The Drowning Mind
The Age of Noise: Reclaiming Thought in the Digital Age
Navigating the passages between books and being
For those who prefer to print and read:
I.
The book lies open on my desk, a challenging novel I’ve been meaning to read for months. I settle into my chair with intention, coffee at hand, determined to make progress. I read the first paragraph. My phone vibrates—a text message. I glance at it, respond quickly, return to the page.
What was I reading?
I start again. Three tabs glow in my browser: email, a dictionary for unfamiliar words, Encyclopedia Britannica for contextual research. Spotify shuffles to the next song. Not this one. I skip it. Back to the paragraph. An email notification pops up on my screen. It might be important. I click. It’s not. Now I’m checking the rest. One message mentions something I don’t quite understand. I open a new tab, start researching, click a link, then another, descending into the internet’s endless chain of associations. Down the rabbit hole I go. Into the great abyss.
Twenty minutes later, I surface, disoriented.
What was I reading?
I return to the book and realize, with a sinking feeling, that I’ve read the same paragraph four times now and still have no idea what it says. My heart rate has quickened. My breathing is shallow. I can’t seem to hold a thought long enough to finish it. The sensation is difficult to describe—it’s like trying to grasp water. The harder I squeeze, the faster it runs through my fingers. I’m not swimming through an ocean of knowledge. I’m drowning in a sea of noise.
When did thinking become so hard?
You know this feeling. Perhaps you’ve experienced it: the impulse to check your phone before your eyes have fully opened, the sense that you’re perpetually behind on emails, articles, texts, updates. The mounting pressure of everything you should have read, should have watched, should have known. You start articles but rarely finish them. You skim where once you read. The phone sits beside you, a constant companion, comforting and tyrannical. You reach for it reflexively, compulsively, during any moment of stillness or boredom. In quiet moments, you no longer find peace—you find anxiety. The void feels dangerous, so you fill it with sound, with stimulus, with anything to keep the silence at bay.
And underneath it all, a question that carries a sharp edge of shame:
What’s wrong with me?
The answer is nothing. Nothing is wrong with you. What’s wrong is the environment we’re trying to think in.
We are living through an unprecedented age of noise—not just the literal cacophony of life, though that matters too, but an informational deluge unlike anything humanity has previously experienced. This is not a personal failure of discipline or focus. It is an environmental crisis of the mind. And if we’re to reclaim our capacity for sustained thought, we must first understand what this noise is doing to our inner lives.
This essay begins that exploration. Later, we’ll examine the historical context (this isn’t the first information crisis), investigate who benefits from our distraction and how we arrived at this moment, and chart a path toward quieter, more intentional lives. But first, we need to sit with the experience itself—to name what’s happening to us and recognize why it matters.
II.
Let me begin with definitions, because when I say “noise,” I’m not referring only to sound, though the acoustic dimension is part of the problem. In his book Hush: Media and Sonic Self-Control, Mack Hagood explores how people use technology—white noise machines, noise-canceling headphones—to manage the literal auditory chaos of modern life. We’re surrounded by sirens, traffic, the hum of electronics, the ambient drone of contemporary existence. But the noise I’m describing runs deeper.
Think of signal versus noise in information theory: the signal is what you’re trying to receive, the meaningful message; the noise is everything that interferes with that reception, the static that obscures clarity. In our current moment, we’re drowning in informational noise—the constant stream of inputs competing for attention, each one pulling us in a different direction, making it nearly impossible to locate the signal we’re actually seeking.
Consider what fills your typical day. You wake to notifications. The news cycle, now twenty-four hours and algorithmically turbocharged for maximum emotional engagement, serves you a stream of headlines designed not for understanding but for outrage, for clicks, for that dopamine hit of righteous anger or schadenfreude. Social media feeds scroll infinitely downward, an endless buffet of opinion, performance, imagery, each item competing to arrest your attention for just a few seconds before the next one appears. Email demands response. Slack channels ping. Text messages arrive. Every application on your phone has permission to interrupt you, and they do so liberally, urgently, as though every message, every update, every like were a matter of life and death.
