I recently stumbled across a fascinating 2024 essay written by a Norwegian psychology professor. In this essay he talks about how he was asked to teach a course about intelligence and he was excited about this because he used to teach that class a lot but hadn't recently. So he thought what he would do is he would open this class the way he always had before by talking about the so-called Flynn Effect which is this observation originally made by James Flynn that IQs worldwide have been rising since roughly the post-World War II period.

So here's what the professor wrote in his essay, "The Flynn Effect has been rising steadily for so long that I thought I'd bring an updated graph, I'd update a graph to 2024 numbers because it's always fun to tell students that their generation is the smartest people who would ever live.

But then he added those new numbers to his old chart of rising IQs and was floored by what he discovered. IQs weren't going up anymore. And not only had IQ increases slowed down, in recent years IQ scores had begun to decrease. His students were not the smartest generation to have ever lived, they were getting dumber.

Today I want to talk about this so-called reverse Flynn Effect. There's some convincing arguments for why this is happening and I want to talk about these, but my main purpose is to then introduce an additional factor that I think is getting overlooked. But once we recognize this additional factor, it will give you some compelling opportunities for getting ahead in an increasingly stupid world.

I'm Cal Newport, and this is Deep Questions. Today's episode, why are we getting dumber, and what you should do about it? All right, let's start by trying to verify this idea that IQ scores are actually now going down. There have been multiple different studies that have gathered information on IQ in multiple different ways that seem to be showing something similar.

They all show somewhere in the roughly 2010s, usually somewhere between 2006 and 2012, we begin to see the measured IQs take a turn and begin decreasing. So I want to load up on the screen here for those who are watching instead of just listening. One of the better studies I could find, this is a chart I'm putting on the screen here, that came out of a 2023 paper.

It was published by a team from Northwestern in the journal Intelligence. The chart on the screen, this is kind of the key chart in the paper, the details are a little bit complicated, but the trend is very clear. So what you see for the listeners, what you would see if you're looking at this chart is a bunch of different colored lines that are angling downwards.

Now, if you look at the bottom x-axis, you're going to see years starting from 2006 going up to 2008 and on the y-axis or the vertical axis, you're going to see a standardized average IQ score on a 35 item composite ICAR intelligence test. Why are there different lines? Well, these are broken out by different education levels from graduate education down to less than 12 years of schooling.

So what you see is as you sort these lines by education, the higher the education level, the higher the line. So you in general have higher IQ scores if you have a graduate education versus less than 12 years education, that makes sense. But what's interesting about these charts is that the lines all head downwards.

So we see, yes, this is the the so-called reverse Flynn effect in bright technicolor. IQ scores are getting lower. If you look at charts from 1932, you see they go up on average like three to five points per decade. And now we begin to get this decline as we get to the 2010s below it is another chart that breaks this out by gender as well.

Basically, no difference. They both go down. There's not any meaningful difference there between genders. All right. So we see the study decline. It hits all education levels more or less equally, even though they start from different places, very little difference between gender. If you break out specific intelligence measures within this 35 item test, you see that all but one measure decreased.

So there is actually one intelligence measure that's often tested like you test that still is increasing and that is three dimensional rotational scores. So test of your ability to have a 3D object in your mind and to rotate it within your head. We're still getting better at that. But on everything else, we have begun to decline.

All right. So why is this happening? There's one argument in particular that is common. It's well known. It's been articulated by many different people in many different contexts, and it is pretty convincing. Here is the short version of this most common argument for the reverse Flynn effect. We stopped reading.

So the idea that reading rates are down drastically, this is well covered. This is known. We did an episode. I don't know when that was, Jesse, but probably like in the spring where we went over a lot of like the more recent data about how much people are reading, how much people are reading for pleasure and how these have had a steady decline.

So this is just this is well known. Now, many have argued that this shift away from books and towards other types of media, such as television at first, now more recently, also the Internet and smartphones, can explain, at least in part, why we are getting dumber. So how does this work?

Well, I want to play you a clip here. This is James Marriott. He's a critic and columnist for the Times of London. This is a podcast appearance from a couple of weeks ago where James tries to summarize this sort of general argument that the now well-accepted fact that we're reading less is impacting our overall intelligence and helps explain the reverse Flynn effect.

It's kind of a long clip, but I think it's worth hearing in its entirety because James sort of lays out clearly how this chain of argument goes. So Jesse, let's hear this clip. When you look at the way that information is structured in a book compared to the way that information is structured in a phone, it makes a lot of sense.

Books are exceptionally dense with information. They're exceptionally dense with argument. Print requires us to make a logical case for a subject. A really significant feature of books is that if you make a case in print, you have to make it logically add up. You can't just assert things in the way you can on TikTok or on YouTube or on a podcast or in conversation.

And print privileges a whole way of thinking and a whole way of processing the world that is logical, that is more rational, that is more dense information, that is more intellectually challenging. And if you lose these things in our culture, which I think we really are in the process of losing them, it's not surprising that people are getting stupider and their reasoning skills are declining and that, yeah, we seem to find the IQ is declining.

Right, so that's a really interesting argument. If you spend more time consuming media through things like television, or James is focusing in particular on smartphones, you are missing essentially a sort of intellectual cross-training that you get by reading books that force you to do a sort of more logical type of analytical thinking, which gives you a brain that can do really well on IQ test.

Now, this is not a new idea, so Marriott here is not making a new idea, it's something that really big thinkers, sort of like big minds of techno criticisms and media studies from decades past, have been grappling with. I want to play another short clip from Marriott where he talks about the sort of esteemed history of people thinking about these type of issues.

Exactly. There's been, there's a lot of interesting research and writing on this done in the sixties and seventies, when TV and radio had really begun to find mass adoption in Western households and people like Walter Ong and another guy, Eric Havelock, a classicist, compared the information environments of oral societies with literate societies.

And they made a series of really brilliant cases that literate culture enables things like analytic thought. So in other words, this idea, even before we had smartphones, as soon as TV came up, there was this big thinker started saying, wait a second, literate society. So society based on information consumption, primarily through the written word, their brains just operate differently.

And one of the most influential thinkers to try to tackle this concept, this connection between reading and IQ, was the late NYU communications professor, Neil Postman, who's been a major influence on my own thinking and writing as a technology critic. In 1985, he published a classic book, which we've talked about on the show several times, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.

Now, this book was all about how the shift in our culture from a, he called it the lexicographic culture, but a culture in which newspapers and books were the main way through which we gained information to a world of television. It changed the way literally that we thought our definitions of truth, the processes by which we tried to make sense of the world.

I'm going to read you a key quote here from chapter two of that book. Postman writes, "Under the governance of the printing press, discourse in America was different than it is now, generally coherent, serious, and rational. Under the governance of television, it has become shriveled and absurd." Now, here's another quote from that chapter where he sort of elaborates how these changed happens.

Here's Neil. "My argument is limited to saying that a major new medium changes the structure of discourse. it does so by encouraging certain uses of the intellect, by favoring certain definitions of intelligence and wisdom, and by demanding a certain kind of content, in a phrase, by creating new forms of truth-telling.

I will say once again that I am no relativist in this matter, and that I believe the epistemology created by television not only is inferior to a print-based epistemology, but is dangerous and absurdist." But what he argues in this book is that literally we think differently. We think differently in a culture that is broadcast-based versus lexographic-based, where we consume information created to us visually or in audio form versus reading it for ourselves, and it leads to a worse country.

He's like, "I'm not a relativist. It's not, 'Well, things change and some things are better than others.'" No, the lexographic governance, when we read, that was better. That was better suited for a democratic country and democratic life and just for intellectual life in general. That was actually a really good match for what we needed from the human brain.

So there we go. As we moved away from reading, from television to smartphones, our brains thought in a different way, and the way we thought, to put it crudely, the way we think now, it's just a dumber. When you use a 35 item ICAR intelligence test, you measure, like, yes, we are starting to do worse on these measures because our brains just don't get the same cross-training they got before, and we're not exposed to the same sort of sophisticated analytical discourses and epistemological definitions of truth-telling that we used to have before.

Now, I want to be clear, it's not like this is a consensus claim that the decline of reading is making us dumber. Those are big thinkers with big ideas. In our current world, I mean, there are a lot of researchers who will say the typical thing that a lot of researchers will say, which is like, "Well, it's complicated," and it is probably complicated.

The post-literacy hypothesis for explaining the reverse Flynn effect is by, it's solid, but by no means a complete explanation. So just for the sake of clarity here, I want to quote here one of the authors from that Northwestern paper where I showed you the chart from that showed the reverse Flynn effect.

The corresponding author of that paper, Elizabeth Dwark, who is a research professor at the Northwestern Medical School, she said, "We don't really know why we're seeing this." Let me read a quote from her here. "There's debate about what's causing it, but not every domain is going down. One of them is going up," so she's referencing there to the 3D spatial reasoning.

"If all the scores were going in the same direction, you could make a nice little narrative about it, but that's not the case. We need to do more to dig into it." Dwark goes on to suggest several other theories bouncing around for the reverse Flynn effect, like maybe there's a decline in motivation among the test takers, so something about the effect of how they recruited people to take the test.

Or it could be things, and she's just being hypothetical here, just to show who knows. It could be a lot of things, but she said hypothetically, maybe something about the shift to STEM education and public education has de-emphasized other subjects that might have been better for the analytical reasoning that's tested on IQ tests.

She's like, "Look, we don't really know." So I don't want to give the sense that the post-literacy hypothesis is a consensus, but I do want to note the sort of pushback here isn't exactly damning. I think the fact that we're still getting better at manipulating visual objects in our head doesn't contradict the post-literacy hypothesis.

