by | Liz Alexander, PhD
Futurist, Author, Consultant, Speaker
Here’s a radical thought, and arguably an unusual one, given that I’ve enjoyed a rewarding communications career – as a broadcaster, journalist, speaker, and author – spanning almost forty years. Could human health and happiness benefit more from a future that involves less communication?
In most of the articles I’ve written for this magazine – along with others, including Fast Company, that similarly covers innovative ideas – I tend to challenge the hype and propaganda surrounding new technologies. That’s because I believe it’s unwise to ignore or minimise the physical, psychological, emotional – indeed societal – challenges that invariably come along with them. Being aware of such unintended negative consequences can alert developers, public policy makers, and government officials to look for ways to anticipate and mitigate problems before they become baked in.
Because, as with most things, prevention – in the form of precautionary regulations and restrictions – is often better than cure.
“Breaking” news
During my early years as a child in the UK, television news was scheduled only twice a day, at 6 pm and 10 pm. It was regarded as a special family occasion, with the set switched on just before those broadcasts, and switched off right after.
Then Cable News Network (CNN) burst onto US television screens in 1980, created by “maverick” broadcasting executive, Ted Turner. And so was launched the “bizarre phenomena” of 24-hour news. This change in television news consumption came about not because the public demanded more news, but because Turner recognised that increased viewership correlated with higher advertising revenues. Yet, even in our current complex globalised world, there aren’t sufficient journalism-worthy news events to fill 24-hours’ worth of screen time. Hence the rise of opinionising pundits and the concept of “breaking news.”
In the intervening forty-odd years, what has that led to? According to the American Psychological Association:
“Psychologists are seeing an increase in news-related stress” caused by media overload, including social media which, of course, is not confined to national borders. The article cites a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in December 2021, which found that:
“In the spring of 2020, the more frequently people sought information about COVID-19 across various mediums – television, newspapers, and social media – the more likely they were to report emotional distress,” including anxiety, the feeling of being overwhelmed, and fear of the future.
Augmentation, anyone?
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that such psychological and emotional reactions to health concerns are unlikely to lessen with the increased interest in “smart wearables.” I’m referring specifically to devices including trackers for general fitness*, that monitor blood pressure and heart rate, as well as tools for stress management or that highlight sleep patterns. They are, according to many upbeat articles, including this one, “at the forefront of a wellbeing revolution,” with the promise of so much more to come. Indeed, such wearables will “transform the nature of communication and the future.”
(* According to Statista, user penetration in Malaysia for fitness trackers alone is expected to reach 15.31% by 2029, from the current 11.27%.)
But in which direction will this transformation take us, even as smart wearables have moved beyond the early adopter phase?
Health Matters
Anecdotal reports on Reddit, in response to a question from someone who admitted to feeling “this weird anxiety” from checking his steps and heart rate all the time, paint a less than healthy picture. One respondent stopped wearing a device designed to measure the quality of their sleep, because of the stress of knowing that their sleep, “or lack of it”, was being measured.
Others claimed to have dispensed with their trackers because of “inaccuracy” and the importance of not becoming too obsessed over data points taken out of context. At least one person said that good old-fashioned “intuition” was their preferred tool for communicating with their body, writing that it is “… quite good at providing feedback if you can look up from your watch long enough to recognise it.”
But what does the empirical evidence suggest?
In late December 2023, the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing published a review of 65 articles from scholarly, peer-reviewed journals focused on health, technology, society, psychology and human behaviour. Researchers wanted to look at the “dark side” of “self-service technologies,” defined as “technological interfaces that enable customers to produce a service independent of direct service employee involvement.” In other words, the ability to track health and lifestyle data without having to go to a doctor, fitness trainer, or a specialist consultant.
The study mentioned above found considerable evidence of the detrimental effects reported by users of these kinds of “always on” personal communication devices. These ranged from negative emotions like shame, guilt, and frustration, to more serious health issues like depression, disordered eating behaviours, body dysmorphia, and despair.
