Mindfulness—in basic terms, the practice of being “present” in the moment and paying attention to one’s own thoughts and feelings—has seen something of a boom over the last few years. While it certainly has its benefits, some argue that it encourages blind acceptance of the status quo, taking us so far into ourselves that we forget the rest of the world. In a new preprint on PsyArxiv, Michael Poulin and colleagues from New York’s University at Buffalo also find that mindfulness can decrease prosocial behaviours (亲社会行为).

The first study was designed to look at the impact of mindfulness on prosocial activity, and in particular, whether this depends on a person’s “self-construal”. In short, if someone has an independent self-construal they see the self as separate from others, rather than thinking more collectively and conceptualizing themselves as part of a wider group.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, one oriented around mindfulness meditation, and the other focusing on a control meditation in the form of mind wandering. Those in the mindfulness condition listened to a tape designed to inspire mindfulness through mindful breathing, while those in the mind wandering condition were instructed to “let your mind wander and think freely”.

After listening to the tapes, participants read about a local poverty and homelessness charity, before being asked whether or not they wanted to stuff envelopes in support of the organisation. Participants who decided to take part were left to do so for as long as they wanted. The team also measured participants’ self-construal by asking them to indicate how much they identified with friends, family, and wider groups compared to how much they thought of themselves as independent.

Most participants (84%) stuffed at least some envelopes after the task. People who participated in the mindfulness meditation stuffed 15% more envelopes than those who did the control mediation—if they had an interdependent self-construal. But for those with independent self-construals, mindfulness decreased the number of envelopes stuffed by 15%.

As the second study took place online, participants were not asked to stuff envelopes, but instead to sign up (or not) to chat online with alumni donors to request financial support for the same charity. And similar to the results of the first study, those in the interdependent condition saw an increased likelihood of volunteering after the mindfulness task, while those with independent self-construal were less likely to volunteer after listening to the mindfulness exercise.

Mindfulness has often been positioned as a panacea (灵丹妙药), not only for anxiety or other mental health conditions but in other areas, too: productivity, creativity, personal relationships, and particular traits or habits. Rather than treating it as a wholesale good, however, it may be better to understand when mindfulness might be truly beneficial—and, importantly, for whom.

Studies have shown that employees who view their work as a calling tend to do better on subjective measures, such as work and life satisfaction, than those for whom a job is mainly a means to a paycheck. New research finds gains in objective aspects too.

The researchers began by analyzing data from the Wisconsin Study, which collected information on thousands of high school graduates over many years. Those who described their work as a calling in 2004 earned more than others that year, and the pattern held when participants were surveyed again in 2011.

To test causality (因果关系), the researchers created three videos in which Sam spoke of his work as being a calling or a job or indicated no particular orientation (目标). Participants were asked to watch one of the videos before telling what bonus and raise Sam should receive and whether he should be promoted. Those who observed the calling-oriented Sam were far more likely to award a larger bonus. They gave him higher rises than to the job-oriented or the neutral (中立的) Sam, and they were more likely to recommend him for promotion.

Analysis showed that the high rewards resulted from assumptions that the Sam who saw his job as a calling was a better performer and was more committed to the organization — even though the videos described the same level of performance and showed no information about commitment.

“Calling-oriented employees are more likely to achieve career success, not necessarily because they show better job performance, but because they are expected by managers to have better performance and stronger commitment,” the researchers write. “Managers might expect calling-oriented employees to remain positive in the face of difficulties and might be more willing to accept their suggestions than those made by employees who are not calling-oriented, even when their suggestions contain similar parts.”

One evening in February 2007, a student named Paula Ceely brought her car to a stop on a remote road in Wales. She got out to open a metal gate that blocked her path .That’s when she heard the whistle sounded by the driver of a train. Her Renault Clio was parked across a railway line. Seconds later, she watched the train drag her car almost a kilometre down the railway tracks.

Ceely’s near miss made the news because she blamed it on her GPS (导航仪). She had never driven the route before. It was dark and raining heavily. Ceely was relying on her GPS, but it made no mention of the crossing. “I put my complete trust in the device and it led me right into the path of a speeding train,” she told the BBC.

Who is to blame here? Rick Stevenson, who tells Ceely’s story in his book When Machines Fail Us, points the finger at the limitations of technology. We put our faith in digital devices, he says, but our digital helpers are too often not up to the job. They are filled with small problems. And it’s not just GPS devices: Stevenson takes us on a tour of digital disasters involving everything from mobile phones to wireless keyboards.

The problem with his argument in the book is that it’s not clear why he only focuses on digital technology, while there may be a number of other possible causes. A map-maker might have left the crossing off a paper map. Maybe we should blame Ceely for not paying attention. Perhaps the railway authorities are at fault for poor singalling system. Or maybe someone has studied the relative dangers and worked out that there really is something specific wrong with the GPS equipment. But Stevenson doesn’t say.

It’s a problem that runs through the book. In a section on cars, Stevenson gives an account of the advanced techniques that criminals use to defeat computer-based locking systems for cars. He offers two independent sets of figures on car theft; both show a small rise in some parts of the country. He says that once again not all new locks have proved reliable. Perhaps, but maybe it’s also due to the shortage of policemen on the streets. Or changing social circumstances. Or some combination of these factors.

The game between humans and their smart devices is amusing and complex. It is shaped by economics and psychology and the cultures we live in. Somewhere in the mix of those forces there may be a way for a wiser use of technology.

If there is such a way, it should involve more than just an awareness of the shortcomings of our machines. After all, we have lived with them for thousands of years. They have probably been fooling us for just as long.