Inspired by a curiosity to factcheck my own feelings, I’ve been tracking my mood: Far too often a bad day can feel like a permanent state rather than a passing experience. As it turns out, observing the little coloured emojis on my mood chart, one bad day does not, in fact, mean I am doomed to live a blue crying-face life forever. Thank goodness.Otherstrack themselves in different ways: monitoring daily step counts, tracking sleep cycles and bodily functions, counting calories, logging meals and so on. Digital technologies, wearable devices and an array of platforms make this easier than ever. Many people set reading targets and log books read on Goodreads or films watched on Letterboxd. Some track daily outfits online with the goal of perfecting personal style. Self-tracking is regularly promoted as a way toward self-improvement.This kind of data-driven self-surveillance can be interesting, useful, and empowering even, for some. Wired writers who created a project calledthe Quantified Selfsuggest this comes from a desire to know oneself better. But it’s also kind of weird, right? To approach life as thoughit’s a mathematical problem to be solvedwith just a bit more data. It veers too closely to the ideology of a tech bro (yikes). Indeed, the former CEO of Google wrote in his book: “with enough data and the ability to crunch it, virtually any challenge facing humanity today can be solved.” Well, there’s more data around than ever before and challenges are still abound.We live in a society saturated in surveillance and rampant data extraction. It is now well understood that all of us are subject to a process of ‘datafication’, that various parts of life are routinely transformed into data, ready to be guzzled up and commodified by corporations. Are we adopting the business model of big tech by inflicting the same paradigm upon ourselves? We are already monitored in so many ways; by offering up even more intimate data, we play directly into the hands of companies that benefit from it the most.Sleepmaxxing: from red light to mouth taping and nasal dilators, do any of the viral trends work? | AntiviralRead moreThe decision to subject yourself to monitoring for personal benefit is closely aligned with the concept ofluxury surveillance: Some people pay to track themselves while others are forced to endure it. A person on parole may have surveillance imposed upon them by way of an ankle bracelet, while others fork out hundreds to wear the latest smartwatch. Similarly, some may closely monitor their health out of necessity. The difference is in the power and privilege to make the choice for yourself.Then there’s the disciplining nature of the thing. I recall in the midst of the pandemic, I drew up a kind of adult star-chart on a whiteboard. Each day I’d tick off tasks such as: get dressed; exercise; read; and so on. Basic habits to make myself feel like a functioning human in the midst of chaos. There can be some satisfaction in seeing the chart fill up with stars, and I did feel better consistently doing the things I know are good for me. It also felt as if I turned into my own boss attempting to control and performance-manage myself into being a productivity machine.More extreme versions of this are tools designed to break down the day into small, discrete slots of time to be allocated to various jobs: planners that chunk time into as little as 15 minute segments, or software designed to optimise your calendar. This strikes me as reflexive Taylorism – the theory of “scientific management” created by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the late 19th century – only instead of a boss doing it to us, we do it to ourselves. The idea is based on the notion that breaking down actions into minutely-timed segments and measuring efficiency can increase productivity. If you want to control something, the logic goes, the first step is to measure it.We may be able to track our way to some form of self-optimisation. But should we even want to? I’m not particularly interested in assisting the process of flattening myself into an array of data points, to serve the interests of tech companies by making myself even more machine-readable. I’m not convinced that the best way to understand oneself is through quantification. Of course tracking parts of your life isn’t necessarily wrong or bad, but it seems worthwhile to question the urge to constantly seek to optimise, and to resist internalising the tech industry maxim that more data is always better. Perhaps this is trite – overly romantic – but a big, messy, joyous life isn’t going to be found in a database.Samantha Floreani is a digital rights activist and writer based in Melbourne/Naarm
We have more data on ourselves than ever before. But can we really track our way into happiness? | Samantha Floreani
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"The Challenges of Self-Tracking: Navigating Data in the Pursuit of Happiness"
The Guardian
8.4
TruthLens AI Summary
In a personal exploration of self-awareness, the author reflects on their experience with mood tracking, revealing that a single bad day does not equate to a lifelong struggle with unhappiness. Various forms of self-tracking, from monitoring physical health metrics like step counts and sleep patterns to logging daily activities and personal style choices, have become commonplace due to advancements in digital technology and wearable devices. This trend is often marketed as a pathway to self-improvement, but it raises questions about the implications of viewing life through a lens of data and metrics. The author notes the paradox of living in a data-saturated society where individuals willingly engage in self-surveillance, potentially aligning themselves with business models that prioritize data commodification. The concept of 'datafication' highlights how personal experiences are transformed into quantifiable data, which can be exploited by corporations, thus blurring the lines between self-empowerment and subjugation to the demands of technology-driven industries.