The streaming services offer thousands of options, yet we spend twenty minutes scrolling, unable to choose, paralyzed by abundance. Podcasts multiply. Newsletters accumulate unread. Browser tabs breed like rabbits. We talk about “keeping up,” but with what, exactly? The sheer volume of content produced each day exceeds what any individual could consume in several lifetimes. And yet we feel guilty for not trying.
This is what I mean by noise: not just sound, but the overwhelming, relentless, algorithmically amplified stream of data, opinion, imagery, and interruption that characterizes contemporary life. The difference between information and wisdom, between data and understanding, has collapsed. Everything arrives with equal urgency, and so nothing feels truly urgent. Everything demands attention, and so attention itself becomes fractured, scattered, unable to settle anywhere for long.
Here’s what makes our moment different: the human brain, with its capacity for focus and contemplation, hasn’t changed in any meaningful way over the past century. But the volume and velocity of information bombarding it have increased exponentially. Nicholas Carr, in The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, explains that “the Net’s cacophony of stimuli short-circuits both conscious and unconscious thought, preventing our minds from thinking either deeply or creatively.” The problem isn’t that we’re weak or undisciplined. The problem is a fundamental mismatch between our neurology and our environment.
We are using Stone Age brains to navigate an Information Age world, and the cognitive load is crushing us.
As we’ll explore in the next essay, this isn’t the first time humanity has faced information overload. Renaissance scholars confronted their own crisis of abundance when the printing press suddenly multiplied available texts beyond any individual’s capacity to read them all. But our current crisis differs in crucial ways: the speed of transmission, the algorithmic amplification of emotional content, the fact that the noise follows us everywhere through devices we carry in our pockets and keep beside our beds. There is no escape, no natural boundary between work and rest, between public and private space. The noise has become the water we swim in—and we’re forgetting how to breathe.
III.
So what does this noise do to us? How does it reshape the way we think, the way we experience our own minds?
The most immediate effect is the fracturing of attention. We’ve lost the ability to sustain focus on any single object for extended periods. Nicholas Carr describes this as the development of “shallows thinking”—our minds trained by the internet to skim the surface rather than dive deep. Where once we could settle into a long novel, following complex arguments across hundreds of pages, tracking character development and thematic nuance, now we skim. We scroll. We click. We bounce from one thing to the next, our attention pulled by whatever flashes brightest, whatever triggers the quickest reaction.
Try, for a moment, to recall the last time you read something truly difficult without interruption. Not an article, but a book—something that demanded sustained attention, that refused to yield its meaning quickly. Perhaps it was Proust, whose sentences unfold like thoughts themselves, recursive and layering, requiring the reader to hold multiple clauses in mind simultaneously while the meaning gradually reveals itself. Or Virginia Woolf, whose stream-of-consciousness prose mirrors the actual texture of human thought, meandering, associative, demanding that we slow down and follow the rhythm of the mind itself. These works require what T.S. Eliot called placing ourselves at “the still point of the turning world”—a state of sustained, undistracted focus that feels increasingly impossible to achieve.
Now compare that experience to reading Twitter, or scrolling through Instagram, or even reading this essay on a screen with notifications enabled. The cognitive experience is fundamentally different. On social media, we don’t read—we scan. We take in fragments, sound bites, hot takes, images designed for instant comprehension and immediate emotional reaction. There’s no time for complexity, for nuance, for thoughts that take longer than a few seconds to unfold. As Carr notes, when we’re constantly online, “as particular circuits in our brain strengthen through the repetition of a physical or mental activity, they begin to transform that activity into a habit.” We’re training our brains for distraction, for superficial engagement, for the quick hit rather than the slow burn of deep understanding.
And here’s what we’ve lost in the process: boredom. That sounds trivial, perhaps even desirable—who wants to be bored? But boredom is actually essential to thought. Boredom is the mind at rest, the moment when we’re not being stimulated by external inputs and therefore forced to turn inward, to generate our own thoughts rather than simply react to others’. Boredom is where daydreaming happens, where unexpected connections form, where creativity emerges from the space between stimuli. Cal Newport, in Deep Work, notes that we can no longer tolerate even moments of quiet or stillness without reaching for our phones, without filling the void with content, with noise. We’ve become afraid of our own minds.
