Psychology of Technology: Less Input, More “Innerput”
The Web, the Internet, and all of the new media that has sprung from them , have been a boon to the information age, making information available at our fingertips instantaneously. The sheer volume of information now accessible on line is staggering. As of a few weeks ago, there were more than 21 billion pages on the Web. Information continues to become more available to more people in less time; from web sites to email to RSS feeds to Twitter, we have input at an unprecedented rate and volume. Ironically, as the frequency of information grows, the length of messages shrinks (e.g., Twitter’s 140-character limit. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; think of haiku). And, amazingly, the vast majority of this information is free.
For all its benefits, an unfortunate consequence of this torrent of information is that our “mental inbox” becomes overloaded. With our minds spilling over with information, our primary motivation is to empty it as quickly as possible. We typically use two “information survival” strategies when the inbox fills up. We output as quickly as possible without sufficient thought to either the incoming or outgoing messages. The obvious downside to this approach is that your input lacks thorough consideration and evaluation and your output lacks quality. Or, we are so overwhelmed by emails and text messages that we simply delete large swathes of messages without even looking at them. The obvious downside here is that important messages may be missed.
Information overload isn’t the only problem with this deluge of data that comes to those of us who are connected 24/7. Such large and never-ending quantities of input interfere with our ability to “innerput,” a word I created to denote our thought processes in response to input, including insights, synthesis, judgments, and decisions. With so much information coming in and the need to get information out, innerput suffers; there is neither the time nor the energy to adequately process all of the information.
Information is only a tool; it’s value lies in how we use it. And information has limited value, either as input or output, without innerput. Only through innerput does information become meaningful, only then can it morph from simple data to knowledge and wisdom. And that only comes when there is time for innerput; stopping in the middle of this flood of information to think about, wrestle with, challenge, and build on the information that arrives at our technological doorstep.
Dangers of input and output without innerput can be seen daily. Unfounded rumors that aren’t investigated adequately before they are posted spread across the Internet and are accepted and remain as "truth" even when they are definitively debunked later. Information without context limits its value to readers by restricting our understanding and its meaning to us. One-sided stories without the balance of another perspective create the illusion of accuracy and correctness. And all of this input doesn’t just describe phenomena that are happening in the world, it also impacts those very events because we make judgments about and decide on how we will respond based on these limited data.
For individuals, input without innerput has serious consequences. It means staying on the surface of information rather than diving deep into its meaning and implications. The absence of innerput prevents us from taking real ownership of the information and integrating it into our knowledge base. It also keeps us from transforming the input from cold and lifeless data into a power plant of insight, creativity, innovation, and action.
At a societal level, the consequences of too much input and not enough innerput are significant and sometimes dire. Input without innerput is often used as a weapon by extremists of every ilk against the forces of reason, moderation, and civil discourse. We see it in totalitarian regimes, fundamentalist causes, and ideological warfare. Drowning people in biased information is a common strategy used to prevent people from thinking deliberately and critically about the input to which they are exposed. In a torrent of information, the best way to survive is simply to accept it rather than resist it. The deadly combination of a tidal wave of input and the absence of innerput makes people more vulnerable to misinformation and undue influence.
So how can we swim against the tide of information overload and find the time for innerput? The answer to this question is really quite simple, but nonetheless far from easy. The power to control the amount of input we allow in, foster innerput, and ensure the quality of the output we produce is in our individual hands. Too often, I see people becoming slaves to technology rather than being its master; I see people being information junkies who just crave the input regardless of its value.
You control the flow of information in several ways. First, ask yourself what purpose all of this input serves and whether the typical information you receive each day really brings something of value to the table. You’ll likely realize that you’re inputting a great deal of information simply out of habit or perhaps a concern that you will miss out on something really important if you limit your input. Ask yourself: Do you really need to follow people on Twitter or Facebook or check your IMs every two minutes? Hopefully, this exercise will put your input load into perspective and show you that much of your input is unnecessary.
Next, choose the input you deem most important and jettison that which doesn’t clear that self-determined threshold. When you commit to input filtering and limits, you will establish new and healthier input habits.
With your input load reduced and your new understanding of the importance of innerput (you already knew it intuitively; I just needed to bring it into your consciousness), you now have the time to devote innerput to the input that you really value. The result? Less feeling of drowning in information, less stress, more time, more cogent thinking, and better quality output.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
drjim Actually, TS, my two posts are not mutually exclusive. Both are about taking control of our information and/or connectedness so we don’t become a slave to either. Innerputting isn’t a problem, but a solution that will result in more efficient and effective thinking, problem solving, and decision making. Less input will result in better innerputting and output, freeing us to spend less time in triviata, more time on substance, and then more time off line and on life.
