Digital Rings of Power: How Your Software Infiltrates Your Thoughts
The Subtle Influence of Philosophy, Aesthetics, and Features in Software + How You Can Fight Back Against the Silent Shapers
» Men have become the tools of their tools. « — H.D. Thoreau, 18541
We like to believe we are the masters of the tools we wield. Yet, over 150 years ago, Thoreau suggested otherwise, and this sentiment resonates today more than ever. Technology has seeped deep into our lives; it is now essential to our existence.
I don’t know about you, but I indeed sometimes feel “tooled” by technology. Almost no day goes by where I don’t, even just for a few minutes, get sucked into The Attention Vortex. I’ve set an Instagram limit, but I bump against it daily. I keep disabling smartphone notifications and unsubscribing from newsletters— but every time I do, it’s like slaying one head of a hydra—two more appear seemingly out of nowhere. I certainly couldn’t imagine living without my digital exoskeleton anymore.
There’s abundant discourse around the overt effects of social media, smartphones, and the bottomless rabbit hole that is the internet. Maybe that’s just how it is — I don’t want to challenge that trajectory here.
But what concerns me is that the digital tools and services we use daily have started to influence us in subtler ways. Digital tools aren’t merely passive instruments like a hammer; they are seemingly dynamic and active participants in what we do. They provide us with more nuanced and personalized feedback. They feel “alive.” Through this, they shape our behavior, thoughts, and even our sense of self—and they do so in ways we don’t immediately realize.
It’s as if we had all collectively put on one of Tolkien’s rings of power. As the story goes, these rings can greatly extend our abilities, yet they also add a covert layer that can quietly shape and corrupt us. I’m not suggesting an evil influence at play here. Instead, I want to point out that we unknowingly form a symbiotic relationship with our digital tools. This relationship exerts a subtle yet sometimes profound influence that is often invisible to us.
In this essay, I want to explore this relationship. We’ll delve into how, despite our intentions, these tools shape our behaviors and thought processes. By understanding this influence, we can make more mindful choices about the technologies we adopt, ensuring they enhance rather than hinder our personal and professional growth.
Tech-led Changes — Some Personal Anecdotes
I first truly realized the subtle influence of software tools when I migrated from Evernote to Obsidian as my main note-taking tool. Changing note-taking apps seems innocent enough, yet somehow it profoundly affected me. What happened? Without any intention to alter my approach to personal knowledge management (PKM), I slowly found myself drawn down new paths. Obsidian encouraged me to create more notes about my thoughts rather than just capturing the thoughts of others. It also led me to abandon the PARA method. None of this would have happened had I stayed with Evernote.2
Similarly, a couple of months ago, I transitioned from Toggl and RescueTime to a game-changing new time-tracking tool. While my only goals were more simplicity and joy of use, the switch drove me to build a more measurable way to evaluate my Productiveness—I now have hard data about how much time I spend doing what and how “balanced” my life really is —again, something unexpected and directly influenced by the tool itself.3
Reflecting further, I can also identify some negative consequences certain tools have had on me. After I started using Spotify, I stopped carefully curating MP3 files. While this seemed advantageous at first, I now realize that this switch paradoxically made me less inclined to explore certain artists more deeply—something I always enjoyed in my youth. Instead, I now listen to whatever the algorithm feeds me. As Amazon became dominant, I may have become lazier in my shopping habits, often defaulting to convenience over thoughtful, more sustainable choices. And with the advent of large language models, I’ve noticed a general mental laziness and echo-chambering creeping in. ChatGPT can certainly be a catalyst for confirmation bias.4
The common thread among all these changes is that they were tool-led and occurred without a deliberate decision on my end. The tools induced these changes slowly over time without me being aware. Worse, no matter how deliberate I would have tried to be with tool usage, I’d still be influenced by them. There’s just no escaping their gravitational pull. Tools are like rings of power; they can greatly amplify our ability to achieve goals if we’re already on the right track, but they can just as well make it harder if we’re already lost. In this sense, they are a Pandora’s box—we can’t unlock their power without stepping into their circle of influence.
Now, I may have made this sound more dire than needed, as often tools influence us only in trivial and negligible ways. And even for the tools that impact us the most, there may be at least some ways to mitigate and limit their power. However, since much of the tool's influence on us is subtle and often unnoticed, we need to ask many questions to become more aware of our tool’s gravity.
The Influence Trifecta of Digital Tools
How can tools infiltrate our ways of thinking and working? What properties of tools influence us? How do our tool choices enforce or restrain our tool’s influences?
These are relevant questions we want to be answered if we are to become more aware of their grip and make less detrimental choices. In what follows, I want to look into what I believe to be three key areas of influence and triangulate an attempt to answer them: the tool DNA, aesthetics, and affordances/disturbances.
1| Software DNA
The first and least obvious part of the trifecta is made up of a software tool’s DNA. Every digital tool embodies a philosophy—principles and assumptions embedded in its design, whether by deliberate intention or organic evolution. Tool creators who subscribe to a particular methodology infuse their tools with these principles, creating environments that subtly guide users to adopt similar practices.5
Take, for example, task management applications. Many have been influenced, intentionally or not, by the Getting Things Done (GTD) framework developed by David Allen. Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, many task managers embodied the principles and assumptions David Allen posed. This influence manifests in the very structure and features of the tools—such as the emphasis on organizing tasks into “projects,” leading to what I’ve called project obsession. While this can help some users stay organized, it can also constrain thinking by forcing every task into a project framework, even when it might not be necessary.