The second effect is exhaustion. We’re living in what Jenny Odell calls “the attention economy”—a system designed to harvest and monetize our focus. Every platform, every app, every service is competing for our attention because attention is the scarce resource, the commodity that generates profit. This means we’re constantly in response mode rather than reflection mode. We react to emails, to messages, to notifications, to the latest controversy, to the endless stream of inputs demanding immediate acknowledgment. We’re always on, always available, always processing.
Johann Hari, in Stolen Focus, describes this as a kind of cognitive theft—we’re being robbed of our capacity for sustained attention by forces beyond our individual control. The feeling is familiar: you end a day of responding to emails, scrolling through feeds, jumping between tasks, and you’re utterly depleted, yet you’ve accomplished nothing of real substance. You’ve spent the entire day reacting, and there’s been no space left for creating, for thinking your own thoughts rather than consuming everyone else’s.
The cost is physical as well as mental. The constant task-switching, the perpetual state of semi-attention, creates what researchers call “cognitive load”—the information flowing into our working memory at any given moment. As Carr explains, “when the load exceeds our mind’s ability to store and process the information—when the water overflows the thimble—we’re unable to retain the information or to draw connections with the information already stored in our long-term memory.” We’re in a state of permanent cognitive overload, and our brains respond with stress: elevated heart rate, shallow breathing, disrupted sleep, anxiety, decision fatigue. The body keeps score.
The third effect, and perhaps the most profound, is the loss of the contemplative mind. This is the dimension I worry about most, the one that feels most essentially human. Contemplation requires space. It requires time that doesn’t feel pressured, moments when the mind can wander without purpose, when thoughts can develop slowly, when we can sit with an idea long enough to turn it over, examine it from different angles, let it grow and change shape. Insight doesn’t arrive on demand. It emerges from a kind of mental incubation, from the patient work of allowing ideas to steep and combine in unexpected ways.
But we can no longer do this. We can no longer take walks without podcasts streaming into our ears. We can no longer sit in a waiting room without pulling out our phones. We can no longer tolerate silence, stillness, the slow unfolding of thought. Everything must be fast, immediate, optimized for efficiency. And in losing contemplation, we lose something essential about what makes us human: the capacity for reflection, for examining our own experience, for developing a rich inner life.
Consider a writer like Annie Dillard or Karl Ove Knausgård, whose work is characterized by a kind of patient attention, a willingness to stay with an idea or an image long enough to see where it leads. Their books don’t move with the speed of plot-driven fiction; they move at the speed of thought itself, following associations, making unexpected connections, building meaning slowly. Reading them requires the kind of sustained attention we’re losing. Writing them requires even more. And I wonder, increasingly, whether the future will produce such writers at all, or whether we’re moving toward a culture where only the fast, the loud, the immediately comprehensible can survive.
The fourth effect involves memory and identity. When we can’t retain what we read, what we think, what happens to us, when experience becomes a blur of inputs with no consolidation, no time for reflection, we lose the capacity to build a coherent sense of self. Memory isn’t just storage—it’s the foundation of identity. As William James wrote in 1892, “the art of remembering is the art of thinking.” Shakespeare had Hamlet call memory “the book and volume of my brain.” For Augustine, memory was “a vast and infinite profundity,” a reflection of divine power in human form.
But we’re outsourcing memory to our devices. We photograph experiences instead of experiencing them. We google information instead of remembering it. We store everything in the cloud and nothing in ourselves. Nicholas Carr observes that “the notion that memory can be outsourced would have been unthinkable at any earlier moment in our history.” Yet here we are, treating our minds as obsolete technology, assuming that if information is available somewhere online, we don’t need to carry it within us.
The cost is higher than we realize. Personal memory, autodidactism—the self-directed formation of knowledge and identity through reading—these used to be how individuals developed unique perspectives. As Carr notes, “because every person was free to chart his own course of reading, to define his own syllabus, individual memory became less of a socially determined construct and more the foundation of distinctive perspective and personality.” When we all pull from the same algorithmic feeds, when we all read the same trending articles, when memory is treated as unnecessary, who are we? What makes us individual?
IV.
And yet we blame ourselves.
This is crucial to understand: we’ve been taught to treat this as a personal problem, a failure of individual discipline or willpower. “Just put your phone away,” people say. “Just be more focused.” As if the issue were simply a matter of self-control, as if we were weak for struggling against forces specifically engineered to exploit our psychological vulnerabilities.
