“No one is going to come help you. No one’s coming to save you. Stay Hard!” An angry, bald-headed man called David Goggins yelled. That was my first experience with David Goggins, a retired American Navy SEAL who went viral on social media due to his inspirational life story of self-development. His dark and aggressive take on motivational content was weirdly addictive and eventually convinced me to start a self-improvement journey of my own.
During my self-improvement journey, I followed all the latest “life hacks” from self-proclaimed life “gurus”, used an arsenal of data logging tools like Fitbits and calorie trackers, and bought into the idea that the best way to self-improve was to keep myself accountable with evidence and data. Little did I know that what I thought would be a positive lifestyle change would turn into an unhealthy obsession for data.
I was constantly trying to validate my efforts through numbers on a screen, making sure I hit my daily target and kept up to date with the most optimised way of doing things. This led me to thinking, why am I working so hard for data? Shouldn’t it be working hard for me?
While I thought that it was just a “me problem”, a simple google search showed me that I was part of a large community following the same movement – the “quantified self” movement.
What is the “Quantified Self”?
The ‘quantified self’, originally coined by Wolf and Kelly in 2007, is sometimes called ‘self-tracking’ or ‘lifelogging’, and refers to “self-knowledge through numbers”. It relies on using quantitative data as a means to monitor the elements of everyday life (Feng et al., 2021). By proactively collecting this information, people can gather deeper insights to their habits and behaviour which would be used to optimise their performance. This is made easier by the plethora of devices like fitness trackers and sleep monitors that can capture and analyse personal data.
A 2019 study published by Stanford University highlighted how self-tracking promotes self-awareness, a critical factor in making informed decisions about health and wellbeing. Paired with wearable technology, this can provide valuable real-time feedback on a variety of physiological parameters, allowing individuals to tailor their health and fitness strategies for optimal results (Dhingra et al., 2023).
However, in my opinion, the biggest reason this movement gained so much popularity was due to how accessible the idea was to the general public. The concept of the “quantified self” goes beyond demographic boundaries. Whether you are an athlete striving for peak performance, a professional seeking to optimise your work-life balance, or a health-conscious individual aiming for holistic wellbeing, the principles of quantified self can be tailored to suit your unique goals and aspirations (Lark Editor Team, 2023).
Supporters of this movement hail it as a revolutionary approach to self-improvement, empowering us to optimise our health, performance, and overall wellbeing, but is it really as good as it seems?
Iskandar, a local powerlifter, shared his thoughts and experience regarding the implementation of the “quantified self” movement into his lifestyle with me.
“For powerlifting, it helps me quantify my goals. This helps me keep on track with what I have to do and the weight I have to lift to progress well.”
He added that traditional methods, such as pen and paper tracking, were inefficient compared to the tools available today.
I visited the forum pages of the “quantified self” movement website (yes, they have a website) to find out more about why this ethos held such sway. One forum user by the name of “RiAnn-lliforg”, working in the non-profit sector, told how data collected by a patient’s FitBit showed well-researched and documented signs of dire health, which the patient’s physicians ignored. This caused the patient to go undiagnosed with colorectal cancer which may have resulted in her untimely death. The illness could have been caught earlier had the data been taken into account, instead of doctors relying solely on their own expertise.
However, while Iskandar and RiAnn see the positives in health data tracking, there are downsides to the quantified self movement.
The obsession trap: when numbers rule our lives
The initial allure of self-tracking lies in its promise of self-discovery and optimisation. However, when people take it too seriously, numbers that are not consistent with the user’s sense of body image and do not offer any cues for improving self-understanding can lead to a sensation of despair (Pols et al., 2019).
Think about the pressure of a pre-midnight scramble to hit a daily step goal, or the constant worry about achieving an elusive “perfect” sleep score. This obsession can cause us to push ourselves in unhealthy ways in order to meet these arbitrary standards, detracting from the very wellbeing the movement aims to cultivate.