That is a type of intelligence that really has nothing to do with reading and, in fact, using video games and more visual culture where we're having to simulate more virtual worlds in our head. Maybe that is something we got better at. It would make sense, actually, with the change in the media landscape.

The fact that changes to STEM education or some other changes to the American educational system might be de-emphasizing skills to show up on IQ tests. That might be true, but the reverse Flynn effect is showing up consistently in many different countries that have their own educational systems and priorities.

And yes, maybe in their particular research design, they could be dealing with lack of motivation on the test-takers. But again, we're seeing this same decline in IQ tests from many different studies that gather data from many different sources. So I want to emphasize that there's not a consensus around this issue, but it's not like there are massive holes in the post-literacy hypothesis of, oh, this is really a flawed theory.

It's still a convincing explanation for at least part of what we are observing. Okay, now I want to give my explanation. Now, I should qualify this here by saying I actually think the post-literacy hypothesis is right. Right, I think that explains a lot of what we see. But there is another factor that's sometimes mentioned that I think gets overlooked.

It is also playing a large role, especially in the recent decreases in IQ. Now, given my interest as a technocritic and the fact that this podcast focuses on technology's impact on our ability to live deep lives, you might not be surprised by what I'm going to say. But I think the missing factor here is the smartphone's impact on our attention.

So this is different. Let's think about this. The post-literacy hypothesis is saying when we stop reading, the way our brain processes information changes and it becomes less analytical and dumber. So our capabilities, like what our brain can do goes down. All right, fair enough. But the rise of smartphones and in particular hyperpalatable algorithmic content delivered through smartphones has an additional impact of reducing our ability to sustain concentration.

Now, this is not about the way our brain processes information. It's not about our epistemology, as Neil Postman would say. It's about the fact that we are constantly overwhelming our short-term motivation circuits with this hyperpalatable content to the point where our brain begins to suffer when we ask it to put sustained concentration on one target.

So it's like the post-literacy hypothesis explains the capability of our brain is going down and the attention hypothesis claims our ability to make use of whatever processing ability we have is also being reduced. You put these two things together and you get a much more heightened effect. And I think this is a major effect in the Flynn effect.

And I think we have two pieces of evidence that I want to point to here that shows that the attention hypothesis is playing a big role here. One, reading began to decline, of course, well before the advent of ubiquitous smartphones. I mean, we talked about, you know, Walter Ong was writing in the 1960s about the death of literate society with the rise of television.

Neil Postman was writing in the 1980s. We've seen declines in the statistics and reading. This has started going down in the 80s and the 90s. So none of this is new. It continues to get worse, but none of this is new. And yet, if you look closer at the reverse Flynn effect studies, they all point to an inflection point.

Increases slow down, but the point where it turns and IQ scores start going down, on average lands somewhere around 2010. What happens around 2010? Not some major shift in our reading habits, but the ubiquitous introduction of smartphones. So, smartphones entering the picture, we already were reading less. We already were watching some crazy amount of television a day.

But then our attention began to get worse. And so now, this slow reduction of our brain's ability to process had this other factor added to it. We can't even get that, the full capacity that our brain has reduced as it might be. Here's another piece of evidence. If we return to that Northwestern study, they also broke out these IQ declines by age group.

And guess what age group has had the sharpest decline in IQs in this sort of period starting in 2010? 18 to 22 year olds. 22 year olds. So, what do we know about 18 and 22 year olds? Two things. They are the heaviest users of smartphones. And they are the first generation to not have that formative experience of going through childhood education, primary education and post-primary education.

So, without smartphones, what used to be this sort of neurological crucible where you practice concentration, you come out of the schooling system and your ability to focus on abstract things has really been elevated. That was one of the main skills. Today's 18 to 22 year olds has studied in, you know, 18 to 22 years from the last decade has studied in that paper.

They had the smartphone aspect throughout all of that. So, they had a notable impoverishment in attention ability that was probably more heightened than what we saw in other sort of demographics. And they had their things go down the worse. They had their IQ scars fall the fastest. So, we put all these pieces together.

There's a lot of things that might come together to explain the reverse Flynn effect and the post-literacy hypothesis has to be a part of it, right? I mean, if we were still in a largely lexographic area, I mean, society, we would be smarter. And moving on from that has and continues to make a difference.

But smartphones have added their own extra special dumbness spice on top of this Sunday of badness, which is we also struggle to concentrate and use the skills we already have. So, we're in a post-literacy society, but also a post-concentration society. You put those together and we are accelerating our descent towards dumbness, right?

So, that's my idea. But what I want to do is because I think there's an opportunity here, right? I mean, on this show, what I'm trying to do is not just give you ideas, but figure out what are the concrete takeaways that these ideas imply. How can you, in other words, like what ideas can we draw from these ideas that you can put into practice in your life to try to find more depth in a world in which technology threatens to take that away?

So, what I want to do now is move on to kind of adding this. We've added some theme music, right, Jesse? Yeah. Some theme music for at the end of the deep dive. It's time for concrete takeaways. You know what that music reminds me of? What? Like a high-intensity bass fishing television show.

Like, can't you imagine like an opening montage where like guys are just like wrestling large bass out of the water and then like high-fiving each other. Yeah. And like crushing a Bud Light and like catching another bass. That's where that, that's what I think about that music. Which means it is a perfect fit for our concrete takeaways on subtle variations in the 35 item ICAR intelligent test.

All right. What's our takeaways? What does this mean for you? Okay. So, if losing your ability to pay attention is making everyone dumber, if you cross-train or systematically train your ability to maintain concentration compared to everyone else, you'll be getting relatively smarter. So, you have an opportunity here to basically take an IQ boosting pill.

You're not actually going to get smarter, but you are going to be hurting your IQ less than most of the other people around you. And so, if you are relatively smarter and get relatively smarter compared to the people around you, obviously, it's going to open up way more job opportunities, but it's also going to allow you to just appreciate nuances and information in the world.

It's sort of like a little superpower you can get. So, we can take our sort of IQ boosting pill, metaphorically speaking, if we can practically figure out how to counteract the post-concentration societies pull on your ability to pay attention. So, I'm going to get really specific here. I've got four things to tell you.

Number one, to the extent possible, I want you to quit apps on your phone or your computer where the company who makes the app makes more money the more you use it. Right? TikTok, Instagram, any of those games that have like a bunch of coins that fall out when you press a button and you never paid for and it's just there on your phone and you start playing it on the flight to Chicago and then you look up and you're in Chicago and you haven't moved from your seat and your leg is asleep.

Anything where your attention is what is valuable, get those off your phone. Right? That's just designed to degrade your short-term motivational system to concentrate on something. It's going to hyperpalatable. It's going to take that over. Two, for things that maybe fit that profile but you can't quit or delete because they have some uses you need to preserve, join the attention resistance.

Now this is an idea from my 2019 book Digital Minimalism which says basically find a way through using new rules and technologies to make these technologies that have specific use cases you need to make them no longer hyperpalatable. Make them not a source of distraction in your life. So for example, if you say I need to use YouTube occasionally for looking things up.

Right? Like this is a good reference library when I need to figure out how to change the oil on my minivan. Great. If you don't get a browser plug-in only access it on the browser and on app and get a browser plug-in. There's many that exist like this that hide the recommendations.

Now YouTube is just a cool library. You search for oil change. You see the results. They're all oil change videos. You click on one. You're doing an oil change and you don't see over on the right-hand side you know how oil changes are part of the secret MAGA agenda to put microchips and Epstein's vaccines.

Right? You don't see those recommendations on the side. You're just getting the oil change video. That's joining the attention resistance. You have to use Instagram for your business for like whatever reason. We've got to post because we have to post what's going on at our local bookstore or something like this so people get news.

That's fine. Have a Google doc where you put the information. One of your own employees once a day at five o'clock takes that puts it into a post and puts it up. You never even see Instagram. Right? So, hey, I'm getting use out of you Instagram without you being on my phone and me having again to, you know, go on this short chain from like, hey, my bookstore is open at five.

Like it's five too late for my bookstore to be open. Oh my God is the oil change on my car part of a MAGA conspiracy to put microchips and Jeffrey Epstein's vaccines. Right? Like you don't have to play that game anymore. It's like I'm getting some advantage out of Instagram without having to deal with that.

All right. Concrete takeaway number three. This is a huge one. I've been really pushing this one. It's a hard one. I want you to hear me out on this. When you're home, keep your phone in your kitchen. Plug it in. And that's where it is when you're home. If you need to look something up, you go to your kitchen.

Look it up. If you need to check, there's a text conversation going on. You're making plans with your friends. You got to go over there in the kitchen and see what's going on with the text conversation and sort of make your plans there and then go back to what you're doing.

If you want to listen to a podcast or whatever, AirPods. And if you're in a mansion, then I guess you can have your butler move it to another part of your house to plug it in. I know Jesse has this issue. So Jesse, your butler can move the iPod from your kitchen to the catering kitchen if you're in your basement fitness center, and then they can move it to the conservatory greenhouse when you're in your West Wing library.

But the point is, is it's plugged in in a location and not on your person. This changes everything. It's not a companion when you're at your house. It's not no matter what I'm doing. I'm checking this. I'm eating at dinner. My family, I'm checking it. I'm watching TV. I'm checking it.

