Table of Contents
Arthur Schopenhauer’s penetrating observation “Forever reading, never to be read” captures a fundamental paradox of intellectual life: the tendency for excessive consumption of others’ ideas to prevent the development and expression of our own original thoughts. This comprehensive analysis explores Schopenhauer’s broader philosophical framework, the psychological mechanisms underlying the consumption-creation imbalance, and the contemporary relevance of this insight in an age of information overload and digital distraction. Through detailed examination of research on creativity, learning, and information processing, along with historical case studies of prolific readers versus influential creators, this study reveals the complex relationship between intellectual input and creative output. The analysis demonstrates that while reading and learning are essential for intellectual development, they can become counterproductive when they substitute for rather than support original thinking and creative expression. In our current era of unprecedented access to information, Schopenhauer’s warning takes on new urgency as we navigate the challenge of transforming endless consumption into meaningful contribution.
Table of Contents
- Introduction: The Modern Paradox of Information Abundance
- Schopenhauer’s Philosophical Context and Pessimistic Worldview
- The Psychology of Intellectual Consumption and Creative Paralysis
- Historical Analysis: Readers versus Creators Throughout History
- The Neuroscience of Learning, Memory, and Creative Synthesis
- Contemporary Manifestations: Digital Age Information Overload
- The Creator’s Dilemma: Balancing Input and Output
- Case Studies: Individuals Who Transcended the Reading Trap
- Practical Frameworks: From Consumption to Creation
- Conclusion: Toward Productive Intellectual Engagement
1. Introduction: The Modern Paradox of Information Abundance
In an era where human knowledge doubles every twelve hours and millions of books, articles, podcasts, and videos compete for our attention, Arthur Schopenhauer’s 19th-century warning about the dangers of excessive reading has acquired prophetic relevance [1]. His observation that some individuals remain “forever reading, never to be read” identifies a fundamental tension in intellectual life that has only intensified with the democratization of information and the proliferation of digital media.
Schopenhauer’s insight addresses a paradox that many contemporary knowledge workers, students, and intellectuals experience firsthand: the more we consume information, the less capable we seem to become of producing original insights or creative work. This phenomenon manifests in various forms, from the graduate student who reads endlessly about their research topic but struggles to write their dissertation, to the entrepreneur who consumes countless business books and podcasts but never launches their venture, to the aspiring writer who devours literature but never completes their own manuscript.
The quote emerges from Schopenhauer’s broader critique of academic culture and his distinction between genuine thinking and mere scholarship. In his view, true intellectual achievement requires not just the accumulation of knowledge but the transformation of that knowledge through original thought and creative synthesis. The individual who remains forever reading has become trapped in a passive relationship with ideas, consuming rather than creating, following rather than leading, echoing rather than originating.
This dynamic has profound implications for how we understand learning, creativity, and intellectual development. While reading and study are obviously essential for intellectual growth, Schopenhauer suggests that they can become counterproductive when they substitute for rather than support original thinking. The challenge lies in finding the optimal balance between input and output, consumption and creation, learning from others and developing our own unique perspective.
The contemporary relevance of this insight is amplified by several factors unique to our historical moment. The sheer volume of available information has created what researchers call “information overload,” where the abundance of choices and inputs can actually impair rather than enhance decision-making and creative thinking [2]. The speed and convenience of digital information access can create addictive consumption patterns that crowd out the slower, more difficult work of original creation. Social media and content platforms have created new forms of intellectual consumption that provide the illusion of learning and engagement while actually preventing deep thinking and sustained creative work.
Understanding Schopenhauer’s warning requires examining both the psychological mechanisms that drive excessive consumption and the conditions that support creative production. This analysis will explore how the balance between reading and writing, consuming and creating, learning and teaching shapes intellectual development and determines whether we become mere repositories of others’ ideas or contributors to the ongoing conversation of human knowledge.
2. Schopenhauer’s Philosophical Context and Pessimistic Worldview
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) developed his critique of excessive reading within the broader framework of his pessimistic philosophy, which emphasized the primacy of will over intellect and the inherent suffering that characterizes human existence [3]. Understanding his warning about reading requires appreciating how it fits within his larger philosophical system and his particular view of human nature and intellectual achievement.
