of course, that pieces like Schwartz’s may also get emailed and tweeted not as a serious incentive to change, but because they confirm and even subliminally reinforce the idea that this is just how life is—ain’t it awful, but maybe inevitable and even kind of amusing, too, in a misery-loves-company way?
Schwartz, after all, had resources that most people don’t have: among other things, a background in behavior change; no boss demanding instant responses; and a month-long vacation to wean himself from distraction. Bravo for him, many might say, while not feeling that they have the same skills, freedom, and flexibility—or even willpower—that he has.
The “addiction,” as he notes, will never be fully conquered. The constant vigilance that he describes is essential: he writes, “As often as possible, I try to ask myself, ‘Is this really what I want to be doing?’ If the answer is no, the next question is, ‘What could I be doing that would feel more productive, or satisfying, or relaxing?’ ” Unlike distraction, many of the brain’s traps that I mentioned above, such as negativity, comparing, drifting, and unwarranted fear, are so natural and comfortable to us that we may not even recognize that they are occurring or are interfering with the attainment of our goals, unless we learn about them and attune ourselves to noticing them. Once we start noticing them, they can be addressed by asking questions like the ones that Schwartz asks himself when he starts to become distracted: Where is my brain taking me right now? Is that really where I want to? What would be a better choice?
Schwartz also applied systems to the distraction issue. He writes of setting priorities at night and then working on them the next morning in 60-to-90-minute interruption-free periods. A great idea that changes lives when it’s implemented with commitment. Other systems can be created to be sure that the other obstacles our brains create are also challenged, not just in the moment but systematically.
By hard-wired nature, our brains are primed to do what they’re built to do. Recognizing the many ways in which they are structured to thwart our higher hopes for ourselves is a critical step for changing things. As I have written in previous posts, new studies suggest that we can add vital new brain cells through effortful successful learning—even in very brief bursts of focus—and, via self-directed or intentional neuroplasticity, we can change or guide some of our wiring into more optimal performance states for work and life.
But as a starting point, I think, we will be best served by a greatly heightened awareness of the traps our brains set for us, along with knowing practical, straightforward workarounds to sidestep those traps. The workarounds can even grow into new and more effective habits if they’re consistently applied. The more that we learn to manage our brains instead of letting them manage us, the greater our potential accomplishments and satisfactions will be.