I'm watching sports. I'm checking it. I'm doing chores. I'm checking it. I'm working out in between sets. I'm checking it. When it's plugged in somewhere, you can't do that. And once you've gone just three or four days without doing that, you still have all the advantages of it. I can look stuff up or whatever.

Listen to podcasts when I'm doing my dishes. But when it's not there to check when you're bored, your brain adapts so quickly and says, okay, that's not what happens when we're bored anymore. That impulse goes away. Your concentration ability, it jumps up. That's a hard one, but it's a critical one.

By the way, it's what I've been recommending. I've been writing a bunch of talks because it's back to school talks about kids and phones, right? What's the right thing to do with kids with phones? And I have my standard rules. A restricted smartphone should be when you get to high school.

Unrestricted smartphone that might have social media or other apps should be when you're 16. But until you leave the house to go to college, your phone's in the kitchen when you're home. It's not your property. I'm loaning you a phone the family's paying for. You can use it when you need to coordinate with your friends or whatever.

You don't bring it up to your room. You don't get to sit there and look at it while we're watching TV as a family. You don't get to have it at the table. This is not your property. I checked a declaration of independence. There is no mention of WhatsApp access in there.

I'm sorry. It sits here at home when you're here. The greatest gift you could give to a teenager at home because they are stepping out of the post-detention society. And what's the effect? You just gave them IQ pills. This is as effective as hiring an expensive tutor in terms of the overall impact on their academic performance in high school and college and beyond.

It's the greatest gift you can give. So keep your phone in the kitchen. Keep your kid's phone in the kitchen. And if your kid is not in high school, take the phone back because they really shouldn't have it yet. Number four, train your attention. Do this daily. There's two main techniques I talk about for actually trying to improve your attention.

Both of these come out of my book, Deep Work, from 2016. So yes, I've been beating on this drum for a while now. Number one is these Roosevelt dashes named for Teddy Roosevelt, who used to have this habit, especially even as a college kid and beyond as well, where he would do work in short but ultra intense bursts where he would give it his absolute complete attention.

The amount of work he could get done doing this was monumental. He would read a book a day. It was crazy. Go look at Teddy Roosevelt and concentration is crazy. But those Roosevelt dashes are actually a great training mechanism. And you should do it with a timer and you should start with 10 minutes.

And you take something hard that you want to do. It could be doing a crossword puzzle or trying to figure out a new complicated concept for work or school. You set the timer and you start it and you just you focus as hard as you can for that short amount of time.

And you really try to bear in like really hard. Your brain wanders like bring it right back. And you do that and it's really hard. But you do that hard thing until it's not hard and then you add five more minutes. So it's just like doing interval training with running.

And the amount of distance you can sprint gets longer and longer as you keep pushing yourself this way. The other way I've been talking about for a decade now to train your attention is you go for walks without anything in your ear and nothing in your pocket. It's just you, your thoughts, and the world around you.

You just practice being out there in the world with nothing but yourself to keep you company. You get used to your own mind. Now the bonus you add to this is you can maybe give yourself a particular problem you want to try to work on in your mind while you walk.

I call this productive meditation. And now you're really starting to play with things like working memory and the ability to sustain stable state things in working memory. I have to put this thing here while I think about this and then bring this back again into the problem. It's calisthenics for your ability to pay attention to your mind's eye to aim your mind's eye in a way that is focused and to do so with sustained attention.

So you can train your attention. So quit apps where people make money off you. You don't have to be on these things. Stop telling yourself you do. It's kind of embarrassing to be on TikTok. It's no longer kind of a cool trend that we're joking about. There's no ha-ha.

Just get off TikTok. Come on, let's be serious. The apps you do have to use, join the attention resistance. Put technology tools around it so like the addictive features are turned off and it's sort of like a middle finger to those companies. It's fun. Keep your phone in the kitchen.

Your kid's phone in the kitchen too when you're home. Hard but critical. Trust me. Four days, your life will be different. And actually actively train your attention. All right. Those are my takeaways. Now, my bonus takeaway would be read more books because we're in a post-literate society, so that'll slowly help your brain maybe operate better.

But these are the things. The attention is the thing where you have control over. You read more books, your brain will get smarter. But still, society around you is kind of dumb because no one's really reading. But the attention thing, man, you can get real results fast. Real results fast.

You will find yourself in a matter of months feeling smarter. So I don't love the reverse Flynn effect, but there is an advantage there for those of us who know why it's coming. The technology plays a big role because we can reverse the reverse Flynn effect and then a reverse of the reverse.

I guess we're back to the original Flynn effect. Is that how that works? It's like a double negative. That's the type of wisdom we offer here on this show. So look, all the focus ability in the world will only do you so good if your circuits. Oh, if your circuits are dull.

Okay, never mind. I was going to say I had a really clever phrase there, but I'm going to take it. I messed it up. I think I've been using my phone too much. It's all good. It's all good. So I like your clarification for the quit apps that make money off your attention.

So that wouldn't necessarily apply to like the New York Times app, right? No. Because you pay like a monthly subscription. You pay monthly subscription. Yeah, yeah. So you got to get into the economics. So the New York Times, I mean, they want you to like the app. Yeah. Right.

So that's why they have games and other stuff in there. So that you, when you come up and see your, your credit card statement, you're like, oh, do I still want to pay this much for the New York Times? Like, no, I like, I like the New York Times.

Right. But they don't care in a given day. They don't make more money necessarily. I mean, they have ads, but really like their goal is for you to love the app, not to keep you on there as much as possible. The apps that need to keep you on there as much as possible, you know it because they suffer from, like we talked about in an earlier episode, that Cory Dock trial and shitification.

That like, if that's how they make money, the apps over time get worse and worse. Like the experience actually gets worse because they're trying to like exploit and keep you on there and exploit every last ounce of your attention. Streaming services are also in that similar situation. Like Netflix, they want you to not cancel Netflix, but it doesn't really matter to them if you use it 10 hours today or you use it 30 minutes every day or 30 minutes a week.

It's just they want you to feel like it's important to have it. So like they don't try to be addictive. Right. YouTube wants you to use as much as possible. TikTok never wants you to put it down. Instagram doesn't want you to put it down. X doesn't want you to put it down.

They want you to be on there and stay on there. So those are the ones I worry about. Yeah. I've taken your advice about the phone in the kitchen like years ago. So the thing that you realize is like, say you go to a hotel or something and it's in your bedside, you know, just cause the room's not big.

You don't check it that much. Right. So you've lost, you've lost that instinct when you're at home. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I still keep it away, but. Yeah. Yeah. So there you go. So it, it, it changes the way you think about it. Yeah. It doesn't, it doesn't really take long.

So there you go. I mean, I talk about attention a lot, but this is like another reason why you should care about it. It's I'm not interested in just like abstract moralizing. Attention is good and distraction is the tool of the devil. I read that whole book. We talked about Thoreau's acts on the show that was all about the moralization of attention in sort of mainly 18th and 19th century writing.

We don't need the moralized attention here. I don't want you to be dumber because your life will be better if you're smarter. So we're getting kind of concrete here. All right. So there you are. We're becoming dumber, but you don't have to be. All right. So we've got a good show ahead.

So if you're tuning in, this is your first time tuning in, don't tune out because let me tell you what we still have coming up ahead here. We've got questions from listeners on issues surrounding trying to live and work deeply in a world that has more and more technological distractions, including a call and a case study where you're going to find out about someone who struggled, was always doing too many projects and made progress on none of them.

Took a very specific piece of advice for my writing and now has succeeded immensely with a single creative project and is being like praise for this album she did. It's a great story. And then in the final segment, I want to talk about cell phones in schools because we're back to school season, some interesting dynamics about what's going on there.

So all of this is coming up, but first we're going to do the thing that most people tune into the show to hear, which is a word from our sponsors. Here's the thing, Jesse, and I'm tired of you doubting me on this. You doubt me on this all the time.

You need a VPN. Jesse hates to hear that from me. He says, I don't need a VPN. I want people to violate my privacy because this is a, it's a cruel world. And I, I just, I'm nihilistic, right? That's Jesse not wanting VPNs. It's crazy. The rest of you need a VPN.

Here's why you need a VPN. When you connect to the internet, your traffic is contained in little bucket bundles called packets. And the specific information you're sending around the internet might be protected in encryption, but the address, like who is this information going to that's in the plain text.

So anyone who can look at your packets knows what sites and services you're using. So at home, this means like your internet service provider knows all the sites and services you're using. If you're at a public place and using the wifi, there's like simple apps you can run on your computer that allows you just to use your radio on the computer to see like what sites and services are people near you accessing.

A VPN protects you from this. And the way it does this is instead of just directly accessing a site and service, you take the message you want to send to the site and service. You encrypt the whole thing and you send it to a VPN server. It unencrypts it and talks to the site and service for you, encrypts the answer and sends it back.

So now what does your internet service provider find out? It's just that you're talking to a VPN. What is the guy who's looking at the packets in the coffee shop? There's a lot of meanings for that, but I mean the technical meaning. What is he finding out? Nothing other than you're accessing a VPN.

So that is how you gain back privacy. The use of the internet without a VPN is like disabling mute on zoom. Sooner or later, someone is going to learn something about you that you didn't mean to share. All right, Jesse. So stop telling me that we don't need VPNs.

If you're going to use a VPN, I suggest you use today's sponsor, which is Express VPN. It's easy to use. It works on all your devices and it's rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and The Verge. So what are you waiting for? Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com/deep.

That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-vpn.com/deep to find out how you can get up to four extra months free. That's expressvpn.com/deep. We also want to talk about our friends at Oracle. In business, they say you can have better, cheaper, or faster, but that you only get a pick two. What if you could have all three at the same time?

