I have had a smart phone for a year in August. I've had the internet on my computer at home for around the same time. The worst features are that one is never off the job.

"I can't believe that the adoption of these habits isn't going to have the effect of making people in general less able and/or willing to think deeply and to reflect."

Nicholas Carr wrote a book about this:

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/06/the-internet-makes-us-stupid/

And Tony Esolen, among others, has lamented the decline of contemplation as a normal human activity.

My mental health suffered just from reading that, Maclin! I feel really stressed when I'm conversing by text with someone who's really fast on it and I'm in a slightly pressured situation. I actually don't like using my mobile for anything but really brief and important messages.

My opinion is that people are better off (I know I am) if we can just concentrate basically on one thing at a time. I do know that people are different and respond differently to various things.

Be careful you don't become addicted to your iPhones!

I just finished reading Damian Thompson's The Fix: How addiction is invading our lives and taking over your world, in which he posits that many iPhone users display basic signs of addiction, which he says is the result of deliberate efforts on the part of Apple:

It's significant that a quarter of respondents in [a 2010 Stanford University survey of 200 students] said they found iPhones "dangerously alluring". They are supposed to be. Absolutely nothing is left to chance in the design of these devices. If Apple customers have an embarrassing tendency to anthropomorphise their gadgets, that is because Apple has explored the possibilities of the human mind and body more thoroughly than any of its competitors.

For example, one of the most appealing features of the MacBook laptop line has been the status light, which pulsates gently when the computer is sleeping. Early reviewers cooed over the calming effect of the light, but couldn't put their finger on why it felt so good to watch. Later, it was revealed that Apple had filed for a patent for a sleep-mode indicator that "mimics the rhythm of breathing" and was therefore "psychologically appealing".

And I'm sure Thompson is right that it's all very calculated. Apple is creepy. I'm not sure how much cool rebel appeal they still have but it was always misplaced.

The addiction thing is one aspect of the devices -- the other one I have problems with is the dependency. Use something enough, esp. something that can answer "all" your questions and do so much for you, and you will become dependent on it, possibly to the point where you feel that you can't do without it. I see this with some of my friends and GPS. Don't worry about directions, maps, etc., because they have GPS. Eventually you forget how to navigate without it, then if there's an error or a glitch, you're screwed. As I've gotten older I've become more conscious of technology's sway, and I find myself avoiding things that are unnecessary and that create dependence.

I think that the iPhone, Smartphone, etc., have the potential to change the culture as much as the automobile did 100 years ago. And not necessarily for the better, if what Carr, et al, are saying is true.

One might easily say about computers and "devices" what B.T.'s character (an auto manufacturer) says here about cars:

‘ ” I’m not sure he’s wrong about automobiles,” he said. “With all their speed forward they may be a step backward in civilization — that is, in spiritual civilization. It may be that they will not add to the beauty of the world, nor to the life of men’s souls. I am not sure. But automobiles have come, and they bring a greater change in our life than most of us suspect. They are here, and almost all outward things are going to be different because of what they bring. They are going to alter war, and they are going to alter peace. I think men’s minds are going to be changed in subtle ways because of automobiles; just how, though, I could hardly guess. But you can’t have the immense outward changes that they will cause without some inward ones, and it may be that George is right, and that the spiritual alteration will be bad for us. Perhaps, ten or twenty years from now, if we can see the inward change in men by that time, I shouldn’t be able to defend the gasoline engine, but would have to agree with him that automobiles ‘had no business to be invented.’ ” ‘

from “The Magnificent Ambersons” (1918) by Booth Tarkington.

Yesterday I spent an hour and a half by the side of the highway waiting for a tow truck. I used the time to read a book, plan my grocery list, and brainstorm some ideas for my daughter´s wedding. I am certain that if I had a cell phone, I would have played tetris for 90 minutes.

Smartphones, like the internet generally and TV before that, are undeniably useful in some cases, but in practice, most of the time they´re used for trivialities.

I have nothing to add to Anne-Marie's comment except my agreement.

Re that Tarkington quote, Rob, I think you or someone has posted it before. It's certainly a plausible argument. But when I think about whether we should or shouldn't have invented some technology, I end up coming down on the side of letting it happen, drawing the line only at the plainly wrong, like growing human embryos in order to harvest their cells. Not that there's any consenus about any of that. I can't imagine any body of men whom I would trust to make wise decisions on these things. It requires a more-than-human vision.

I think the change we're talking about with pocket-size internet-connected computers (a more accurate description than "smart phone") is only one aspect of the change wrought by the World Wide Web. Since the late 1990s or so it has made a difference comparable to the introduction of radio or television.

My father used to say, back in the late 1970s or early 1980s when federal agencies like OSHA were under a lot of criticism for unreasonable requirements, that if OSHA had been around for the invention of the automobile the latter would never have succeeded. Certainly if they could have correctly projected the number of traffic deaths (ca 40,000 a year until fairly recently, now running more like 35,000), it would have been considered unacceptable.

"Wait a minute" actually does get a lot of purchase now where there are environmental concerns. But not much with, say, surrogate motherhood. But there's a large noisy contingent that will slam you as "anti-science" if you try to stop something favored by liberals.

Texting while driving is illegal in a lot of places in the U.S. I've never had a GPS. I think it would take some getting used to.

Btw, Louise, would you post the link to your blog? I didn't bookmark it and was just using the browser's memory of it to find it, but that's been cleared and now I can't find it.