The other day I was thrilled to come across the concept of ‘friction-maxxing’.
‘Friction-maxxing’ is a term recently invented to describe the conscious attempt to balance the high-tech smoothness of your life with other activities requiring old-school effort and discipline. It’s the deliberate introduction of ‘inconvenience’ into your activities, to slow you down and encourage you to focus on a process that may take some time to unroll and yield up its benefits.
It seems that many people are beginning to ask questions about a lifestyle in which you can lie on the sofa clicking and ordering things to be brought to you while you half-watch the latest Netflix film with subtitles on so that you can multi-task, texting or scrolling while occasionally glancing at the TV screen.
An article on BBC Future explained, ‘The idea [of friction-maxxing] is to find tasks or ways of doing things which involve a level of difficulty, time or patience. This could, for example, involve going “old school” and swapping digital tech tools for analogue solutions, such as reading rather than watching YouTube, navigating by road signs in place of Google Maps or calling a friend for advice instead of consulting ChatGPT.’
Now of course, all this looks like vindication for those of us who have been slow to master or adopt the technology. As a book reader, a shopper-in-person, a maker of soup from scratch, a user of paper maps and a writer of old-fashioned letters, I welcome the idea that such things are mentally nourishing.
But more seriously, as a musician practising every day and trying to learn things, I’ve always sensed that long-term effort, discipline and focus bring more to my life than just the ability to play particular pieces of music. BBC Future explains, ‘Although scientists are still trying understand why, research suggests effort can often feel intrinsically meaningful. Brain scan studies have found that the part of the brain that processes rewards is more active when the payoff requires effort to achieve’.
It goes on, ‘Analogue hobbies such as crafting, gardening or reading – which involve friction as opposed to scrolling or streaming – can act as “active meditation”, calming the mind and reducing stress. One 2024 study of more than 7,000 adults living in England found that those who engaged in crafting or the creative arts were more likely to report significantly higher life satisfaction, a greater sense that life is worthwhile and increased happiness.’
When I read about friction-maxxing, I felt like Monsieur Jourdain in Molière’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme who, when his philosophy teacher explains to him what ‘prose’ is, is delighted to discover that he has been speaking prose all his life without knowing it.
It is good to hear these things are being talked about, but to me as well they just come naturally. Reality, silence and a full awareness of one’s environment are essential for wellness. I was told the other day I have a relatively calm and balanced attitude to life, and I’m sure this is encouraged by the fact I still don’t have a smartphone! Recently my non-digital evenings have been occupied reading ‘Nocturnes’, which I love. How fascinating to discover the world of John Field and how it interleaved with his great successor Chopin. Your prose style seems ideally suited to the subject – reflective and crystal clear. Thank you so much for signing my copy.
Thank you James for your kind message. I’m happy to know you’re enjoying the book.
Um……… no “high tech” smoothness trying and failing to buy my ticket for the FA Cup semi final on the Southampton FC website today!!
I totally agree that “modern life” does provide a lot of challenges but I don’t really think IT offers a alternative to genuine interests and hobbies other than making things more convenient when it works as originally intended. It seems obvious to me that having “old-fashioned” hobbies will always be rewarding, especially when things like reading and music mean so much to me. I find it strange when people have no curiosity about what is going on around them , whether it is politics, nature, history or the arts. The more I see, hear or read things, I often feel a need to find out more. This is why I love sight reading music these days. It is just a matter of how something is presented so that it piques your interest. If it is presented in a stimulating fashion, there is no reason why so many things cannot be made interesting.
At the moment I am struggling through Peter Godfrey-Smith’s book “Metazoa” which is supposed to be popular science and endeavours to explain consciousness in animals and the different ways in which various life forms perceive things. The concept is interesting and I was provoked to read this book after seeing seals at a sanctuary in Cornwall who were clearly enjoying themselves swimming quickly towards human spectators standing at the underground window of a swimming pool. They were clearly doing this to startle their human audience and for their own amusement. In a broader context, I am fascinated by the idea that mammals in particular can have this kind of consciousness and to enjoy things which have no practical benefit. By contrast, I often wonder why Homo Sapiens are unique insofar that we produce art and enjoy sport whereas no other animal does this. Taking this a step further, it fascinates me at what point in evolution a species of human started to be stimulated by art and when music became something more than making noise. I believe that Neanderthals produced jewellery and appreciated things for their intrinsic worth.
I am not surprised by the conclusions of the study and think that the digital age is leading ourselves to become detached from what genuinely makes us human. The science behind this is well beyond my 1980s A level biology. I do feel that the original post hints at a broader and fascinating set of questions.
Yes and… I feel extremely queasy about the reductionism in the remarks from BBC Future: ‘Although scientists are still trying understand why, research suggests effort can often feel intrinsically meaningful. Brain scan studies have found that the part of the brain that processes rewards is more active when the payoff requires effort to achieve’. I do not play music (mostly very badly) in order to activate my reward-processing brain-structures. That would imply (see Wittgenstein) that if I could stimulate them with an electrode, I could do without the music. And as Wittgenstein says: ‘There must be something wrong with that.’ (In Wittgenstein, I think it goes: ‘People say that we listen to music in order to arouse certain feelings. In that case, IF we could arouse the feelings without having the music, THEN we wouldn’t need the music. There has to be something wrong with that.’) What is wrong is hard to say: but I’m sure that Wittgenstein has caught something important by the tail.
What a fascinating discussion! I get immense pleasure from listening to music while ironing…simultaneously one activity being stimulating while the other is meditative.
Rob
I think that listening to music is like eating. No one eats food consciously to stoke our metabolism but we are stimulated by things like taste. It is a sensory reaction just like listening to music. We are extremely complex mechanisms and the summit of what has been evolving since the times of sponges.
For me, the interesting question is how these experiences first manifested themselves. I seem to recall reading about a Paleolithic bone flute being discovered (in a book about a British Museum exhibition) , whilst I have no doubt that inventions like this were associated with ritual, you still have to have the notion to blow through a hollow tube and equally space the apertures to alter the tones. All this relies on a thought process but there must have been a point when this happened without any idea of a conclusion.
I think the other issue from the original post that needs to be developed. I totally agree that putting greater effort into something is more rewarding . However, the issue of taste was not mentioned. Why is it that something that is technically brilliant is not rewarding? Is there a biological reason as to why I don’t appreciate Brahms? About 20-odd years ago I bought my Mum a present to hear a recital by Margaret Fingerhut where she played a Bax piano sonata. Afterwards, we discussed the performance and we both agreed that this music seemed like an awful lot of effort to get to performance level yet , to our ears, the music did not seem worth it. Why would you learn a difficult work which was not particularly great when you could go to the same effort and learn something that truly resonates ? Bax was someone my piano teacher had met and was a composer I was intrigued by and was hoping would be something of a revelation. Both of us were disappointed by the music. We we perplexed my a brilliant pianist would be so attracted to a mediocre composer – although I subsequently learned that she is an authority on Bax so probably can find something in his music that appeals!
It is fascinating that we are all different and, deep down, there must be a chemical / electrical process within our minds which determines what or whether we find anything stimulating. I also think that culture may have a part of play albeit I do think it might be minimal. My wife loves ironing but has little interest in music other than Karoake.