That's exactly what Cohere, Thomson Reuters, and Specialized Bikes have learned because they upgraded to the next generation of the cloud, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. OCI is the blazing fast platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs where you can run any workload in a high availability, consistently high performance environment and spend less than you would with other clouds.

How is it faster? OCI block storage gives you more operations per second. How is it cheaper? OCI costs up to 50% less for commute, 70% less for storage, and 80% less for networking. How is it better? In test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher bandwidth versus other clouds.

This is the cloud built for AI and all your biggest workloads. So right now, with zero commitment, you can try OCI for free. Head to oracle.com/deepquestions. That's oracle.com/deepquestions. All right, Jesse, let's get to some questions of our own. First question is from Sam. I'm an executive on the West Coast struggling to reclaim morning hours from meetings as my East Coast colleagues often schedule them.

Do you have any advice on how I can incorporate more deep work hours? Yeah, it's a tough issue because if you're on the West Coast and you have East Coast colleagues, even if they're trying to wait till their mid-morning or mid-day to schedule meetings, those are still going to fall at the beginning of your day.

And most people don't do that. They're just used to scheduling meetings whenever. I'm going to have one at 9:00, right? That's now a 6:00 a.m. meeting on the West Coast, right? So it is a big problem that West Coast people who work with East Coasters have. I have two things to recommend here.

One, start adding some of your own meetings to your calendar. Meetings with your esteemed colleague, Dr. Deep, PhD. What I mean by that is just meetings for you to do deep work. Not every day, you're not going to get away with saying, "Hey, I can't ever meet until like noon East Coast time," but just throw some meetings on your calendar for working on particular projects without disruption.

And then when it comes time to schedule meetings with your East Coast colleagues, use whatever standard meeting scheduling tool that your office or organization uses and just have those meetings with Dr. Deep, PhD show up on there like any other meetings. It's like, "Yeah, let's meet. Here's my calendar.

Choose a spot." And some spots are already taken up. They don't know that that's a meeting for you to do deep work versus just a meeting with like another client. And so they find meetings that work in the space that remains. If your company doesn't use a meeting scheduler, you should.

Like, "Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Here you go. Here's my calendar. Here's a schedule once link. Just like grab any time that works for you. Let's make this easy." And these meetings with Dr. Deep just sort of show up as time that you're not available. So just put the time aside and see what happens.

It turns out like, "Hey, everything else will work itself out." You've gone through other periods of your career where you've had projects going on that take up certain times in the morning. You've had those scheduled around them. So schedule time for yourself. The other thing that a lot of West Coast workers have to do that have East Coast headquarters is they have to learn how to do afternoon depth.

That's hard because often your energy is lower in the afternoon. But the advantage of your afternoon is that the East Coast is logged off. So it could be, in theory, good time for deep work. But you're going to have to do a lot more effort to get good deep work out of your afternoon than you would have to do to do good deep work in the morning.

So one of the things you're going to have to do is clear out your cognitive context. You're going to have to recharge your body and reset your mind to a mode of concentration. So this is going to mean ritual, ritual, ritual. You're really going to have to lean into these.

If there's a separate location you can go to to do your afternoon depth, like maybe shut down at your office and then go to another place to do your afternoon deep work, that will help. If there is a sort of exercise type thing you can do to sort of reset your body and your energy rhythms, that will really help as well.

The sort of two o'clock, like quick workout, hit the bike, and then go straight to deep work in another location. That will make a difference as well. Make that location exotic and different so your brain is like, oh, this is a deep workplace. It's the shed out back at home.

It's the conference room across campus. It's going to the – I work in the city. It's going to the museum and working. There's like a quiet spot at the museum where there's not usually people. I'm going to sit there with my laptop to do the work. Make it exotic so your brain thinks of it as different.

Build nice rituals around it. Hey, here's like a nice drink I have with it. If you don't drink caffeine, like a non-caffeine drink or like a sort of healthy snack that you like or that there's like a really nice walk you do. You have to do a lot of work to make afternoon depth work.

But if you're a West Coaster that has to do East Coast schedules, that's really worth it because you could probably get two to three good hours a day if you have the right rituals. It won't be that hard to schedule because it's past the East Coast offices times. That's my two recommendations.

All right. Who do we got? Next question is from Barbara. While doing routine tasks, I always have music or short self-help audio clips playing in the background. Does my habit of filling all quiet moments with media prevent me from being fully present and mentally clear? I usually flip that around.

It's just the difference between the existential and the universal. So is it a problem that there exists a lot of moments in which you have background music or content on while you're doing routine tasks? No. Would it be a problem if in all such moments you have some sort of background media or content going on?

Yeah, that would be. The existential is not a problem. There exist times when you're doing this. It's not bad in isolation. The universal is a problem. If you never have time alone for your own thoughts, then you will sort of lose touch with like yourself and your ability to concentrate and self-reflection as well and just starting to get to know yourself better and having the nervous system calmness of just presence in a situation.

So the right way to think about this, I think, is not reducing background media. It's adding solitude periods. So I'm going to just proactively add into my schedule enough times alone with my own thoughts in the world around me that I feel like I'm getting a benefit. And then I don't have to care about the other times.

If I want to listen to a podcast, if I want to put on music or whatever, like I don't have to self-recriminate because I've added positively enough time for self-reflection that I don't have to worry about what I do in the other times. And I can, you know, I assume just listen to my episodes again and again and again because that's what you should be doing.

All right. So that's what I say. So you need solitude, but you don't need your whole life to be in solitude. Same thing with boredom. We talk about this with boredom. I'm not a big boredom fan. I mean boredom is a deep drive that humans evolve to try to get us to do useful things.

Otherwise, we just go in energy conservation mode like a cat and until we get like hungry or thirsty, we would just sit there in the sun. And boredom got humans to use this big brain we evolved to actually go up and do things. And this is all culture and civilization was built on this.

So boredom, like listen to it, go do stuff when you're bored. But, you know, to be bored sometimes is pretty good just so that your brain learns you're not always stimulated. And then when you're away from your phone or something, it doesn't go crazy. So it's another example where the thing, it's not like, okay, you should spend all of your time bored, but you should have some boredom.

Same thing. Spend all your time just sort of thinking with your own thoughts being meditative and philosophical. But you should have some times like that on a regular basis. So that's the way I think about it. It kind of gets me thinking about this week, how it's a big transition for me because it's basically the start of the NFL and I have to factor in eight hours of NFL content to stay like somewhat in the know.

This is a good, I have a new theory about the reverse Flint effect and involves the NFL season, the amount of content that's available. When we were kids, what you could watch Sunday, one game. Yeah. May Monday. Monday night. Yeah. And I guess you, if you had the radio on, on the way to school, you could hear like a little bit of a local sports, uh, radio guy who wouldn't be that good.

Actually, no, we had sports center. So we had ESPN growing up, but that was the big thing. You had sports center. Was it like you could wait till sports center and you would see like seven minutes of content on like your sport and that's it. Yeah. What eight hours of content are you consuming?

There's multiple podcasts, multiple mad dog spots. Those are long spots. Anywhere from a half an hour to an hour. Yeah. Yeah. And, but you can listen on the app on demand, but I mean, there's a lot. Yeah. Yeah. When I make my little pics with my buddies, I need to be informed.

Are you in a league? Just like my two buddies. You're not in a fantasy? No, not a fantasy. Not a fantasy. Okay. Um, there you go. I don't have to say about that, but that's probably, I don't know. That's good content though. It's complicated. I was listening to content.

It's entertaining. I mean, the NFL is so entertaining. So my boy, Grant Paulson here in DC, uh, was watching a clip of him talking to, he has on a real, I don't know who he is, but a football expert, like a coach expert, the talk through a strategy for the commanders.

And man, like Grant Paulson knows a lot about football. This guy is melting his brain. He pulls up these diagrams and he's just going on and on about like, well, you have to understand see what happens with Debo Sanders that we're going to have like a forced nickel configuration.

But if you go in the forced nickel configuration and he then moves in motion, you're going to have to pull in a linebacker to cover him. But a linebacker is going to have probably the worst coverage player on the field. And now you've created an unfavorable matchup, but you have no way of avoiding that because if he stays in the running back slot and he has these diagrams that have all these helmets that he's moving around or whatever.

So like, I get it. Yeah. It's complicated content. If I was doing a Nats podcast right now, Washington nationals podcast. I'd be like, it'd be huge, like intro music. It'd be really complicated. And it would like the camera would swoop in on like MLB network. And I'd be sitting there, but he's already go deep, deep in the strategy of like what the Washington nationals need to do.

And they would zoom in on me. And I'd be like, stop losing. You're playing bad, play good, good baseball. The white things, the bases don't leave that white thing in such a way that the other people tag you because you're doing that a lot. Hit ball, win more, stop losing.

And then it'd be like a 10 minute outro sequence. And that'd be the episode. There you go. All right. Who do we got next? Next up is Emily. My company uses a ticketing system. Our protocol has us respond in 30 minutes to confirm that a ticket has been created.

Some days I have lots of tickets, whereas other days I've hardly any on quiet days. I work on personal projects. My problem is that it's difficult for me to regain my focus on these personal projects after busy days. All right. So there's a specific advice for this issue. And then I have a bigger point about ticketing systems.

Do you know what that means? By the way, you think people know, like when she says ticketing system, you should probably explain it. Right. I've been talking about it for years. I know. But yeah. So it comes out of IT. And so it's a way when someone has like an issue they want to send to the IT department, like my laptop's broken.