The World as Will and Representation
Schopenhauer’s masterwork, “The World as Will and Representation,” presents reality as fundamentally divided between the world of appearances (representation) and the underlying reality of blind, irrational will [4]. In this framework, most human activity, including much intellectual activity, represents the will’s endless striving for satisfaction that can never be permanently achieved. The individual who remains forever reading may be caught in this cycle of willing, seeking satisfaction through the consumption of ideas but never finding the fulfillment that comes from creative expression.
According to Schopenhauer, genuine intellectual achievement requires transcending the ordinary operations of will through what he calls “will-less knowing”—a state of pure perception and understanding that enables artistic and philosophical insight. This state cannot be achieved through mere accumulation of information but requires a qualitative transformation of consciousness that allows for original perception and creative synthesis.
The distinction between will-driven consumption and will-less creation helps explain why excessive reading can become counterproductive. When reading is driven by the will’s desire to accumulate knowledge, achieve status, or avoid the difficulty of original thinking, it becomes another form of striving that prevents the kind of receptive, creative consciousness necessary for genuine insight.
Critique of Academic Culture
Schopenhauer’s warning about excessive reading emerged partly from his critique of the academic culture of his time, which he saw as emphasizing erudition over wisdom, scholarship over insight, and conformity over originality [5]. He observed that many academics became so focused on mastering existing knowledge that they lost the capacity for independent thought and creative contribution.
This critique reflects Schopenhauer’s broader skepticism about institutional learning and his belief that genuine wisdom cannot be transmitted through formal education but must be discovered through direct experience and original thinking. He argued that universities often produce scholars who are well-versed in the opinions of others but incapable of forming their own judgments or contributing new insights to human knowledge.
The academic tendency toward specialization and the pressure to demonstrate familiarity with existing literature can indeed create the dynamic that Schopenhauer identified, where individuals become so immersed in what others have thought that they lose touch with their own capacity for original thinking. This pattern persists in contemporary academic culture, where the pressure to cite extensive literature and demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of a field can sometimes inhibit rather than support creative research and original contribution.
The Distinction Between Genius and Talent
Schopenhauer’s philosophy includes a crucial distinction between genius and mere talent that illuminates his warning about excessive reading [6]. In his view, talent involves the ability to work skillfully within existing frameworks and conventions, while genius involves the capacity to transcend these frameworks and create something genuinely new and original.
The individual who remains forever reading may develop considerable talent—the ability to synthesize, analyze, and apply existing knowledge—but may never develop the genius that enables truly original contribution. Genius, according to Schopenhauer, requires a kind of intellectual courage and independence that can be undermined by excessive deference to existing authorities and ideas.
This distinction suggests that the problem with excessive reading is not that it prevents the acquisition of knowledge or skills, but that it can prevent the development of the intellectual independence and creative confidence necessary for original contribution. The reader who becomes too comfortable in the role of consumer may lose the willingness to risk the vulnerability and uncertainty that accompany creative work.
The Role of Solitude and Reflection
Schopenhauer emphasized the importance of solitude and reflection for intellectual development, arguing that genuine insights emerge not from social interaction or external stimulation but from quiet contemplation and inner work [7]. This perspective provides additional context for his warning about excessive reading, as constant consumption of others’ ideas can prevent the kind of solitary reflection necessary for original thinking.
The practice of reading, particularly when it becomes compulsive or addictive, can serve as a form of intellectual stimulation that prevents the boredom and emptiness that often precede creative insights. By constantly filling our minds with others’ thoughts, we may avoid the uncomfortable but necessary experience of sitting with our own ideas and allowing them to develop through patient reflection.
Schopenhauer’s emphasis on solitude also reflects his belief that original thinking requires independence from social pressures and conventional opinions. The individual who is constantly consuming others’ ideas may become too influenced by external perspectives to develop their own unique viewpoint and voice.
