Our digital devices enable us to access all sort of data, exchange messages instantaneously, connect with anyone at any time, and share content with the entire world. It is all easy, fast, and empowering. And it would be just perfect; if not for the fact that we are now inundated with so many unsolicited and ill-timed inputs that making sense of all of them is becoming incredibly difficult.
In nature, our brain filters the signals it receives from the senses, and focuses only on the few elements of information that are relevant and vital at any given moment. In the digital world, however, our senses are overfilled with endless distractions and meaningless nuances. And studies have shown that when we are exposed to more inputs than we can process we actually reduce the amount of information we take in, and arbitrarily leave out things that are potentially important.
Anyway, we are all so busy—tapping, scrolling, watching, texting, and posting—that we don’t seem to realize that all our contributions keep adding to an oversaturated totality in which everything becomes diluted and confused; and most of the time the communicative power of platforms like social media is used to disseminate superficial nonsense.
No wonder that, as our lives are engulfed with unnecessary undertakings and anxieties, we are increasingly looking for simplified content. And, in spite of the many channels and modalities through which we can access nearly any information, we rarely engage in energy-demanding explorations—that may require connecting facts and going deeper into them.
Indeed, when we come across something fairly complex we only give it a few seconds, before moving on to the next thing. And, for the most part, our selections and discoveries are just variations within the boundaries set by virtual communities and search engines that connect us to people with similar interests and return results shaped by what we have accessed before. So, most of our digital experiences are confined within homogeneous spaces which are rarely penetrated by anything new and original.
But can we blame it entirely on technology?
Technology leverages what we are; and it so happens to expose our limitations.
In fact, present-day distractions are both the cause and effect of our inability to perceive what’s truly important. But why is it suddenly so difficult to discern and exchange meaning?
Although nowadays it seems normal that everything should try to catch our attention, in the natural environment it must have been a different story. That is because, notably, nature does not try to get our attention at all. It is up to us organisms to be constantly vigilant, alert, and aware of the surroundings. And while our communications are now largely about abstractions that cannot be directly linked to any immediate necessity, our early conversations must have been very much focused on those inputs that were relevant and significant to the specific purpose of the moment—finding food, escaping danger, etc. And surely, unlike the flimsy intentions that drive our digital interactions, our biological urges were not easily deviated by petty interferences.
So, what can we do to cut distractions and facilitate more mindful communications?
First, we should realize that for their content to be meaningful messages must be relevant. And to help with filtering out the irrelevant ones we can follow a very simple procedure: start each conversation by specifying the type of interaction that we intend to have. Are we making a suggestion? Looking for information? Asking a question? Asking for approval? Or, let’s say, assigning a task?
This way, recipients can more easily anticipate the response or follow-up that is required, and understand what’s expected from them. It is also simpler for everyone to recognize whether the ensuing contributions are valuable and pertinent to the exchange. And if inputs and responses are concise and properly structured, the amount of unnecessary information that comes to us can be significantly reduced.
Still, not all relevant messages need our immediate attention. And, as we know, to try to address each of them right away is not only impractical but also impossible.
We need to prioritize our responses, and focus our attention on what matters most at any moment. For that, I think, it is essential to find a representation of priority that works best in the field of communication. And I cannot see anything more appropriate than urgency; since any form of importance can always be expresses in terms of how urgently we ought to respond or attend. So, if we opt for this measure, prioritizing becomes a matter of understanding the degree of urgency with which each input should be addressed.
Nevertheless, there are many factors that can influence the prioritization process. There is the stated importance of the message—which is often a subjective characterization of the sender. There is the role and prominence of the sender. There is the context, which is essential to our ability to fully comprehend the content of each input. And there is the time-sensitivity of the inputs. Not only of those that require a response within a certain period of time, but all of them—as the longer they have been ignored the greater is the potential impact on us, or our interlocutors.
One way to deal with this problem is to supplement messages with all these influencing factors; and then establish a process that considers those of them that are most impactful for each particular type of communication. In the case of an invitation to a meeting, for instance, it would typically be the date-time of the meeting; while for a suggestion or a question it would be when we received it. And, of course, in all instances we must take into account whether the input came from a VIP, or perhaps our boss, and if it is part of a context, such as a project—in which case the deadline and criticality of the project would sure be of most consequence.
This is one possible approach. But, if we do things right, it can present relevant messages precisely when they need our attention, and therefore facilitate more mindful relationships.
Sandro Levati
Wideprocess © 2018