As for what I call creativity, I do my best innerputting when I’m not trying to innerput, e.g., running, taking a shower, lying in bed. The ideas just pop into my head. I think this happens because creativity isn’t linear or conscious. It comes from letting a mind with sufficient input to “run its programs.”
As for how we filter info, it seems that you are talking about making ethical decision. We already have algorithms or defaults that help us make decisions. They are called values. When faced with ethical dilemmas, our default is what we value most. If it’s $$, we go in that direction. If it’s integrity, we go that way. Those defaults can be recalibrated with experience and innerput.
We are all individuals, so there won’t be any single method or system for decision making. We have to create our own. As for AI, bots will all come out the same, so a single system will be useful.
Very heavy stuff for a mobile phone site. Fun to innerput and exchange ideas (input and output). Thanks for pushing me to think beyond my own ideas.
TechniSol I didn’t think they were mutually exclusive at all, rather I was kidding you that both were aimed at limiting input and that if you kept encouraging this behavior you’d soon find yourself with no audience. I sometimes find subtle humor in things and can’t resist.
Sorry about running the filtering in with the ethical bit, I had something “running in the background” while writing and I guess the two things merged unnecessarily, but there is linkage in that after filtering the next step is processing followed by response and ethics are a big part of many decisions.
As for the values question, I guess it comes back to some things being near absolutes for most individuals(no murder -except in time of war, or perhaps only if necessary to save a loved one, etc.) vs. more common situational ethics which are probably much closer to the common ethical questions typically of less import -do you walk back five hundred feet and wait in line again to return an extra dime in your change? A dollar? Five? Pick a number. I don’t agree that it’s as simple as what we value most being a default, I think it’s far more complex in that each situation has a default even if we’re unaware of it and may or may not be directly related to an overall default.
I agree, far too potentially heavy for a mobile phone site. Good luck with “innerput” becoming adopted by others.
Thank you for inspiring an enjoyable(if apparently only to you and I) discussion as well. Keep swinging, I enjoy your work.
[...] to Torsten for forwarding this interesting link to me: Psychology of technology: less input, more innerput. Makes excellent points about the value in consciously reducing the input noise in your life so can [...]
drjim Hey, TS, good thoughts. common ethical dilemmas are less clearcut (though it helps to have values as defaults). Life is complex; that’s probably why algorithms can’t work that well with humans.
Not too worried about losing my audience (all one of you!).
And thanks for the kind wordsa bout my work.
sm0k3ydaband1t i wouldnt worry too much about losing your audience, the reason readers of this site have smartphones is because they have that urge/need to stay connected, therefore this article is more than relevant to them, not to mention extremely helpfull. even if people dont comment much on your articles they are read and they’re actually worthy of storing the info in them. so please, dont stop the psychology of technology, you do help people better innerput with your output 
Dr. Jim, I’m beginning to worry a bit about you…
Yesterday you were telling us to get offline and make more time for real world pursuits, today you’re saying how we need to better filter our online input in order to devote more time to cogitating on it and relating it to our consciousness as well as our information store -I’m concerned that by the end of the week you may loose your audience and put yourself out of work!
On a more serious note, well slightly, I think you’re on to something. Once upon a time, in the same galaxy, but long, long ago I contemplated a few questions related to the design of a self contained AI/robot and came to the conclusion that such a “being” might well require downtime for more in-depth processing not unlike our own unconscious and periods of dreaming which I believe may well afford us the same buffer against input and allow the mind to perform deeper processing, if often unguided. I say “often unguided” as I have direct experience with being able to go to bed while engaged in a programming project and wake up with new approaches or even blocks of code written while sleeping, ready to be typed into an editor. My best tool for dealing with an “unsolvable” dilemma has always been to nap on it for a while -while turning the problem over in my mind just prior.
What I’d like to see is more work devoted to describing how we decide to filter and process information. I like to think I’m a reasonably bright guy, but I prefer to take time to process and relate and find I’m never as good at snap decisions as others I’ve met -especially if the situation involves walking the tightrope near an ethical line. How I envy the ability of others do so, either without falling, or at least without recrimination at even a minor imbalance. I believe some(most?) of us are truly best served by having a preset set of rules to follow for dealing with most situations -whether we realize they’re there or not.
Anyhow, I think you might be onto something if you could construct a method or system for deciding just how best to filter/limit that input and schedule when to deal with what remains… probably impossible, but no doubt one day essential for an AI, if not for us feeble creatures.