3. The Psychology of Intellectual Consumption and Creative Paralysis
Modern psychological research has illuminated many of the mechanisms underlying Schopenhauer’s observation about the relationship between excessive consumption and creative paralysis, providing empirical support for his philosophical insights.
Information Overload and Decision Paralysis
Research on information overload reveals how excessive input can actually impair rather than enhance cognitive performance and decision-making [8]. When individuals are presented with too many options or too much information, they often experience what psychologists call “choice overload” or “analysis paralysis,” where the abundance of possibilities prevents effective action.
This phenomenon directly relates to Schopenhauer’s warning about excessive reading. The individual who consumes vast amounts of information may become overwhelmed by the multitude of perspectives, approaches, and possibilities, making it difficult to choose a direction for their own creative work. The paralysis that results from information overload can prevent the kind of decisive action necessary for creative production.
Studies have shown that individuals perform better on creative tasks when they have access to moderate rather than extensive amounts of background information [9]. This finding supports the idea that there is an optimal level of input for creative work, beyond which additional consumption becomes counterproductive.
The Illusion of Knowledge and Competence
Psychological research has identified several cognitive biases that help explain why excessive reading can create the illusion of knowledge and competence while actually preventing genuine learning and creative development [10]. The “fluency illusion” occurs when repeated exposure to information creates a sense of familiarity that is mistaken for understanding. Individuals who read extensively about a topic may feel that they understand it deeply, even when they lack the practical experience or original insight necessary for genuine expertise.
Similarly, the “Dunning-Kruger effect” describes how individuals with limited knowledge or competence in a domain often overestimate their abilities [11]. Extensive reading can contribute to this effect by providing surface-level familiarity with concepts and terminology without the deeper understanding that comes from practical application or original thinking.
These cognitive biases can create a false sense of intellectual achievement that reduces motivation for the more difficult work of creative production. The individual who feels knowledgeable based on their reading may be less likely to undertake the challenging process of developing and expressing their own ideas.
Procrastination and Avoidance Behaviors
Research on procrastination reveals how activities that feel productive and educational can actually serve as sophisticated forms of avoidance behavior [12]. Reading can become a particularly seductive form of procrastination because it provides the sense of making progress while avoiding the anxiety and uncertainty that accompany creative work.
The act of reading is generally easier and more immediately rewarding than the act of writing or creating. Reading provides constant stimulation and the satisfaction of learning new information, while creative work often involves periods of struggle, uncertainty, and apparent lack of progress. This difference in immediate reward can create a pattern where individuals consistently choose the easier activity of consumption over the more difficult but ultimately more rewarding activity of creation.
Studies of creative individuals reveal that successful creators often develop strategies for managing this dynamic, including setting specific limits on consumption activities and creating structured time for creative work [13]. The ability to tolerate the discomfort and uncertainty of creative work appears to be a crucial factor in transcending the consumption trap that Schopenhauer identified.
The Social Validation of Consumption
Contemporary culture often provides more immediate social validation for consumption than for creation, which can reinforce the pattern that Schopenhauer warned against [14]. Sharing interesting articles, discussing books, or demonstrating knowledge of current trends can provide immediate social rewards, while creative work often requires long periods of solitary effort before it can be shared and validated by others.
Social media has intensified this dynamic by creating platforms where the curation and sharing of others’ content can provide immediate social feedback and validation. The individual who becomes skilled at finding and sharing interesting content may receive more immediate social rewards than the individual who is working on original creative projects that are not yet ready for public consumption.
This social dynamic can create a feedback loop where individuals become increasingly focused on consumption and curation activities that provide immediate social validation, while neglecting the longer-term creative work that might ultimately provide more meaningful satisfaction and contribution.
4. Historical Analysis: Readers versus Creators Throughout History
Examining the lives and habits of historical figures provides insight into the relationship between reading and creative output, revealing patterns that support Schopenhauer’s observations while also illuminating the conditions under which extensive reading can support rather than inhibit creative work.
The Voracious Readers Who Created
Some of history’s most prolific creators were also voracious readers, suggesting that the relationship between consumption and creation is more complex than Schopenhauer’s warning might initially suggest. However, closer examination reveals that successful creator-readers typically developed specific strategies for transforming their reading into original work.
