I found this quote in Trevor Scholz’s blog (and may I say that post is a lovely example of how you can blog a classroom discussion using links and narration – students, please try to emulate that!):

A recent survey conducted by Kelton Research discovered that a majority of Americans (52-percent) said their “most recent experience with a computer problem provoked emotions such as anger, sadness or alienation,” yet a whopping 65-percent of these same folks spend more time with their beloved computer than their own spouse (Engadget)

The logic of the comparison isn’t quite compelling. I mean, I could say that wow, for 99% of women, their bras touch their breasts for more time than their boyfriends do, without that proving anything very useful about women, bras, breasts or boyfriends other than that bras and boyfriends are good for entirely different things. But there’s a certain frisson to it that made me blog it anyway.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “do you spend more time with your computer than with your spouse?

  1. Lesley

    Hee hee. Love the comparison.

  2. Mark Federman

    65% of those surveyed spent more time with their computers than their spouses. And for the other 35% it was with the television! LOL

  3. Trebor Scholz

    Hi Jill,

    The isolated fact of spending more time with one’s computer than one’s spouse is not so telling. In LA, where I currently am, most probably people spend more time in their cars than with their partner’s as well. But, if you link this study to others that we know already, it reaffirms a picture of addiction: people hide computer use from their loved ones, and are glued to screens most of the day.

    best,
    Trebor (with B as in bra)

  4. Jason

    I think Trebor’s mom just liked tv better than him. pish.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]