Instead of just calling or sending an email, because now this is on demand, stuff just comes in and the IT department has to try to juggle different things. They invented these things called ticketing systems, where I submit my problem and it generates a ticket and the ticket has a number and the ticket has a status.

And so if I'm on the IT process, if I'm an IT person at the company, I can see like a whole list of the open tickets. These are all of the issues that people have sent in and I can select one to work on and change its status. Oh, it's in progress.

Oh, it's in progress. Or if I have a question about it, I can write back here. So I have a question for the person and they might respond that all of this gets stored on the tickets all in one place. So now if I'm the IT person, I'm not just juggling an inbox with like stuff coming in and people randomly bothering me like, hey, did you look at this issue yet?

I'm just dealing with tickets. All right, I'm going to take this ticket. Let me make progress. Okay, now I'm stuck. I'm waiting for a response. I'll mark that. Let me move to this ticket. Now on the other hand, the people who are submitting the issues can just ask like, what's the status of my ticket?

Like here's where it is. Someone's working on it, right? So it's like it was a way of organizing effort with IT departments that reduced unnecessary cognitive context switching and actually really boosted productivity of those departments. I use this example in my book, World Without Email, to try to emphasize the implicit productivity tax that most people pay by working in a collaboration environment in which you have to constantly be monitoring ad hoc unscheduled messages and answering them on the man as they come in.

When you get rid of that, a lot more gets done. Okay, so this person is saying, this is Emily. Some days, there's not a lot of tickets to answer. So she has time to work on personal projects. And then other days, there's a lot of tickets to answer. And it might be, you know, okay, I've had a couple of busy days, it can be hard for her to return to her project.

So there's a bigger point here, which is when you have a project that requires focus, how do you sort of shut down that project in such a way that when you need to open it up again later, you can do so with minimum effort or overhead. And it really does matter how you shut down a project, especially one that requires deep work.

It matters how you shut it down when it comes to how easy it is to pick it up again a couple days later. So if you just stop in the middle of something, like a lot of loose ends, and then you come back a few days later, you're going to feel a lot of resistance to loading that project back up because your mind is going to have to recreate a complicated cognitive context before you can really make progress on it.

And that takes a lot of effort. You have to sit there and like try to remember everything that was going on, recreate where you were. This whole time, it has to try to resist other distractions or try to stop that cognitive context or pollute it from loading in a pure way.

And your mind is like, "That seems like a lot of effort. And if this isn't really urgent, I don't want to do it." So what you want to do is shut down the project in such a way that it's easier to load up. So it's worth always taking some time to tie up loose ends, even if you have to come back and stay a little late that day to tie up the loose ends.

Like maybe some tickets came in and you got interrupted. Come back and tie up the loose ends. You want to tie up the loose ends. You want to have, if possible, like a narrative that you're leaving for your future self. All right, here's where we are and here's what needs to happen next.

It's useful if you can identify the very next thing that needs to be done and maybe have some of the pieces already in place so that you can hit the ground running. There's a lot of stories of famous writers who would do things like this with their manuscripts. They would sort of finish what they're working on and sort of start the next paragraph so you can kind of hit the ground running.

Like read through that paragraph and then just keep writing. And by reading up to the point where you stopped, you would get your attention going. So do something similar. Like, okay, this is where we're picking it up is answering this question. And here are the three websites that are relevant to it.

And we have to figure out, like, this is where I was stuck. Now when you load that product up a couple days later, you're like, okay, that's exactly where I am. I'm trying to answer this question. This was the information I'm using and where I was stuck. Okay, I can get back into that quicker.

It's easier to pick back up. So tie up loose ends and set yourself up with a narrative about where you are and clarity about exactly what you need to do next. It'll be easier to start deep work on that project the next time. The bigger point about ticketing systems is I've long, I haven't quite figured out how to do this, but I've long been a proponent of the idea that we should have more communication protocols like this outside of just IT people.

Because it gets you out of this sort of informal on-demand ad hoc communication patterns that we do with email and Slack. It has a central place where all of your communication threads are stored. All the communication relevant to one project is in one place. It has a status that people can check in on.

It's like, how is this thing going that I asked you about? It gives you as the person doing work more of a pull model. Okay, when I'm done with what I'm doing, I then look at my ticket dashboard to select what to work on next. That's very different than the interruptive push model that we use with email and Slack, which is I'm working on this, but someone can push in something else onto my plate with an email that I need to answer because otherwise it'll get lost.

That's way, way, way worse from a cognitive performance standpoint. So I think there's a product to be built here that's like a more user-friendly ticketing type system, which means when I bother you about something, there's a number. And maybe we can hide that. We can make the product nicer.

But there's like, here is this issue. I can check on the status. They haven't looked at it yet. Okay, they saw it and they put a quick note like, I see this. I've asked so-and-so to give me an answer. I'll let you know when I hear back. So you know what's going on.

You don't have to ping someone. You don't have to wait for a response. If you send a follow-up or they respond to you, it's all tracked in one place. You can see the whole conversation right there. And when you're working, you can just come to this ticket dashboard and we'll call it something different in our project so it's not so nerdy.

But you come to this dashboard and you say, oh, here's some new projects. Here's some updates to these projects. It gives you a more sort of autonomous way of navigating and communicating about work. I think there's a space there for a cool product. All right. What do we got?

Next up is Bart. I'm a full-time software engineer with a background in machine learning and computer engineering, aiming to transition into digital management consulting. I've had little success with my applications and feel stuck. Should I continue on my current learning path hoping that a better opportunity will arise? Or should I consider pursuing an MBA or something similar degree to strengthen my profile?

All right. There's two things in here that worry me, Bart. One, the word hope. Like, hey, should I just hope this will work? I don't want you hoping. Let's find out. I'm going to tell you how to do that in a second. Second, so should I just go get a graduate degree because I don't know what else to do?

Jesse knows I hate that. Graduate degrees are not a default behavior because you don't want to spend like a little bit more time figuring out like what really matters in your field. It's a lot of time and a lot of money. You have to have a specific reason to get them.

I think what you're missing here, Bart, is an evidence-based plan. So you're saying, I don't know, I feel stuck. Should I just hope that I'll maybe do better if I keep working on the stuff? Find out why your applications are failing. Get the truth, the unvarnished truth from someone in this industry that you know.

Why would someone like me not get hired? Why are people not looking at my application? What type of applications would you look at and why? Get the real answer. Don't invent an answer or have a theory. Get the real answer. Now, here's the thing. You might love what you hear.

Like, oh, I'm just missing this one thing. I could go figure that out in two months and then I'm going to be super attractive. I didn't realize that this one thing was messing me up. And you could love the answer or you could hate the answer. You could be like, oh, God, I see.

Like, I'm never going to get these rules. You're hiring only out of, like, MIT for these, like, digital consulting jobs with, like, Core 6 CS majors who had all As. And they're not even, like, sneezing in the direction of my applications. There's no way I can fix that. Okay, this is not a good idea.

I'm going to have to have another plan. But at least you know you should always be acting from evidence. So get the answer to the question of why you're not getting these jobs. The real answer. And then we'll use that to make our plan. Then and only then, if what you find out is like, yeah, you, we would hire someone like you if you had an MBA from a school of this caliber or higher.

In fact, here's three people recently from a similar background who had an MBA from a school of this caliber or higher. And we hired them. So if you got an MBA from a school of this caliber or higher, we would hire you. Then, okay, then you could think about, is it worth the expense and time?

And if it is, like, then you know why you're getting that MBA. That's when you would do that. So we call this evidence-based planning. It's one of the things that's going to go into my deep life book. You got to make these concrete plans for making progress on a specific objective.

They have to be based off of the reality of how the world works. Not what you want to be true. Not off of hope. And not off of like, well, maybe I should just get a graduate degree. You don't stumble into things with graduate degrees. You have a specific reason why you're getting that particular degree.

The only other thing I'm going to say here, Bart, is also make sure that you've done some lifestyle-centric planning and you haven't just fixated on digital consulting. It's like a thing you heard about and then just sort of convinced yourself like, hey, if I did this, maybe I'd be happy.

And then it just becomes a self-fulfilling almost abstraction, right? Like there's this thing, digital, and that's what I'm doing. If I could do that, that's what I'm focusing on. And you haven't even really stopped to ask, what do I want my ideal lifestyle to look like? And then what role does that play in that?

Is that part of a overall plan for systematically moving closer to this ideal lifestyle? Or is it just sort of like a random thing I came up with? So make sure you've updated your lifestyle-centric plan and that this still makes sense as well. So evidence-based planning, LCP the whole thing to make sure that you're not just fixating on like a random thing because you need something to fixate on.

All right. Who do we have? Next up is Karen. I just achieved one of my grand goals, a tenured track law professorship. I want to take advantage of this fresh start to get really intentional about my planning and time management systems. How should I treat this blank slate? So here was the one confusion I had.

And I don't know if it was clear in the longer question, Jesse. Law school professorships are, they're weird to me. Like sometimes it's what you, all you're doing is being a law school professor. But sometimes these law school professors also practice law. He was getting, or she's getting out of law.

Okay. So she's leaving. She's transitioning from the, what she called the, the constant fire drills. I think she said at some point that she faces as a lawyer. She's leaving that to go in the tenure track academia. Okay, Karen, you're going to find it in a lot of ways easier and some ways harder.

So the ways you're going to find it easier is you don't have to, you won't be on for nine, 10, 11, 12 hours a day, billing and seven and a half minute increments. Like you don't have to be locking in your brain and just squeezing out activity without break.