Another often-cited issue in PKM circles is the overemphasis on capture mechanics that Evernote has fostered in thousands of users. With Evernote, much of your content is created by “clipping” other people’s words or assets. While that’s not inherently negative—I believe in building “someday/maybe” empires—for many people, “overcapture” becomes a real problem. Users may accumulate vast amounts of information without a clear strategy for utilization, leading to overwhelm and inefficiency. Although not every Evernote user is affected, the subtle push in this direction is strong.
Similarly, I’ve observed and previously written about how Notion can lead people to build “knitted castles”—intricately designed but overly complex and intertwined structures. These elaborate setups consume more time than they save and can lock users into the tool, making migration to other platforms challenging, if not impossible.
2| Aesthetics
Aesthetics are the exact opposite of software DNA. Rather than being hidden deep beneath the surface, aesthetics are the very first thing we notice when we explore a new tool. The joy derived from using a “beautiful” tool can significantly influence how much time we’re willing to invest in it. This initial appeal can help us overcome the learning curve and may encourage us to stick with tasks longer, positively affecting our engagement over time. In other words, aesthetically pleasing tools can potentially enhance our work ethic.6
However, while aesthetics can positively affect us, they can also be deceiving. The famous “first impression” might lead us to make incorrect assumptions about a tool’s capabilities. Just as we are biased to believe that attractive people are more intelligent or successful, we may also be biased toward thinking that prettier tools are better or more powerful.7 Due to technological advances, newer tools are often more visually appealing, so these aesthetic biases can align with our novelty bias.
Generally speaking, minimalist and clean interfaces are more inviting for most users, especially newcomers, than interfaces cluttered with countless buttons and options. One powerful design principle to look out for in tools is progressive disclosure. Tools that follow this principle appear clean and simple at first glance, revealing only the most basic functions. Yet, as users become more comfortable, they uncover more complex features. Advanced features are hidden from the beginner but are accessible to the power user through settings, hidden shortcuts, a plugin ecosystem, or integrations with other tools. This approach prevents beginners from feeling overwhelmed while providing depth for advanced users. By layering experiences, such tools encourage continued use and deeper engagement.
3| Affordances ⚡️ Disturbances
In ecological terms, our tools present us with both affordances and disturbances, each shaping our behavior in distinct ways.
Affordances are the possibilities for action that a tool offers—its unique features and capabilities. For instance, the note-taking app Obsidian allows users to create bidirectional links between notes, a feature that many other apps lack. The mere availability of this function can influence how we organize our thoughts, encouraging us to create connections we might not have otherwise considered. Affordances don’t carry inherent value judgments; they simply enable actions that other tools don’t.
Disturbances, on the flip side, are obstacles or friction points within a tool that disrupt our flow. While all tools have bugs, disturbances extend beyond technical glitches. They can include missing features, misaligned philosophies, or even user-induced issues like overloading a tool with too many plugins. In Obsidian, for example, an excessively large note database or an overabundance of third-party plugins can slow down performance, hinder productivity and diminish the enjoyment of using the tool. Disturbances remind us that no tool is perfect and that our interaction with technology is an ongoing negotiation between capability and limitation.
Each Tool As a “Ring of Power”
By examining the trifecta of software DNA, aesthetics, and affordances/disturbances, we can better understand how our tools influence us and make informed decisions about the technologies we adopt. Tolkien’s Rings of Power again serves as an apt analogy. They are stunning pieces of art bestowing extraordinary abilities to their bearers, but they also carry hidden corruptions eroding autonomy. Similarly, our software tools enhance our capabilities yet may subtly shape our behaviors and thoughts in unintended ways. Just as the rings’ allure masked their true dangers, the aesthetically pleasing features of our tools can overshadow their potential drawbacks. It’s crucial to remain mindful of both the benefits and hidden influences, ensuring we harness their power without falling prey to unseen pitfalls. Thinking of every tool we use as one of Tolkien’s rings may help us stay vigilant.
Beyond that, it’s helpful to ask questions—lots of them.
Questions to Ponder
While I have detailed guides on choosing task managers and personal knowledge companions—where I present various factors to consider before selecting a tool—we’re rarely this analytical. We often dive into new tools, experiment to see how they feel, and then decide based on intuition and emotion. We “spike” the tool, give it a test drive, and rely on our gut feelings.
To navigate this process more mindfully, consider asking yourself the following questions after you’ve become familiar with a tool (note: these are deep and not easy-to-answer questions)
Regarding Software DNA
Does the tool promote an underlying philosophy or methodology, and how does it influence your workflow and habits? Understanding the tool’s embedded philosophy can reveal how it subtly shapes your behaviors and thought processes.
Are you the toolmaster? Are you adapting your processes to fit the tool, or is the tool adapting to fit your needs? Assess whether the tool is serving you or if you’re contorting your workflows to accommodate it.
