The Seattle Times posts an article bemoaning cognitive overload in the information age. Mostly, it reveals that many people still haven't figured out how to work effectively within such contexts, and that they're applying industrial age practices and standards in ways that don't necessarily make sense. I mean, there's some truth to the matter--most of us do get more information than we want, and often struggle to cope with it.
Levy understands the ambitiousness of his plans to insert balance into the American imperative of productivity. The author of an evocative book, "Scrolling Forward," in which he examines how documents and information have morphed in the digital age, Levy meditates daily and, as a practicing Jew with a rabbi for a wife, honors the Sabbath, keeping unplugged one day a week. Yet he is also an "e-mail junkie" and will rush back to his inbox, thinking he might find great news or something that needs urgent attention — even though what often waits is SPAM.
So while the article spends a lot of time casting cognitive overload in unremittingly negative light, I agree with the notion of balance: We don't need to be connected 24/7. And I purposely spend time offline, backwoods camping (so I'm not tempted to bring my laptop or cellphone), meditating, or reading print. But the article fails to ask whether or not information overload is ever productive, or if different people cope with masses of information differently. I've watched and talked to enough people (as part of my research) to know that there are lots of people who thrive on information overload, at least some of the time. It's not a black and white issue, and portraying it that way prevents us from seeing richer possibilities.
[via Slashdot]
Posted by johndan at December 30, 2004 03:03 PM | TrackBack