Furthermore, a 2020 report by the Center for Humane Technology (Center for Humane Technology, n.d.) highlights the potential for self-tracking apps to exploit our psychological vulnerabilities. By constantly bombarding us with data and notifications, these apps can trigger feelings of inadequacy amid the need for constant improvement. Ultimately, people can feel forced to self-improve rather than to just be, resulting in these devices dictating our every move.
“It definitely does mess with your mental health when you’re not able to hit the goals you should be able to hit according to the data. There are some days where the weight just doesn’t move how you want it.” Iskandar told me.
This leads me to another confounding factor: the human effects that are unexplained by the data collected.
The fallacy of perfection
As humans, we have access to and awareness of our emotions, as well as an understanding of any physical and mental factors we might be experiencing. However, the quantitative numerical presentation from data sources imply a higher level of precision, as if the tracker knows you better than you know yourself – meaning users can become convinced that self-tracking systems offer a more truthful, reliable and objective view of things than their own subjective experience, even when this is not the case (Van Dijk et al., 2015). This can blind us to the qualitative experiences that contribute to our overall health and happiness.
Data collected also does not represent unforeseen injuries or mental blocks that might occur during our self-improvement journey. Consider a runner who tracks their pace and distance. Their data might not reveal a knee pain, or the mental fatigue sustained while running that could have impacted their timing. In these cases, we can only use our own intuition to adjust to these changes.
With data not being able to account for these factors, it is easy to see why it would create unrealistic standards for people to replicate, while triggering feelings of guilt in those who are not ‘up to par’. Everyone has bad days which may affect their performance, but the data doesn’t know that.
Lastly, the “quantified self” movement often misses the intrinsic value associated with certain activities, especially when measuring holistic wellness. Often, the “quantified self” movement can turn tasks into a chore. By focusing on activities that trade optimality for personal enjoyment, one may be more motivated to push themselves long term. Compared to jogging alone, taking a long walk with friends seems – at least on paper – inefficient, but if it leads to a more sustainable habit that prevents burnout, it can be more effective as a long-term strategy.
Striking a balance: beyond the quantified self
Data is most useful when it empowers us to make informed decisions based on our holistic view of our own wellbeing. Intuition, subjective experiences, and the simple joy of movement in nature all play a crucial role in achieving genuine wellbeing.
Personally, I believe that the “quantified self” movement is going to be a feature of the future and will probably be adopted to some degree by everyone. With the constant development of technology and AI, more resources will be available and accessible to the average person. However, this also means that new ways for data to gaslight and demotivate us will be created.
By striking a healthy balance between data-driven and intuition-based approaches, we can maximise personal development while promoting physical and mental health. Self-development is a personal journey meant to be taken at your own pace, not at the instructions of a monotonous voice called Siri.
References:
- Feng, S., Mäntymäki, M., Dhir, A., & Salmela, H. (2021). How self-tracking and the quantified self Promote Health and Well-being: Systematic review. JMIR. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(9), e25171.
- Schneider, M., & Kwan, B. M. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and affective response to exercise in adolescents. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(5), 776–785.
- Center for Humane Technology.
- Lark Editor Team. (2023, December 22). Quantified Self: Enhancing Productivity through Personal Data Tracking.
- Pols, J., Willems, D. L., & Aanestad, M. (2019). Making sense with numbers. Unravelling ethico‐psychological subjects in practices of self‐quantification. Sociology of Health & Illness (Print), 41(S1), 98–115.
- Dhingra, L. S., Aminorroaya, A., Oikonomou, E., Nargesi, A. A., Wilson, F. P., Krumholz, H. M., & Khera, R. (2023). Use of wearable devices in individuals with or at risk for cardiovascular disease in the US, 2019 to 2020. JAMA Network Open, 6(6), e2316634.
- Laborde, S., Raab, M., & Dosseville, F. (2012). Emotions and Performance: Valuable insights from the sport domain. ResearchGate.
- Rathschlag, M., & Memmert, D. (2013). The Influence of Self-Generated Emotions on Physical Performance: an investigation of happiness, anger, anxiety, and sadness. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35(2), 197–210.
- Van Dijk, E. K.-., Beute, F., Westerink, J., & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. (2015). Unintended effects of self-tracking. ResearchGate.