Leonardo da Vinci exemplifies the creator who used extensive reading and study as raw material for original innovation [15]. His notebooks reveal constant engagement with existing knowledge from multiple disciplines, but this consumption was always directed toward specific creative projects and practical applications. Da Vinci’s reading was purposeful rather than random, selective rather than comprehensive, and always subordinated to his creative goals.
Similarly, Charles Darwin’s development of evolutionary theory involved extensive reading across multiple fields, but his consumption was guided by specific questions and hypotheses that emerged from his own observations and thinking [16]. Darwin’s correspondence reveals how he used reading strategically to test and refine his ideas rather than allowing others’ thoughts to substitute for his own original thinking.
These examples suggest that the key factor is not the amount of reading but the relationship between reading and creative work. Successful creators use reading as a tool for their own projects rather than allowing it to become an end in itself.
The Scholars Who Never Created
History also provides numerous examples of individuals who became trapped in the pattern that Schopenhauer identified, accumulating vast knowledge without ever producing significant original work. The medieval scholastics, for example, often became so focused on commenting upon and interpreting existing authorities that they lost the capacity for independent thought and original contribution [17].
The phenomenon of “learned helplessness” in academic contexts illustrates how extensive familiarity with existing literature can sometimes inhibit rather than support original research. Graduate students who become too immersed in existing scholarship may struggle to identify novel research questions or develop confidence in their own ideas.
The case of Samuel Taylor Coleridge provides a particularly poignant example of how excessive reading can interfere with creative production [18]. Despite his obvious genius and early creative success, Coleridge became increasingly consumed with reading and note-taking in his later years, producing extensive marginalia and commentary but relatively little original poetry. His notebooks reveal a mind constantly engaged with others’ ideas but struggling to complete his own creative projects.
The Balance of Input and Output
Historical analysis reveals that the most successful creators typically develop some form of balance between input and output, consumption and creation. This balance is not necessarily equal—some creators read extensively while others read selectively—but it involves a conscious relationship between the two activities.
Virginia Woolf’s diaries reveal how she used reading as both inspiration and respite from her own writing, but always maintained clear boundaries between the two activities [19]. She would often read voraciously between writing projects but would limit her reading while actively engaged in creative work to avoid interference with her own voice and vision.
Similarly, T.S. Eliot’s extensive knowledge of literary tradition informed his poetry, but he developed specific practices for transforming his reading into original work [20]. His concept of the “objective correlative” and his technique of allusion represent sophisticated methods for incorporating existing knowledge into original creative expression.
5. The Neuroscience of Learning, Memory, and Creative Synthesis
Contemporary neuroscience research provides insight into the biological mechanisms underlying the relationship between information consumption and creative production, offering empirical support for many of Schopenhauer’s philosophical observations.
The Default Mode Network and Creative Insight
Research on the brain’s default mode network (DMN) reveals how periods of reduced external input can facilitate creative insight and original thinking [21]. The DMN, which becomes active during rest and introspection, plays a crucial role in making novel connections between disparate pieces of information and generating creative insights.
Constant consumption of external information can suppress DMN activity, potentially interfering with the kind of spontaneous insight and creative synthesis that characterizes original thinking. This research supports Schopenhauer’s intuition that excessive reading can prevent the kind of reflective processing necessary for creative work.
Studies of creative individuals reveal that many of their best insights occur during periods of reduced external stimulation, such as walking, showering, or other routine activities that allow the mind to wander [22]. This finding suggests that the constant consumption of information may prevent the kind of mental downtime necessary for creative breakthrough.
Memory Consolidation and Creative Synthesis
Research on memory consolidation reveals how the brain processes and integrates new information during periods of rest and sleep [23]. This process is crucial for transforming raw information into usable knowledge and for making the novel connections that characterize creative thinking.
Excessive information consumption can interfere with memory consolidation by overwhelming the brain’s processing capacity and preventing the kind of deep processing necessary for genuine learning and creative synthesis. The individual who constantly consumes new information may prevent their brain from adequately processing and integrating what they have already learned.