When you're a professor, if you leave for an hour to go see a friend, no one yells at you. Like no one comes in and is like, these are billable minutes. Like what's going on here? No one cares. No one cares. I, I just appear for months at a time.

No one notices. I put a mannequin. It's a true story. I put, what I do is I put a mannequin in my office and I have a, an old wiper motor so that it like kind of moves back and forth. And for like a couple of weeks, my department chair, I'll just walk by and be like, oh, Cal must be in there.

I see someone moving behind the door and I'll be gone from, no, that's not true. I'm not gone for months at a time. But the point is it's your time. No one's billing you. It's up to you. Write cool papers, teach good classes. However you want to do that, get it done.

So if you're a lawyer, what I would suggest doing is like, here's what I would keep from your lawyer life. your lawyer life. The ability to, okay, I'm during this time, I have to do this thing. And this is my time to work on this client and needs to get done.

I'm going to lock in and get it done. Time block and keep that sort of intensity to get the class prep done and to make sure you're making progress. Like whatever research you're doing, if you're doing that, I don't know, you need four hours a day outside of like the classroom time.

And so my other advice is don't feel guilty about that. And right, I would spend the first semester, just like work on your classes. Don't do any research. Just like walk around the campus, enjoy the students, write cool lectures, you know. And then you can kind of add some research in.

In terms of specific systems and do time block planning, that matters in academia because the work will fill the space. But if you have a time block plan, you realize you don't need as much work as you thought, as much time as you thought. You definitely need quotas. So the thing about academia is that there are certain things that you need to do that will be offered to you that you need to say yes to at least sometimes because it's just part of being a good academic citizen.

But you might have so many of these requests coming in that you can't say yes to all of them. It's like you need to do some reviews of papers, but you can't say yes to every request to review a paper. You need to sit on committees, but you can't say yes to every offer to sit on committees.

So have quotas. Is there any papers review? How many recommendation letters I write? How many committees I sit on? How many program committees I'll be on? How many students I supervise? Set quotas of the stuff that's important. So you're doing the stuff that's important, but that you have a limit on how much of it you do.

When you get past that limit, you say, look, I love this activity. I do a lot of it, but I've hit my quota, so I can't help you out this semester. So have quotas. They make a big difference. Definitely in academia. Use autopilot scheduling for all the autopilot stuff.

So in particular in teaching, there's a lot of stuff that happens regularly. Like I have to prepare lectures. I have to do this type of grading. I have to, like stuff that happens week in, week out. When, where, and what you do, just have it auto-scheduled on your calendar.

Don't even think about it. It's like, yeah. Like after lunch, I go to this library and that's when I do my grading. I do that on Thursdays because they handed their essays on Wednesdays. Like autopilot it. It makes your life easier. And it also means like when other things fall into your schedule, it's not going to steal the time you need to get the basic repeated stuff done that you need to get done.

And then I would have communication protocols, especially for students. You know, Hey, here's how you get in touch with me. We come to my office hours, maybe have multiple email addresses, like a email address for class questions that are like just for that, that separate from what you use to talk to like your, your community, have a separate research address.

Like, so have communication protocols, read a role without email. You have a ton of autonomy as a professor, so you might as well lean into it. But I think you're going to find this job intellectually stimulating and refreshingly not so grinding as law was. And don't make it into a grinding job.

Enjoy the fact that it doesn't have to be. I haven't been back. It's been a year and a half since I've actually set foot on Georgetown. I don't think anyone's noticed. Not true. Not true. Not true. You were kind of talking about your office. What does your office look like?

I have a lot of offices. I have two offices at Georgetown now. Are your papers everywhere? Or is it kind of neat? I got to decorate my office, man. It's kind of depressing. Like, so I had my original office. I had brought stuff in. I had a coffee maker and a table and a carpet and there was like a bookshelf in a certain place and what have you.

And then like the, I moved offices because they, we renovated the floor or whatever, right before the pandemic. And so I didn't decorate when we moved in. And then I just lost that momentum. And so it's kind of depressing. It's undecorated. This, I mean, there's like this weird bookshelf in there that just has random books on it.

Um, then I have on the, the shelf behind me at my desk is like a bunch of my books lined up as a true story. Uh, segment producer from the today show did that because they were interviewing me and they, they were shooting B roll in my office. And they're like, I think it's going to look better if there's something back here.

Cause your office looks like a place in which a monk committed suicide. So we need to make this look more interesting. So they took a lot of books of mine off my shelf and they set them up behind like so that the shot of me at my desk would like at least have something in the background.

And that's been there ever since. So it's really depressing. I don't even have any degrees on the wall though. I will say it's why do you have two offices? Well, so, okay. I have another office in which I didn't know until recently. So this one I'm excited about. I haven't seen it yet.

So there's a Georgetown. I'm a computer science professor, but I'm also, uh, you know, a founding faculty member of the center for digital ethics, right? So I, a lot of my work at Georgetown now is about technology and its impact. So the center for digital ethics is headquartered in this cool new building is that by the law school campus.

So it's down by the Capitol. Oh, that's near Gonzaga. Yes, near Gonzaga. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, it's, it's a couple of blocks off North Capitol. Um, yeah, it's real, real close, uh, to like the NPR headquarters union station and the Capitol. The Capitol and you have a doubler and the doubler.

Oh, the restaurant. Oh yeah. You should meet up there. Um, so anyways, the point is I have an office there too, which I haven't seen yet, but like that's, it's cool down there because I can take the Metro there. I was just going to say that. Yeah. Which is nice.

Um, and you can see the Capitol from the building, probably not from my office, but there's certain rooms in the building where, and the public policy schools down there and the law schools down there. Yeah. So I have two offices there and I have an office here and I have two offices at home.

I've got to spruce up your office on the main campus. I don't have my diplomas up, but you know what? There's a, I remember reading this really interesting paper years ago when I was writing how to become a high school superstar, where I got deep into the psychology of impressiveness.

It's a cool book by the way. I always recommend people read it, whether you're going to college or not. And one of these studies I found, it was on counter signaling where not bragging makes you more impressive, right? And, and they talked about like nature. This happens some places where in nature, it's more, uh, it's more raw.

Like the idea is there's certain displays you can do to attract mates, but it also makes you more, uh, easily attacked by predators. So there's kind of like this balance you have to figure out. But in social psychology for humans, it shows up in subtle ways. And there was this famous, not famous study, a study that's famous to me because I thought it was very clever.

they, in the UC system, they took, they randomly selected a bunch of professors of different ranks. So like tenured professors, um, down to like non tenure track professors. And they called at night when no one was around, they called their phones to get their voicemail to see how they described themselves on their voicemail.

And the higher the rank or like the status of the professor, the less likely they were to say PhD. So like me as like a full professor, and this would be much more likely to be like, Hey, this is Cal. I'm not here. Like leave a message. You're a lower rank or non tenure track.

You'd be much more likely to be like, this is Cal Newport PhD, you know? And so they were saying it's counter signaling that like, as you move your way up of like status hierarchies, you, you less, you, you would less mentioned that you want to, you want to put PhD, like my, I don't have PhD after my name on my books.

Like you don't, because it's, it's counter signaling. It looks like you're trying too hard to prove. And it's, so it becomes, you, you signal less. So anyways, that's how I explained the fact I've never had my MIT diplomas hung up anywhere. I was like, I don't need to show my diploma.

That's what I say. It's really cause I'm lazy. I don't need to show my diplomas. Like that's like, I don't need to convince someone that I'm, I'm so highly educated and like I'm at the top. I can't get any higher in academia. I'm at the, the, the highest rank you can get.

So I'm not going to go out of my way in any way to indicate my training or whatever. You should at least bring back the rug and the coffee maker. Yeah. The coffee maker broke. Um, and someone talked to, I gave the table to someone else. I have a whole plan, but no, I got to decorate.

I've got a whole plan to continue to change the office here that I'm renovating. I got to finish that plan first. Yeah. And then I'll start working on my offices. I, yeah, I should make that office cool. This is really interesting to people, by the way, like hearing about my office decoration.

Do we have a case study? We do. All right. I want to do that just so we can hear the case study music. The music still makes me think about the case study. Then starting with just straightforward, brutal violence. It's because I love that contrast. Here's what they don't tell you about the feel of blood on your hands.

It's slippery like an eel. That's what I thought. They looked at the body of the bus driver. Okay. I just think it would be a funny contrast is what I'm saying is from that music. But that's not what our current case study today is actually about. It's written by Rebecca who writes to say, I've always had trouble committing to one thing.

I went to art school, worked at galleries, did freelance reporting, design jewelry, and more. Meanwhile, I'd been writing songs since high school and releasing an album every eight years. My songs are lyric focused, but I found lyrics excruciating to write. So I took forever to finish them at any time I was working on at least three ambitious, unrelated projects.

This reminds me, we should find, I have it somewhere. The CD that my high school band cut should play that on the air. I have it somewhere. I don't know if we're going to find a CD player. I was just thinking that. That's going to be the harder part.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Yeah. We wrote the theme song for our senior prom. Very proud of that. It was a song we wrote and recorded. All right. Anyways, it's called get off your damn phone. All right. Anyways, back to Rebecca's story. At any given time, I was working on at least three ambitious, unrelated projects.

I tended to either jump ship before going fully deep with one discipline, or wait until right before a deadline to finish a project with no time to bring it to its full potential. True to form, I pivoted the web development a few years ago. Then I read your books, Digital Minimalism, Deep Work, and Slow Productivity in succession.