James Williams, a former Google strategist turned ethicist, writes in Stand Out of Our Light that “there’s a deep misalignment between the goals we have for ourselves and the goals our technologies have for us.” These platforms aren’t neutral tools waiting passively for our use. They’re designed, intentionally and with tremendous sophistication, to capture and hold attention. Entire departments of engineers and psychologists work to make these technologies as addictive as possible, using variable reward schedules, social validation mechanisms, algorithmic amplification of emotionally charged content—every trick in the behavioral psychology playbook, deployed at scale to keep us scrolling, clicking, engaging.
When a person is interrupted while focused, research shows it takes an average of twenty-three minutes to regain that focus. Every notification, every ping, every red dot pulls us out of whatever we’re doing and resets the clock. This isn’t a design flaw. It’s the design. The platforms profit from our engagement, and interruption is how they ensure it.
So when willpower fails, it’s not because you’re weak. It’s because you’re a human being with normal human psychology, and you’re up against industrial-scale systems of persuasion specifically created to overcome that willpower. The game is rigged. Stop pathologizing your normal human responses to abnormal conditions.
But the individualization of this structural problem creates what I think of as the guilt loop. We feel guilty for our distraction, which creates shame, which makes us feel worse about ourselves, which leads to more distraction as we seek comfort or escape, which generates more guilt. We scroll through social media seeing carefully curated images of other people’s seemingly perfect, productive lives—unaware that they too are struggling, that everyone is barely keeping their head above water—and we conclude that the problem must be us. Everyone else seems to be managing. Why can’t we?
This guilt is compounded by what Cal Newport calls the “productivity trap.” Noise masquerades as productivity. We confuse busyness with effectiveness, confuse staying current with understanding, confuse the performance of work with actual work. We tell ourselves we’re “keeping up”—with the news, with our industry, with our social obligations—but keeping up has become the goal rather than a means to an end. We’re running faster and faster to stay in place, and there’s never time to ask whether the race itself is worth running.
The truth is that keeping up is impossible. There is too much. There will always be too much. And the anxiety of missing out—FOMO, in the vernacular—keeps us trapped in this exhausting cycle. But as Jenny Odell argues, what we actually need is the necessity of missing out. We need to accept, even embrace, that we cannot read everything, cannot know everything, cannot keep pace with the exponential growth of information. We need to be fiercely selective about what we attend to, because attention is not infinite, and what we pay attention to quite literally shapes the reality we inhabit.
V.
Why does this matter? What’s actually at stake?
At the individual level, what’s at risk is the quality of our inner lives. When we lose the capacity for sustained attention, for deep thought, for contemplation, we lose access to the richest dimensions of human experience. We lose the ability to know ourselves—to engage in what Socrates called the examined life, to reflect on our choices and values and desires with enough space and clarity to understand them. Complexity requires time. Self-knowledge requires reflection. Both are casualties of the age of noise.
Our relationships suffer too. There’s a difference between being present and being performatively present—between truly listening to another person and waiting for your turn to speak while mentally drafting your response. The convenience of digital connection, as Odell notes, “has neatly paved over the nuances of in-person conversation, cutting away so much information and context in the process.” We’re together but alone, surrounded by people but disconnected from genuine intimacy, which requires vulnerability, patience, and attention we no longer seem capable of offering.
The mental health consequences are real, though I want to be careful not to be alarmist. Correlation isn’t causation, and the relationship between technology use and anxiety or depression is complex. But the research is mounting: heavy social media use correlates with information overload, depressive symptoms, and reduced well-being. The constant comparison, the perpetual performance of self, the flood of disturbing news and images we’re never given time to process—these take a toll. We’re not built for this much stimulation, this much knowing, this much vicarious suffering without adequate time for integration or recovery.
But the stakes extend beyond the individual. At the cultural level, what happens when an entire society loses its capacity for sustained attention? When we can’t read long books, can’t follow complex arguments, can’t think through difficult problems with the patience and focus they require? When everything must be compressed into sound bites, when nuance is sacrificed for the sake of virality, when depth is replaced by speed?
