“The effect of watches on one’s awareness of time is similar to the findings of a study on improving attention while driving, among teens with ADHD,” Mister Lichtenstein (above) writes at medium.com. “Giving the study subjects a car with a manual transmission made them more engaged in the act of driving (and less prone to distraction) than giving them one with an automatic transmission. A regular wristwatch is a temporal stick-shift.” Why wear a watch? To pay more attention! Hold on a second . . .
The study was based on “ten adolescent drivers with ADHD” who spent two 30 minute sessions on a driving simulator (not shown). So the sample size was inadequate, the experiment didn’t involve real world conditions, we don’t know how much experience the subjects had with manual transmissions and there was no control group. Oh and ADHD is a condition prone to widespread misdiagnosis.
So we can’t rely on Mister Lichtenstein’s citation in his Why Wear a Watch? treatise. The writer presents no additional “evidence” for his watch => focus => better time management theory. Even if it’s true, does a watch create the less-distracted behavior or do people less apt to lose focus tend to wear watches?
Mr. Lichtenstein claims a wristwatch “changes your relationship to time and, in turn, the way you spend it. This is the single most valuable thing a regular watch does for its owner.”
O.K. then, how does it change that relationship? *crickets chirping* All we’ve got: Mr. Lichtenstein’s suggestion that watch wearers are less prone to distraction. Otherwise, I have no idea what he’s talking about.
I am, as a matter of course, prompt. I credit genetics and upbringing for my time management, rather than my watch. My timepiece enables my promptness; it doesn’t create it.
As a former hypnotist and watch nerd with a non-scientific sample size in the thousands, I can state without reservation that a person’s ability to focus – their “distractibility” – has nothing to do with their choice of watch (or their decision not to wear a watch).
Mr. Lichtenstein relies on an extremely dubious argument to support his inescapably vague claim. “Using a watch, especially a mechanical one, means having to periodically set the time. This ritual causes you to be aware of time in a much different way.”
What way might that be? Does winding a watch make you more aware of your mortality? Make you treasure your life more by reminding you to live in the moment? I don’t know about you, but winding and setting a mechanical watch alters my perception of watches, not time.
Mr. Lichtenstein moves on to assert that people wear watches to make “a personal statement” (what my father used to call a piercing glimpse into the obvious). But let’s not abandon his initial point. Let’s use it as a jumping off point, to consider the idea that people wearing analogue watch faces perceive time differently than people consulting a digital display. Here’s my theory . . .
A traditional watch presents time as a percentage of a whole. A digital watch presents time as a numerical value. Philosophically, an analogue watch represents time as an endless continuum. A digital watch represents time as static moment. A temporal snapshot, if you will.
It’s the difference between a digital and an analogue speedometer. The former is more precise and mentally demanding. The latter is more generally indicative and less mentally taxing. Both have their real world advantages and disadvantages. Which is why I use a digital speedometer to avoid speeding tickets and wear an analogue watch to avoid temporal anxiety.
I’m not suggesting that my choices apply to the gen pop. But the fact that so many people can’t read an analogue watch makes me wonder if the rise of digital time telling has a downside. Are we becoming a nation that sees time (and politics) in absolute terms? Have we lost temporal nuance?
Hold that thought. Why did Apple go with an analogue face for the Series 6’s default display? How many buyers switch to a digital “face”? The answers would tell us something about time perception. I’m just not sure what.