While reading Deep Work, I took a lyrical seed I had jotted down a year earlier and started working on it every morning for one hour, first thing after dropping my kid at school. Some days I free wrote on the song's theme. Other days I labored over one line. Even if I disliked everything I wrote that day, it felt productive to just be ruling things out.

By working on one song consistently, I found I was always mulling it over in the back of my mind. After two and a half months of doing this almost every morning, I solved the puzzle of the song. The final verse came around in a pleasing way I could never have predicted.

Even though I spent more hours on these lyrics than on most songs, the overall timeline was shorter. I decided this is the way for me to work going forward and finished another lyrically ambitious song soon after. One that would later strike a prominent music journalist when he saw me open for a bigger act and which would eventually lead to an album review.

After reading Slow Productivity, I realized I needed to solely focus on finishing the album. I've been obscure for two decades, but since this album came out, people seem to be connecting with my music on a new level. So here's some examples. Uncut Magazine called the album a triumph of dramatic storytelling.

Rolling Stone called it fantastic and described the second song I wrote during the one hour blocks as one of the wittiest and warmest parenthood songs you'll hear this year. Aquarium Drunkard wrote before the future is that rare thing an album that feels as satisfying and complete as a great short story collection.

I attribute this all to both a higher level of songwriting than before and my new willingness to focus on one project and see it through to the end, including the packaging and promotion phase. Most importantly, I no longer dread working on lyrics. I have faith that if I kept at it, I will eventually solve the song and I feel hopeful that I can release my next album in two to three years instead.

That's a great case study because what this tells us, it's like what we talked about last week on the podcast when we talked about work-life balance and what it takes to not be mediocre. And the reality of that is what really matters relentless discipline work over a long period of time on a thing that you're trying to do really well.

That is what almost always is going to be the secret to people doing the types of things where you say, wow. So if we look at this Rebecca's story here, Rebecca, of course, is a pseudonym for Taylor Swift. I assume. I assume. If we look at Rebecca's story here, what she's saying is like, okay, I worked on the hard thing.

Lyrics. I worked on the hard thing every day even if I didn't want to. I worked on the hard thing every day if it meant all I got done was writing one line or just ruling out things that didn't work. Nothing worked today. But I'll still call that progress because I now know new things that don't work.

And I do the hard work and I do it every day whether I want to or not. That led to a rave review in Rolling Stone. The stuff she has struggled for years and years to make progress on. Now she was making progress on it. That's hard work. That's relentless discipline.

That's diligence. But you know what? It's not. Hard to do in the sense of long grinding days. Hard to do in the sense of I have to sacrifice almost everything else in my life to make this happen. Hard to do in the sense of I don't sleep anymore or like I have to cut off all ties to anything that I value.

No, it's two hours a day. The magic of relentless deep work is not in what you do in any one day. It's how much you did over the last year. And when that's your game, I want to aggregate a large amount of actual deep work on hard stuff that matters over a year or two years.

What you do in a particular day doesn't really matter. It doesn't have to be exhausting. It doesn't have to be busy. It doesn't have to be performative. In fact, if you do that, you're going to burn out and the amount of work you get done is going to be much less.

So never underestimate the power of like in this case, an inspired mom and songwriter who's getting one to two hours a day in on the absolute hardest, most important stuff she could be doing creatively. And eventually that worked. So I think that's a great example. Rebecca, I appreciate it.

We included the URLs to her music in the show notes. Oh yeah. They're in the show notes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. This is Rebecca Schiffman. Cool. Yeah. Check that out in the, in the show notes. Again, suited in for Taylor Swift. I assume I'm Taylor Swift's muse. I was trying to think about this the other day.

I think I could name, this is true, three Taylor Swift songs. Could you name more than three? I would recognize them, but I can't name them. I think I recognize three. There's a song called love story. There's the song that was in the singing animals movie that my, when my kids were younger, they watched the sing off movie sing, shake it off.

These are older songs. I don't know our newer songs. And there's something like bad. Yeah. Something right. Yeah. Bad. Um, kidney stone or something. I don't know. I don't know what it actually is. You would probably, you could probably go on for two hours. Cause you listened to a podcast on I'm sure about like Kelsey's last year performance.

I don't listen to their podcasts actually. No, I just, you probably hear about him from football context. All right. Anyways, I should know more Taylor Swift. I thought you were talking about the Kelsey podcast. No, I just mean, you probably know more about her fiance than you do about her.

I guess that's what I was saying. Oh yeah. As an NFL football player. All right. Do we have a call this week? We do. All right. Let's hear it. Good morning. This is Kelso from South Africa. I want to start off by saying thank you to Kel for all the knowledge and insight that you've provided over the years in terms of your books and your podcast.

I found it incredibly valuable and I appreciate your efforts around this. I have a question. When a person is in the weeds again, after potentially working for a while and sort of losing control over all of the commitments and everything that one needs to pay attention to, how does one sort of put a stake in the ground and I need some strategies to understand how one goes through the review process to get back on track in terms of commitments, in terms of projects, etc.

Is there a framework or a strategy that you would recommend in order to put a stake in the ground, start again from scratch and understand exactly how to proceed from there? Thank you so much. Take care. All right. Kelso. I appreciate the question. Just that's actually the second Kelso I've met.

It's an unusual name, but that's the second Kelso that I've met. Kind of ironic that we're also talking about Kelsey. I was worried at first that there's like, yeah, this is Kelsey. Why don't you know my fiance's songs? A. B. How do I hear this live? Because you're recording the tape.

I just do. Taylor has that technology. C. I'm coming to fight you. Which would be a highly rated episode. All right. This is a good question. There's two different types of resets here that matter. There's like a purely professional reset, which is just, you know, you're making progress. You have various, you're all locked in.

You have time blocking and multi-scale planning and working on different initiatives and keeping on control of stuff. And then you go through like a super chaotic work period because there's like a crisis or something and all that flies out the window. It's just like our hair's on fire. We're trying to make this done.

And how do you turn back on your time management systems? We've talked about it on the show before about how you recover. I would point towards, if that was the issue, there was an issue, a podcast we did over the summer. And maybe you remember this more, Jesse, but we did a podcast over the summer where I talked about like going to a one page productivity system, like a highly reduced productivity system.

And if you're looking for it, it's called one page productivity. And this would have been like six episodes ago. Episode 60, 360. Episode 360. So nine episodes ago. So if that's the issue, like, look, we have a fire drill at work. And so all of my systems are out the door.

Just go in the summer mode and fall back on like a one page productivity system that just sort of keeps your head above water, prevents major things from being missed and makes you have some sort of peace of mind. And then once you have a little bit of breathing room after the crisis dies down, then you can sort of one by one turn your systems on.

If it's a life overload, so it's not just work, it's all sorts of stuff going on. Maybe it was like a health issue with you or someone in your family or there's like a major disruption or a natural disaster. There's all sorts of stuff that can happen that throws your whole life in the chaos.

And you're like, I don't even know what I'm, you know, doing anymore. I'm just sort of running from one crisis to another. Maybe I've fallen into like some unhappy, it's like unhealthy substance habits. And I'm, you know, just things aren't going well, but now the acute emergency has died down and I want to get out of it.

And this is more of a, a reset where I would look at something like, you know, I'm thinking about my deep life book where part two is about what's this crash course in becoming a more capable human. And it's something I say, you could do this a lot of times in life.

Like when things go chaotic, how do you, how do you get things back? So without going into too much detail because I haven't finished this part of the book yet, the basics of this sort of like I want to reset my whole life is you take four areas and you do one to two things per area one month at a time.

That's like the framework you want to think about. I think I talk about this. We re-released a podcast episode like this in August where it was like four months to something, something. So I've talked about, you might find a sample system like that if you go back a few episodes.

366. 366. But mainly what you want to do if you're trying to reset your life is like, okay, it's going to like health, it's going to be relationship. If you're religious, it's going to be God fixing that, you know, relationship. And then, you know, it, it is going to be social and then maybe work.

So like four or five things. And then you just like, you go one by one. Like I got to just throw a daily habit into each and just get that back. Something that doesn't take that long, but just like a small exercise habit, a small, like connecting with people habit, a small, like spiritual habit.

Right. And you go through like two to four weeks for each, uh, one thing. Maybe you go through again, add a second thing. You're not trying to jump into like my ideally configured life where I'm making the maximum progress in my ideal lifestyle. It's like, I am back in control in the sense of I'm not where I want to be right now, but I'm taking action.

That's optional on things that are important. And that resets you. And it's going to take six months, take four months, whatever it is. And then you can say, all right, great. Now, now I'm back in it. Where do I need to start making major changes? Where do I need to start making major changes?

I got to get this whole thing, this whole problem out of here. I need to shift this job. And then you're sort of back in a mode of capability where you can start taking big action on optional things that are important. So that's what I'd recommend. All right. Our final part.

I want to check in on the cell phone and schools debate. I think it's interesting now that we're in a new school year to see where we are. But first, something that's even more exciting. I'm going to briefly mention a sponsor. Jesse, let me tell you about something I'm not very good at, which is hiring.

You know, as you know, we recently hired a creative director to help run the newsletter, among other things here at the company. You know how, you know what my process was there? It says, you know, I'm not proud of this. I took a back of a receipt and I wrote on it and I have it here.

So I remember I wrote on it. Me need newsletter guy. Money, maybe non jugglers preferred. And then I just nailed that onto a random telephone pole and I don't know what to do. And I don't trust jugglers. You know what I needed instead? Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need.