We’re already seeing the consequences in our politics, in our public discourse, in the quality of our collective decision-making. Polarization intensifies when we live in algorithmic echo chambers that reinforce our existing beliefs and shield us from opposing viewpoints. News avoidance increases when the flood of information becomes overwhelming and demoralizing. The signal—careful reporting, thoughtful analysis, genuine expertise—drowns in a sea of noise: hot takes, conspiracy theories, performative outrage, bad-faith arguments designed to inflame rather than inform.
Is democracy possible without sustained attention? The question haunts me. Democratic self-governance requires an informed citizenry capable of weighing evidence, following complex policy debates, understanding trade-offs and competing values. It requires the patience to read beyond headlines, to resist simplistic narratives, to hold complexity without collapsing into certainty. All of these capacities depend on attention—and attention is precisely what we’re losing.
There’s a cultural dimension too, one that concerns me as a reader and writer. Literary works that require extended attention, that reward slow reading and rereading, that don’t give up their meanings easily—these are becoming increasingly difficult to produce and to find audiences for. When everything competes on the basis of immediate comprehension and instant gratification, when algorithms favor the quick and the emotionally charged over the slow and the subtle, what happens to the literary traditions that depend on depth, on patience, on the kind of sustained engagement that takes time to develop?
I think of the surrealist painter Giorgio de Chirico’s warning, written decades ago but feeling more prescient with each passing year: “In the face of the increasingly materialist and pragmatic orientation of our age, it would not be eccentric in the future to contemplate a society in which those who live for the pleasures of the mind will no longer have the right to demand their place in the sun. The writer, the thinker, the dreamer, the poet, the metaphysician, the observer... he who tries to solve a riddle or to pass judgment will become an anachronistic figure, destined to disappear from the face of the earth like the ichthyosaur and the mammoth.”
Are we heading toward this future? One where contemplation itself becomes anachronistic, where the examined life is no longer valued, where depth is dismissed as elitism and speed is the only currency that matters?
What’s at stake, ultimately, is our humanity. Not in some vague, mystical sense, but in the specific sense that the qualities we consider most distinctly human—moral reflection, the creation and appreciation of art, the capacity for empathy and understanding, the ability to make meaning from experience—all of these require the kind of sustained, focused attention that noise destroys. They require time to think, space to feel, patience to let understanding develop slowly. They require, as James Williams writes, “freedom of attention,” which he identifies as the foundation of all other freedoms: “The freedom of speech is meaningless without the freedom of attention, which is both its complement and its prerequisite.”
Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that “when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.” We may not be yielding up that privilege voluntarily—but it’s being extracted from us, harvested by platforms and devices that profit from our engagement and have no incentive to preserve our capacity for independent thought. Aldous Huxley warned that people would come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. I see that love everywhere: the anxious checking, the compulsive scrolling, the inability to imagine life without these devices even as they diminish us.
The empires of the present, Williams argues, are empires of the mind. And we are losing the war for mental sovereignty without quite realizing we’re in one.
VI.
But let me end not with despair but with possibility, however tentative.
Recognition is the beginning of change. Simply naming what’s happening—acknowledging that you’re not broken, that the environment is—reduces the power these forces hold over us. Recognizing that this is a collective experience, not an individual failing, breaks the isolation that keeps us trapped in shame and self-blame.
When we understand that the guilt is misplaced, when we stop pathologizing normal responses to abnormal conditions, we create space for a different kind of response. Not self-improvement in the conventional sense—not another productivity hack or life optimization strategy—but something more fundamental: a reclamation of our right to think, to attend to what matters, to move through the world at a pace that allows for genuine experience rather than perpetual reaction.
There are small acts of resistance available to us, gestures toward a different way of being. I offer just a couple here, not as solutions (we’ll explore those more fully in the final essay of this series) but as evidence that agency exists, that we’re not powerless:
Morning pages. Julia Cameron’s practice of writing three pages by hand each morning, stream of consciousness, before checking any devices. Not for quality or coherence, but simply to hear your own thoughts first thing, before the noise rushes in. To remember what your mind sounds like when it’s not responding to external stimuli.
Phone-free reading time. An hour, perhaps less at first, with the phone in another room. Not on airplane mode—actually absent. A single book, no multitasking, no tabs, no interruptions. The discomfort you’ll feel initially is withdrawal, and it will pass. Underneath it is something you may have forgotten: the pleasure of sustained attention, the satisfaction of actually finishing something, of letting a text unfold at its own pace rather than yours.
