I keep my phone on silent and turn off all vibrations. There's no way to notify me of anything until I look at it, but that's a feature.

I think there's a subtle difference between "monitoring for notifications" and actual notifications. Your phone might be on do-not-disturb mode, but that doesn't mean your brain isn't distracted wondering whether someone replied to your last message or returned your call from yesterday. Taking it out of your pocket and leaving it in another room or your car or wherever lessens the compulsion to frequently pull it out and check.

I noticed something similar during meditation: I had set up the stopwatch on my phone so that I did not have to wonder how many time had passed. It would just ring when 30 minutes had passed. However, when the phone was just lying next to me, I would compulsively check the time on the phone every few minutes. Only when I moved the phone to the other side of the room did I stop caring about the time passed (at least for the most part).

I realize that I am not typical, but I seldom even have my phone turned on, and don't even take it with me very often.

I was tethered to a phone for years. I am retired. I only take it if I am expecting to be idle. Then, I take it so I can browse while waiting.

It feels kinda nice, frankly. I am not a technophobe. It's just nice to not be beholden to my phone.

This reminds me of my experience giving up my wristwatch. I would glance at it frequently, but then didn't know the time because the behavior was strictly reflex. Finally, someone asked me for the time right after I did this and I had to look again because I hadn't internalized it. That was the day I removed my watch forever.

Your comment about being beholden to your phone reminds me a a great quote that I recalled on that day: "Wearing a watch is like being handcuffed to time."

I gave up wrist watches back in the late 90's when carrying a cellphone with automatic carrier time became a new sort of norm. I just wanted to shed accessories and check pockets for one less thing before heading out the door.

Later on, maybe by 2010, I had noticed that as my aversion to blackberry vibrations emerged, and I avoided my work-related cellphone more and more, I got really good at ballparking the time to within a margin of maybe two minutes, give or take.

Basically by now, somehow, I'm able to glance at a known clock with an accurate reading (or with a known offset to the accurate time), catch the time once, and usually remain pretty accurate for the next handful of hours, until I get stuck in a sufficiently distracting situation that demands concentration. Up until that point, I try to guess the time to the minute before looking, then look, and often, I'm right on.

I don't have any special method beyond that though. It's just a gut feeling I've accidentally developed. I think it started when I disabled rings and vibrations for email alerts and I'd (with an amount of dread) try to guestimate how many emails would drop before the next time I checked my phone, and the minutes since my last look.

I think the next level up, beyond this skill is memorizing relevant time zones and major cities in each, but I haven't been pushed into caring about something like that quite yet.

> "Wearing a watch is like being handcuffed to time."

I like the quote because that's how I feel when I look at any digital clock or watch. The millisecond accuracy of any NTP-aware device produces anxiety and is unnecessary.

An analog watch, especially if it's a wind-up mechanical watch, which is by its nature slightly inaccurate, is much more comforting. I feel like an observer of time, and not a slave of it.

A reliable clock produces anxiety over an unreliable one? Citation needed!

n=1, FWIW.

You should get a fuzzy clock. A cute version of those are the Word Clocks.

Just because you don't do something all the time doesn't mean you're a -phobe. Someone who is a car lover isn't sitting in a stationary Honda Accord all day just because they love cars. Someone who loves food isn't eating junk food 24-7. That's called addiction.

A car lover seeks out beautiful cars, and maybe owns one or two that they take out enjoy when they have time.

A technophile is the same. What this discussion is about is addicts, not technophiles or technophobes.

That was what they had participants do in this study, and they still observed the effect.

When you are used to notifications, you look for them even if you don't have your phone with you. It takes a while to detoxify yourself, and lose your "check reflex".

I suspect that actually having loud and obnoxious alerts would probably reduce the burden, because then you'd never worry you missed one.

Are you not married, or do not have children or old parents? I would not forgive myself for missing an emergency call because I was hoping to be more productive.

Before ubiquitous mobile phones, most of those calls weren't considered emergencies.

Totally this. The reduced costs to instant communication makes some people feel entitled to your attention at any random moment. It requires a strong and active pushback.

The iOS Do Not Disturb feature allows you to set an exclusion for a chosen group of contacts, so you could allow calls from your spouse or parents while blocking everything else.

I have it scheduled to turn on every night so I'm not disturbed by spam calls at 3AM, with a few family members excluded.

same - except my DND is set for midnight until 4pm. i still check the phone at lunch or when i get to work but i otherwise wont notice it unless it actually rings.

I do the same, although I spend far too much time on it despite such efforts. Totally blocking notifications from 90% of applications helps too.

I do the same, though I wonder if a part of my brain is still itching to check if I have any notifications.

Perhaps there is a second side to it in that you'll be thinking about what the best time is to next check your phone. Granted it's a little far removed, but it's plausible. It stands for other commitments that run all the time too, though.

As a manager in IT I have to have my phone on 24x7 for escalations and I hate it. On the occurrences that I take a real vacation and can turn my phone off, something in my head flips and I can truly forget about it. When it is on, there is something subconscious that will not quite let go and I can feel it.

I feel I would benefit greatly from being able to truly turn my phone off one day a week.

Are you really the only person it can be escalated to? What happens if you're sick, or your phone breaks, or whatever?

Would go up to the senior manager, or whoever else my team can get ahold of. During vacations I have another manager cover for me. There's always options, but it's expected that I be first point of contact.

I hope you get compensated well for this. I would not put up with those conditions.

In all seriousness, find some way out of this.

The stress may well be cumulative, and it's insidious.

It kinda reminds me of learned helplessness; just knowing that you're capable of changing the situation makes people perform better, even if they actually don't use that capability. It seems that there's something opposite happening here; just knowing that there's power keeps you thinking of using it.

Apparently you're right, but I did hit a nerve and prompted some interesting discussion, and got by far the highest point-count for any HN comment I've made. Count me cynical, but my first and kind of unintentional foray into fake-news-land worked out well.

This is why smart watches are actually pretty great.

So then the title is misleading. It is not the presence of a smartphone, but over using the notification feature of the phone that causes the issue.

Whether or not the title is misleading you read a headline and decided to drop your 2 cents without actually reading the article. The title isnt at fault here

And yet it is. Writing inaccurate headlines is equivalent to intentionally lying to people - because most people who see a headline will not bother to click through, and will instead remember just the assertion from the headline.

What about that comment lead you to believe I didn't read the article.

Your summary of the paper is incorrect.