So stop struggling to get your job posts seen on other job sites. Indeed sponsored jobs will help you stand out and hire fast. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs. Plus with Indeed sponsored jobs, there are no monthly subscriptions, no long-term contracts, and you only pay for results.

There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of the show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com/deep. Just go to indeed.com/deep right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

Indeed.com/deep, terms and conditions apply. Here's a phrase I just came up with on the spot right now. Hiring, Indeed, is all you need. I also want to talk about our good friends at Vanta. In today's fast-changing digital world, proving your company is trustworthy isn't just important for growth. It's essential.

That's why Vanta is here. Now, here's the thing. Running a company today that basically has anything to do with technology is likely going to require some sort of compliance with all these various standards that are out. And this can be a huge pain and take up a lot of time that you should be spending instead on just making your company, your products better.

Vanta makes this all easier. So whether you're a startup tackling your first SOC 2 or ISO 27IO, or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta's trust management platform makes it easier, quicker and more scalable. This is actually true, Jesse. This is an actual true story. Remember how on the last podcast, I talked about being at dinner with a friend and we both had like the Ridge Wallet.

Yeah. The guy from the tech company. That same dinner. So, you know, we have the right sponsors for our show. At that same dinner, he was talking about vibe coding an app, a software application using AI. And he actually mentioned the phrase about how one of the things he was sort of having the struggle with is making sure that he had SOC 2 compliance.

So he actually was talking about SOC 2 compliance. So I was like, Vanta. And they asked me quietly to leave at that point because it's sort of weird that I jumped up and yelled Vanta. But the point is, is I had a conversation with someone about SOC 2 compliance just a couple of weeks ago.

So these compliances matter, but they're a pain to work with. Vanta helps. One of the things they can do is complete security questionnaires or help you complete those questionnaires up to five times faster. You can win bigger deals sooner. And there are results that are impressive. According to a recent IDC study, Vanta customers slash over $500,000 a year in cost and are three times more productive.

Establishing trust is an optional, but Vanta makes it automatic. Visit Vanta.com slash deep questions to sign up for a free demo today. That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash deep questions. All right, Jesse, let's move on to our final segment. So it's back to school season. I am scheduled to give no fewer than three talks in the near future about kids and phones, which I'm happy to do because I feel super strongly about this topic.

So I've been sort of clued in with like, how is this back to school season going? So I'm going to pull up an article here from the New York Times. This was from earlier. This actually came out in the spring, but it was looking ahead to this current back to school season.

The title of this article was who's against banning cell phones in schools. So inspired by the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul's push to have a New York be one of the latest states to have a statewide ban on cell phones in schools. This reporter was checking in who's for this and who is against it.

Now, this has been a long evolving issue with alliances coming and going. Mainly the groups of people who have been in favor of these bans have been growing while those against have been declining. So this is an interesting question. Who is still against smartphone bans in schools? This, by the way, is an article by Gina Belafonte.

All right. So just a couple of quotes I want to read here. Let's talk about the context for this article. Governor Kathy Hochul's recent campaign is to ban cell phones in schools across New York. At least eight other states, including Florida and Louisiana, have institute restrictions of varying kinds.

In September, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a phone-free act requiring every school district in California to devise a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 2026. So the statewide smartphone bans in schools are spreading. It's blue states and red states. There used to be a talking point. I think Killer Wrens was really pushing this, that somehow this was like a Republican thing.

It's blue states, red states, New York, California, but also Florida, also Louisiana. Let's look at what's going on with New York's proposed ban. In a rare instance of agreement between labor and government, it is supported by the United Federation of Teachers, the union representing New York City schoolteachers. As Michael Mulgrew, the president of the UFT, put it, "It is simple and everyone knows what the expectation is." So who's in favor of the cell phone bans?

The state of New York and the teachers' unions. And it's hard to get them to agree on almost anything. So I think that's pretty impressive. So who is left to be against these right now outside of like high school students who just like to have their phones? This is the interesting point of this article.

So the reporter looks into this. "The constituents most opposed to all-day phone bans are the mothers and fathers who seem to be addicted to constant filial contact." Twist. This is a twist for those of us who have been following this issue. For so many years, the debate was between the data-driven academics and the theory academics.

So the data-driven academics were the social psychologists and the childhood psychologists, the demographers and the economists who were looking at data and they care about data methodology. This is people like John Hyatt. This is people like Gene Twenge who are like, "Look, I have no dog in this fight, but we're looking at this data.

This stuff is bad for kids. We should get this out of schools." Almost certainly is it going to make things better. And then the fight was always against, there's another corner of academia who writes about technology. So like media studies professors or like critical media, critical technology theorists who are less about data and more about particular theoretical frameworks.

Here, here's the framework that's dominant in our field right now and sort of my job is to sort of keep protecting this framework. And those type of academics, they cared about things like techno-determinism. They didn't like the idea of just like a technology by itself could be good or bad.

They were much more interested in their frameworks which were more person-focused and about conflicting hierarchies of power, et cetera, et cetera. These sort of like complicated postmodernism-inspired theories. And so for a long time, they just kept throwing up roadblocks for their other professors. And at first, the roadblocks were when Gene Twenge came out in 2017 and said, "By the way, like there's a lot of these trends I'm seeing that are kind of bad.

And I think it's because of phones." And at first like, "No, it's because of other things." But then they looked closer and said, "Actually, these trends start just when phones start, not when these other things started." So they kind of moved on from that. And then you have the social psychologists come in and say, "I don't know, we're looking at this data." And there seems to be these retrospective giant social surveys.

There's these correlations between heavy social media use and bad mental health outcomes. And then against the idea, there's like, "No, our real complaint was not about the timing. Our real complaint was these correlations are small and there's other correlations you can come up with. And it just matters how you look at the data.

No one really knows what's going on here." And then we got better at analyzing the data and they stuck around. And then we got a lot of other types of study designs like prospective studies and randomized control trials and self-reports and natural experiments. All we're pointing towards the same thing.

Oh, yeah, these are bad for teenagers. So then the same people are like, "That's not really our complaint." I think their complaint now is like, "Well, maybe cell phones are bad, but you can't ban them because we're going to invent hypotheticals where there is a particular kid in a particular situation where it'll be bad for that particular kid.

And the kid is marginalized and we get points because we came up, we should get virtue points because we realized that could be a problem when you didn't." So this has been the battle. These professors fighting these professors. These professors are like, "The data keeps showing this and these other professors keep throwing up different roadblocks." Like, "Well, what about this?

What about that?" So this is the twist. Who's really against these bans now is anxious parents. And that's something that those of us who are in the academic argument maybe weren't paying attention to. Let me read a little bit more of a quote here. "Governor Hochul has spoken to aggrieved first grade teachers who told her that they are overseeing classrooms full of children wearing smart watches.

Mommy and Daddy were checking in all day long saying, 'I miss you and can't wait to see you,' the governor told me. 'That's a parental need,' she said, 'not a student need.' 'The continuation of these patterns,' she worried, 'was bound to keep children from emerging as fully functioning adults.'" I've heard the same thing in some of the talks that I give, that part of the solution to getting kids off phones, especially in schools, is therapy for the parents.

And I get it. If you're prone to anxiety, I'm a parent of three. If you're prone to anxiety, this is a really good vector for anxiety. I know about anxiety. A great vector for anxiety is my kid and my kid's safety. And you can ruminate on that six ways to Sunday.

And once you start ruminating on that, you start telling yourself all these stories of all these disasters that are going to happen. And that the only way to give yourself some peace is to be able to sort of be in touch with your kid and see this is not a problem.

Unfortunately, from a social utilitarian perspective, dooming an entire demographic to have to have these sort of highly distracted, low-quality educational experiences so that a smaller group of parents can feel better, it's just not the right trade-off. Right? There has to be other ways to work on that anxiety. The kids will be fine.

Your ability to contact them in a day, it's not going to help. Also, who are these new parents who are talking to their kids every day? I don't know. I have three kids, Jesse. I think by the third kid, we're like rolling them out of the car at the school as like, we're on our way to celebrate school.

We're starting at like, would you call it Dubliner? Is that the bar you like? Yeah. We're not, we're not sitting around. Oh, poopsie, whoopsie. I hope you're okay. Really? We got stuff to do. I'm on the Peloton, the margarita. There you go. Sorry. I thought that was interesting, Jesse, that this is, again, I've watched some of these things.

You just, you get a sense of the data early on and you're like, I see the way this is going and we're going to have to have this battle for a while, but it's going to, and this has just been one of those issues. Like kids should not be on these things.

It's certainly not in school. And almost everyone is now on board with this. Most of the places of resistance are gone. Again, there's still like the professors who don't like techno determinism, the academics who are just now, they're just like throwing out random stuff. I don't know. Like kids shouldn't, they should have phones in school because you have a poopy head.

Like, I don't know. It's kind of like down to there. I don't know. But for the most part, we're like, they shouldn't have phones in schools. Anxious parents is the next generation of things we have to deal with. So there you go. That's who's against phones in schools. Cool article.

All right. That's all the time we have for today. Thank you for listening. We'll be back next week with another episode. And until then, as always, stay tuned. Hey, if you liked today's discussion about how technology is making us dumber, you might also like episode 365, which is titled What Technology Wants and How to Push Back.

Interesting addition to today's discussion. Check it out. I think you'll like it. What percentage of your time spent using technology is dedicated to services that make you feel worse? Why do we end up entangled with tools that don't seem to have our best interest in mind? How do we escape this fate and take back control of our attention and reclaim our lives?