In many cases, consumers experienced an unhealthy obsession with tracking both their physical activities and bodily functions, becoming dissatisfied, unhappy and socially isolated when they didn’t meet their (presumably) algorithm-set goals.
The report is too long and detailed to go into any length here. But it’s worth scrolling to the later section entitled, “Practical Implications for Marketers and Public Policy Makers,” which offers some useful ideas.
Indeed, mitigation is even more important when it comes to public safety.
Blind about Inattention
Remember Google Glass? The innovation that Google reportedly spent US$400 million on developing until they ditched the idea back in 2015? The concept has been resurrected, this time aimed specifically at cyclists. A wearable computer in the form of sunglasses touted not just as a “cool gadget,” but a means of enhancing road safety.
According to one presenter at TedX Vancouver, if your phone goes off while you’re out on your bike, or you’re sent a text message, or want to check a map, by wearing these computerised eyeglasses all you have to do is glance down to power on the screen – at which point the required information pops up – then look back up to power down.
He erroneously likens this to checking your speedometer. But glancing for a second or two to ensure you are not exceeding the speed limit is not synonymous with diverting your attention to do the more cognitively demanding things mentioned above. What needs to be factored in is the phenomenon known as “inattention blindness.” Even if the road in front of the cyclist’s eyes is not obscured, although surely it must be when reading dense text or reviewing a complex illustration like a map, the problem lies not with our eyes – or our hands – but what happens in the brain. In short, we are limited in our capacity to give full attention to two mentally demanding things at once. And divided attention is not what anyone wants to experience on our roads.
Spot the Gorilla?
You may already be familiar with the classic experiment devised by cognitive psychologists in 1999 known as “the invisible gorilla.” The original idea was to further understand the limits of human attention and perception. While watching a video of people throwing a basketball to each other, participants were tasked with counting the number of passes by one of the groups. When the video was over, each was asked if they had spotted anything unusual because someone dressed in a gorilla suit had strolled into the picture, turned directly to the camera, thumped their chest, and slowly walked off. Yet half of the people watching that video never saw the gorilla; they were too distracted by their other task.
Since then, more researchers have sought to refine the findings, in order to better understand just how inattentional blindness works in the real world. What they have discovered is that we’re more likely to become aware of a fast-moving object while otherwise distracted, than those moving more slowly. That may work for speeding cars in the vicinity of cyclists wearing smart glasses, but for elderly people, children or small animals? Chances are those distracted cyclists will not be aware of them until it’s too late.
Road safety has improved considerably internationally thanks to legislation that bans people from using their cell phones while driving. I wonder how long it will take for similar legislation to restrict the use of eyeglass computers when wearers are running on roads or operating their bikes?
No Panacea
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not against such wearable devices as a general rule. If a theme park operator offers visitors a gadget designed to simplify and enhance their overall experience, as Disney does with its MagicBand, all well and good.
Yet we do need to guard against communicating attributes to such devices that they do not have. For example, I recently read a news article about the cramping and panicked Australian swimmer who alerted the emergency services to rescue him from rough seas off Byron Bay by calling them on his Apple Watch. How was the story communicated? As “a device… that would prove to be his saviour,” presumably based on this quote from the man himself, “it’s amazing that I was able to use that technology to save my life.” That’s quite an exaggeration, given that it was human beings (not mentioned!) that winched him to safety with a rescue helicopter. It’s perhaps a pity he didn’t use that good old-fashioned internal warning system known as “intuition” not to go swimming in dangerous waters in the first place!
As far as the future of communication is concerned, there are two aspects I feel we need to take into consideration now. The first is the existing evidence showing how “always on” communication sources – from news, to fitness trackers, to pinging eyeglasses that distract from what is happening while driving on a road – aren’t necessarily good for our health, safety, or overall wellbeing. And the second is perhaps to invest more of our time and trust in communicating with common-sense human beings. The kind who might suggest it’s not a good idea to try and answer calls, text, or check a map while cycling – even if wearing smart glasses is promoted as a “cool” idea.