What behavioral changes or new thought patterns have you adopted since using the tool? Has it led you to set new goals for yourself? Are these good goals? Reflect on how the tool has impacted your mindset and objectives, intentionally or unintentionally.
Regarding Aesthetics
Does the tool’s aesthetic appeal enhance your productivity or serve as a distraction? Consider whether the design motivates you to work or if it’s merely a superficial attraction that hinders efficiency.
Does the user interface promote focus, or does it lead to overwhelm? Evaluate if the interface helps you concentrate or if it’s cluttered with features that distract you from your tasks.
Is the tool a joy to use, or does its interface get in the way of your work? Determine whether the tool facilitates a smooth workflow or if usability issues create frustration.
Regarding Affordances & Disturbances
Does the tool simplify your use cases, or does it add unnecessary complexity? Analyze if the tool streamlines your work or complicates it with extraneous features and steps.
How much of your time spent with the tool is productive work versus overhead (configuration, troubleshooting, learning new features)? Assess whether the tool is a time-saver or if it consumes valuable time that could be spent on actual work.
Does the tool encourage critical thinking, or does it do the thinking for you, potentially diminishing your skills?
• Reflect on whether the tool enhances your abilities or makes you overly dependent, hindering personal growth.
There are many more questions you can potentially ask. The ones above are just to get you started. I’m curious if you have any experience with the silent influence of tools and if so if you see any valuable questions I didn’t list above?
Conclusion
Our relationship with digital tools is a delicate dance of mutual influence: we shape them, but they, in turn, shape us—often imperceptibly over time. Recognizing this symbiotic relationship empowers us to harness technology’s benefits while safeguarding our autonomy and creativity. We strive to select tools that align with our philosophy, maximize affordances, and minimize disturbances—tools that empower us without constraining our creativity or efficiency. However, this is challenging because we can become mentally “caged” by software that subtly reshapes our workflows in limiting ways. What begins as a helpful aid can evolve into a restrictive framework that stifles innovation.
By viewing our tools as “rings of power” and engaging in thoughtful reflection, we can at least partially break free from their gravitational pull. By choosing our tools wisely and remaining open to change, we ensure that we remain the architects of our own experiences—not just passengers along for the ride..
Henry David Thoreau famously wrote this in his seminal work Walden; or, Life in the Woods, while retreating from the “fast pace of daily life” in the mid-19th century.
It even led me to develop a completely new organizational approach outlined in my “Beyond PARA” series, the PEAKER method.
As a fun side note, I guess that Tiago Forte, the creator of PARA and Building a Second Brain (BASB), was severely influenced by his tooling when he created his content. For instance: his task artifact manager Things 3 incorporated the GTD philosophy, where the terms “projects” and “areas” in PARA may stem from. And his PKC Evernote imposed certain hierarchical restrictions (you can’t create more than 3 levels of hierarchy, there’s only stack, notebook, note) and other limitations that led him to develop PARA as a broad rather than a deep structure.
While these examples may seem positive overall, it’s crucial to consider the situation from a safe distance. For instance, it’s reasonable to assume that the niche fad of “note-making”—sense-making through note-taking—will likely lead many of us to “overdo it” at some point. We might end up throwing inconceivable amounts of time into the trash can, having achieved nothing more than shifting some pixels on a screen. Only time will tell us the true merit of linked notes, and until then, we live under the influence of our newfound rings of power.
Much of the grammar and spelling in this essay have been spit out by ChatGPT and also corrected by Grammarly. While all the ideas are mine, as a non-native English speaker, these tools are really helpful if wielded right. Yet, like all other tools, I am probably deeply influenced by them in ways that I may not see (yet).
On the positive side, the embedded philosophy within a tool can be considered a “frozen experience.” The expertise and insights of the tool’s creators are woven into its fabric, allowing users to benefit from their experience without even realizing it.
According to Occam’s razor, I firmly believe that much of our work output and quality correlate with the time we spend on it. If aesthetics can make us use a tool longer, they can impact all efforts that rely on “time on task.”
Research indicates that humans exhibit a bias toward aesthetically pleasing individuals and objects. For example, children prefer information from more attractive informants (Bascandziev & Harris, 2014); attractive individuals are perceived as more competent and intelligent (Jackson et al., 1995; Talamas et al., 2016); adults also prefer curved visual objects over sharp-angled ones (Bar & Neta, 2006). These findings highlight the significant influence of aesthetics on human judgment and decision-making, emphasizing the need for caution in interpreting aesthetic appeal as an indicator of quality or effectiveness. Similarly, reasearch is surfacing that indicates that more aesthetically pleasing software leads to “significantly higher perception of aesthetics and usability“ and even a slight boost in performance (Perrig et al., 2023). Personally, I believe the role of aesthetics to be a fading effect. As familiarity with a tool rises, I think it matters less and less how it looks as long as other things take the place of aesthetics in driving joy. For example, an advanced used can get as much joy out of using an ugly tool that makes him profoundly productive through advanced keyboard shortcuts as he can get joy out of using a very pretty but bare-bones tool that slows him down a bit.