Studies show that spacing learning over time and allowing for periods of consolidation leads to better retention and more creative application of knowledge than massed practice or continuous consumption [24]. This research supports the idea that there is an optimal rhythm of input and processing that maximizes both learning and creative potential.
Attention and Cognitive Resources
Neuroscience research on attention and cognitive resources reveals how the brain’s capacity for processing information is limited and how different types of mental activity compete for these resources [25]. The act of reading and processing new information requires significant cognitive resources that are then unavailable for creative thinking and original work.
Studies of multitasking reveal that attempting to consume information while simultaneously engaging in creative work typically impairs performance on both activities [26]. This research supports the idea that consumption and creation may be fundamentally incompatible activities that require different modes of mental functioning.
The concept of “cognitive load” helps explain why excessive reading can interfere with creative work [27]. When the mind is overloaded with information, it has fewer resources available for the kind of flexible, associative thinking that characterizes creativity. This finding provides a neurobiological basis for Schopenhauer’s observation about the relationship between excessive consumption and creative paralysis.
6. Contemporary Manifestations: Digital Age Information Overload
The digital revolution has created new forms of the consumption-creation imbalance that Schopenhauer identified, amplifying both the opportunities and the dangers of excessive information consumption.
The Attention Economy and Infinite Scroll
The design of digital platforms has created what researchers call the “attention economy,” where companies compete for user engagement through increasingly sophisticated methods of capturing and holding attention [28]. Features like infinite scroll, push notifications, and algorithmic content curation are specifically designed to maximize consumption and minimize the likelihood that users will disengage to pursue their own creative work.
This technological environment creates unprecedented challenges for maintaining the balance between consumption and creation. The constant availability of new content and the addictive design of digital platforms can make it extremely difficult to resist the pull of consumption in favor of the more difficult work of creation.
Research on digital media use reveals patterns that directly parallel Schopenhauer’s warning about excessive reading. Heavy users of social media and digital content often report feeling informed and engaged while simultaneously feeling unproductive and creatively blocked [29]. The ease and immediacy of digital consumption can create the illusion of intellectual activity while actually preventing the kind of sustained focus necessary for creative work.
Information Anxiety and FOMO
The digital age has created new forms of anxiety related to information consumption, including “information anxiety” and “fear of missing out” (FOMO) that can drive compulsive consumption behaviors [30]. The sense that there is always more to learn, more to read, more to consume can create a state of chronic dissatisfaction and restlessness that prevents the kind of contentment and focus necessary for creative work.
Social media platforms exacerbate this dynamic by providing constant updates about what others are reading, learning, and discussing. The fear of falling behind or missing important information can drive individuals to consume content compulsively, even when this consumption interferes with their own creative goals and projects.
Research on FOMO reveals that it is associated with decreased life satisfaction and increased anxiety, suggesting that the attempt to consume everything actually prevents the kind of selective engagement that leads to genuine fulfillment and achievement [31].
The Curation Trap
Digital platforms have created new forms of intellectual activity that can provide the illusion of productivity while actually preventing creative work. The practice of curating content—collecting, organizing, and sharing interesting articles, videos, and other media—can feel like meaningful intellectual work while actually serving as a sophisticated form of procrastination.
The ease of digital curation tools can make this activity particularly seductive, as it provides immediate satisfaction and social validation while requiring less effort and risk than original creative work. The individual who becomes skilled at finding and organizing others’ content may receive social recognition for their curatorial abilities while never developing their own creative voice.
Research on digital productivity reveals that many individuals spend significant amounts of time organizing and managing information without ever using it for creative purposes [32]. This pattern represents a digital-age manifestation of Schopenhauer’s warning about remaining forever in the role of consumer rather than becoming a creator.
7. Practical Frameworks: From Consumption to Creation
Understanding the dynamics that Schopenhauer identified suggests several practical approaches for maintaining a productive balance between consumption and creation.