The author also critiques the potential downsides of self-tracking, pointing to the idea of 'luxury surveillance' where some individuals pay for tools to monitor their lives while others are subjected to surveillance without consent. Drawing parallels to the discipline imposed by productivity tools, the narrative suggests that breaking down life into quantifiable segments can lead to a mechanistic view of personal achievement. While self-optimization through tracking may yield some benefits, the author expresses skepticism about the value of quantifying one’s life experiences. They argue that the pursuit of a fulfilling life cannot be reduced to mere data points, advocating for a more holistic approach to self-understanding that embraces the complexities and messiness of human existence. Ultimately, the author concludes that while tracking can provide insights, it is crucial to question the constant drive for optimization and resist the notion that more data is inherently better for personal growth.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article explores the growing trend of self-tracking and the implications it has on our understanding of happiness and personal well-being. It highlights the paradox of having more data about ourselves than ever before, while still grappling with the complexities of emotional health. The author reflects on the notion that tracking one’s mood or other metrics can lead to a better understanding of oneself, yet questions whether this approach truly leads to happiness or merely perpetuates a cycle of datafication.
Self-Tracking and Its Impact on Well-being
Tracking various aspects of life, such as mood, physical activity, or sleep, has become increasingly popular due to digital technologies and wearable devices. This self-surveillance is often marketed as a pathway to self-improvement and understanding. However, the article raises concerns about the implications of viewing life through a quantifiable lens, suggesting it may reduce the richness of human experience to mere numbers.
Societal Surveillance and Datafication
The piece discusses the broader societal trend of datafication, where personal experiences are transformed into data points for corporations. By willingly providing more intimate data, individuals may inadvertently contribute to a system that commodifies personal experiences. This raises ethical questions about privacy and the motivations behind self-tracking behaviors, as individuals may be adopting corporate data models for their personal lives.
Skepticism Towards Data-Driven Solutions
The article challenges the belief that data can solve all human challenges, reflecting on the limitations of a purely data-driven approach. While tracking can be empowering for some, it is essential to recognize that emotional states and human experiences are complex and cannot be fully captured by metrics alone. The author’s skepticism highlights a disconnect between the promise of technology and the reality of emotional well-being.
Connections to Broader Trends
The discussion on self-tracking resonates with other contemporary conversations about privacy, technology's role in our lives, and the societal implications of constant monitoring. This article contributes to a growing narrative that questions the value of data in personal happiness, aligning with broader critiques of tech culture and surveillance capitalism.
Potential Societal Implications
The insights presented could influence public discourse on mental health, technology use, and privacy. As people become more aware of the consequences of datafication, there might be a shift towards valuing qualitative experiences over quantitative tracking. This could lead to a greater demand for ethical data practices and a reconsideration of how technology integrates into daily life. The article appeals primarily to individuals concerned about mental health, technology, and privacy issues. It engages readers who are questioning the effectiveness of self-tracking methods and those who are wary of the implications of data commodification. There is no immediate impact on stock markets or specific companies mentioned, but the themes discussed may resonate with businesses in the tech and wellness industries, influencing future products and practices. In terms of the global power balance, the article reflects ongoing debates about technology's influence over society. It connects to current discussions about mental health and data privacy, making it relevant to today’s issues. While it's unlikely that AI was directly involved in the writing of this article, the themes discussed reflect an awareness of the AI-driven data landscape. The perspective on self-tracking could be informed by AI models that analyze human behavior and emotional patterns, framing the discourse around self-awareness and personal growth. Overall, the article presents a balanced view of self-tracking, acknowledging both its potential benefits and inherent risks. It encourages readers to reflect critically on the data they produce and consume, fostering a more nuanced understanding of happiness in a data-driven world. The reliability of the article is strengthened by its critical approach towards data usage and technology's role in personal well-being. It raises valid concerns about privacy and the commodification of personal data, making it a thoughtful contribution to the ongoing dialogue about technology's impact on society.