Walks in silence. Not with podcasts or music, but with your own thoughts and the sounds of the world around you. This is Odell’s practice, and it’s profound in its simplicity: paying attention differently is itself an act of resistance. Wendell Berry writes, “I have thrown away my lantern, and I can see the dark.” We need to see the dark again, to experience silence, to know what our minds do when they’re not being constantly stimulated.
These aren’t solutions. They’re openings, small fissures in the noise through which something else might enter. They won’t fix the structural problems—the platform incentives, the algorithmic amplification, the entire attention economy built on our distraction. But they remind us that we’re not entirely without agency, that we can choose, at least sometimes, what to attend to and what to ignore.
The promise of this series is this: we’ll understand the problem more fully before we attempt solutions. This essay has explored the individual experience of living in the age of noise, the feeling of drowning, the reshaping of our minds, the stakes involved. In the next essay, we’ll discover that this isn’t unprecedented—that scholars in the Renaissance faced their own information crisis when the printing press suddenly multiplied available texts beyond any individual’s capacity to read them. We’ll see how they coped, what they built to manage abundance, and what lessons their struggles offer us.
Then we’ll investigate how we got here: the design decisions and economic incentives that created the current environment, the ways that attention has become the most valuable commodity in the modern economy, and who benefits from our distraction. Understanding the architecture of the problem is essential to changing it.
Finally, we’ll chart a path forward—not a simplistic return to some imagined pre-digital past, but a more intentional relationship with technology that preserves our capacity for deep thought while still allowing us to benefit from what these tools offer. We’ll explore digital minimalism, attention training, policy responses, design ethics, media literacy. We’ll ask what it would mean to build a culture that values contemplation, that protects space for slowness, that resists the tyranny of efficiency and optimization.
But to understand how to reclaim our attention, we first need to understand how we lost it.
For now, though, I want to return to water. To that image of drowning I opened with, because it captures something essential about the experience: the panic, the struggle, the sensation of being overwhelmed. But I want to offer another image too, one that allows for possibility.
Imagine, instead, finding an island. Not a permanent refuge—we can’t opt out entirely, and I’m not sure we’d want to—but a temporary space of stillness. A place where you can stand on solid ground, catch your breath, feel the water recede from your lungs. Even briefly. Even for an hour.
That island exists. It’s available. The devices that create the noise also have off buttons. The platforms that harvest our attention can be closed. The notifications can be silenced. Not forever, perhaps, but for long enough to remember what it feels like to think without interruption, to be present without performance, to attend to your own thoughts rather than endlessly consuming others’.
The drowning mind can learn to swim again. The first step is recognizing that you’ve been struggling against a current too strong for any individual to fight alone. The second is understanding that the current is artificial, created by human design, and what humans design, humans can redesign.
The third is choosing, however tentatively, to reach for solid ground.
We are not powerless. We are not broken. We are living through an environmental crisis of attention, and the solution will require both individual choices and collective action, both personal practices and systemic change. The age of noise is not inevitable. It’s a choice we’re making collectively, often without realizing we’re making it. And that means we can make different choices.
The path begins with recognition: you’re drowning because the water is too high, not because you’ve forgotten how to swim.
The rest of this series will explore how we got here and how we might find our way to shore.
Here’s to the books that take us beyond the shelf and into deeper waters,
Matthew Long is a writer and retired sailor living in rural western Tennessee.
Beyond the Bookshelf is a reader-supported voyage. If these literary explorations have enriched your journey, I’d be grateful for any support you can offer. Whether it’s the price of a coffee or a book, your contribution keeps wind in our sails and ensures these navigations through literature remain accessible for all readers. Thank you for being part of this crew.
Affiliate links: You can click on the title of any book mentioned in this article to purchase your own copy. These are affiliate links from Bookshop.org, earning me a very small commission for any purchase you make.
The best work I've read on "the age of noise." I look forward to future installments in the series!
Excellent description and analysis. Another “act of resistance“ I have found is the deliberate cultivation of small groups of individuals who are interested in discussing what we’ve read. Not all of the recovery of “signal” needs to be done in isolation. Thanks for the timely reminder!