i worry that, contrary to popular belief, the computer actually inhibits flow. maybe it’s not the computer per se, but its capacity to offer almost limitless distraction, exacerbated by my desire for the greatest amount of stimulation with the least amount of effort.

in the early history of the computer, j.c.r. licklider predicted that the computers would become like an extension of our cognitive faculties, doing all of the things people do poorly or slowly (organization, memory, arithmetic) so that we could all be creators (and not get bogged down in the adding, retyping, filing, etc). however, this seems to brush aside the fact that routine and predictable tasks can be an aide to creative thought, distracting the mind’s frenetic central executive so that the big iron can do some heavy lifting.

because the computer is essentially a passive creature, i spend most of my time directing it do the tedious, and then kind of stare, slack-jawed, as it sits there waiting for me to be creative so i can tell it what to do next. all too often nothing occurs to me because i expect a sort of give and take, back and forth human interaction style—but i get nothing that i don’t initiate.

so i check my email. or bloglines. or my blog. and repeat. because those internetty things (courtesy of there being a human at the other end) respond with information that’s novel and thus satisfying. while the computer just sits there, waiting for me to tell it what to do.