“Is the explosion of attractive technologies that give our brains
social interactions negatively impacting us, and is the cure to go back
to an environment that our brain resonates with?” He answered his
own question. “Tech is leading us in a negative direction and nature
may prevent that.” Both Paul Atchley and Strayer have been heavily
influenced by the research of the late Stanford sociologist Clifford
Nass. His well-regarded studies show that heavy media multitaskers
have an impaired ability to focus on cognitively demanding tasks.
Furthermore, his study of 2,300 preteen girls showed those with the
highest rates of media use were less developed socially and
emotionally than their peers. (Sadly, for Nass, healthful nature was
not the antidote; the fifty-five-year-old died just after taking a hike.)
“Remember that guy at the Met who was talking on his cell phone
and actually leaned against a Jackson Pollock?” continued Paul
Atchley, shaking his head.
“Does less nature and more technology change who we
fundamentally are?” asked Strayer.
“Hey, I’m alive because of technology,” interjected Kramer. “I
take statins, and I’m alive.”
“I really mean phones, TV, digital media,” said Strayer. “They’re
stimulating and flashing and probably addictive.”
Paul Atchley was warming up. “Thirty-six percent of people check
their cell phones while having sex. Seventy percent of people sleep
with their phone.”
Strayer: “The average person looks at their phone 150 times day.
The average teen sends 3,000 text messages a month. These are
hallmarks of an addictive, compulsive personality. We’re wired to
have social connection, to sit around the campfire, face-to-face.
Social connection is like sugar.”
Ruth Ann Atchley felt the need to reel them in. Passing out
sunscreen, she was part hostess, part mediator. “Yes but what is it
about nature?” she asked her husband.