The Input-Output Ratio
One practical framework involves consciously managing the ratio between input and output activities. This might involve setting specific limits on consumption activities (such as reading time or social media use) and dedicating protected time for creative work. Research suggests that successful creators often develop personal systems for managing this balance [33].
Some creators use temporal boundaries, such as dedicating mornings to creative work and afternoons to consumption activities. Others use project-based boundaries, limiting their consumption of related material while actively working on a creative project to avoid interference with their own voice and vision.
The Transformation Practice
Another approach involves developing specific practices for transforming consumption into creation. This might include taking notes while reading with the explicit intention of developing original ideas, writing responses or critiques of consumed material, or using reading as inspiration for original creative projects.
The key is to maintain an active rather than passive relationship with consumed material, constantly asking how it relates to one’s own ideas and projects rather than simply absorbing it as entertainment or general education.
The Creation-First Principle
Some successful creators adopt a “creation-first” principle, where they prioritize their own creative work and only consume material that directly supports their current projects. This approach helps ensure that consumption serves creation rather than substituting for it.
This principle might involve starting each day with creative work before consuming any external content, or setting specific creative goals that must be achieved before engaging in consumption activities.
8. Conclusion: Toward Productive Intellectual Engagement
Schopenhauer’s warning about remaining “forever reading, never to be read” identifies a fundamental challenge of intellectual life that has only intensified in our age of information abundance. His insight reveals how the very activities that seem most educational and productive—reading, learning, consuming information—can become obstacles to the creative work that gives life meaning and contributes to human knowledge.
The solution is not to stop reading or learning, but to develop a more conscious and strategic relationship with information consumption. This involves recognizing when consumption serves our creative goals and when it substitutes for the more difficult but ultimately more rewarding work of original creation.
The key insight from Schopenhauer’s warning is that intellectual fulfillment comes not from what we consume but from what we create, not from what we know but from what we contribute, not from being well-read but from being worth reading. In our current era of unprecedented access to information, this insight takes on new urgency as we navigate the challenge of transforming endless consumption into meaningful contribution.
The path forward involves developing the wisdom to know when to read and when to write, when to consume and when to create, when to learn from others and when to trust our own voice. This wisdom cannot be found in any book or article—it must be developed through practice, reflection, and the courage to step away from the comfortable role of consumer to embrace the vulnerable but essential role of creator.
References
[1] Schopenhauer, A. (1851/2004). Essays and Aphorisms. Translated by R.J. Hollingdale. Penguin Classics.
[2] Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. Random House.
[3] Cartwright, D. (2010). Schopenhauer: A Biography. Cambridge University Press.
[4] Schopenhauer, A. (1818/1969). The World as Will and Representation. Dover Publications.
[5] Safranski, R. (1990). Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
[6] Young, J. (2005). Schopenhauer. Routledge.
[7] Schopenhauer, A. (1851/1970). Essays and Aphorisms. Penguin Classics.
[8] Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Harper Perennial.
[9] Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is demotivating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006.
[10] Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87.
[11] Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
[12] Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94.
[13] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Collins.
[14] Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
[15] Isaacson, W. (2017). Leonardo da Vinci. Simon & Schuster.
[16] Browne, J. (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Princeton University Press.
[17] McGrath, A. E. (2001). Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers.
[18] Holmes, R. (1989). Coleridge: Early Visions. Hodder & Stoughton.
[19] Woolf, V. (1977-1984). The Diary of Virginia Woolf (5 volumes). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[20] Eliot, T. S. (1919). Tradition and the individual talent. The Egoist, 6(4), 54-55.
[21] Buckner, R. L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). The brain’s default network. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 1-38.
[22] Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 71-93.
[23] Diekelmann, S., & Born, J. (2010). The memory function of sleep. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 114-126.
[24] Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks. Psychological Review, 113(2), 354-380.
[25] Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Prentice-Hall.
[26] Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587.
[27] Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
[28] Wu, T. (2016). The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. Knopf.
[29] Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1947-1962.
[30] Wurman, R. S. (1989). Information Anxiety. Doubleday.
[31] Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841-1848.
[32] Allen, D. (2001). Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. Viking.
[33] Currey, M. (2013). Daily Rituals: How Artists Work. Knopf.