I Turned Off All My Phone Notifications for a Week. Here’s Why I’m Not Going Back


The first thing I noticed was the silence.

I woke up, reached for my iPhone and found nothing waiting for me. No Slack messages stacked on top of Gmail alerts. No Instagram likes to feed my ego. No Apple News headline to spike my cortisol. No Uber Eats promo. No Amazon deals. No little red-numbered accusations telling me I had already fallen behind before I could gather my thoughts and wash my face.

My lock screen was blank. Not “quiet” in the way Do Not Disturb makes it temporarily quiet, where everything is still piling up behind a curtain, waiting for you to turn the world back on. This was different.

I had gone into my settings, app by app, and disabled notifications completely the night before. Apple doesn’t have a feature that does this automatically. I had to do it manually, and it was arduous. 

Now my phone wasn’t holding its breath, waiting for permission to shout at me again. It wasn’t hiding anything from me. It simply had nothing to say.

insert-1

Zooey Liao/CNET/Apple/Shutterstock

It felt wrong.

I’d expected relief that day, or at least the smug little calm that comes from doing something vaguely healthy. I’ll go for a brisk walk today, rather than rotting on the couch. Why don’t I feel good instantly?

Instead, I felt a low, unsettling anxiety. Something was happening somewhere, but I didn’t know what it was. Someone could be texting me. Work could need me. A friend could have sent a meme. A story could be breaking. A package could be arriving. A sale could be ending.

My digital life had become like a house party I’d stepped out of: The conversations kept happening, rooms kept filling and people kept looking for me. The only way to know what I’d missed was to open the door again.

That was the point of this experiment. For one week, I turned off every notification on my phone: not just social media or the obvious offenders, but everything. Messages. Email. Slack. Instagram. X. Uber Eats. Banking apps. Even apps that I’d forgotten were allowed to interrupt me, like the McDonald’s app reminding me that the Grimace shake was back, along with a purple burger. OK, cool.

By the time the week was over, my phone felt less like a grenade that was always on the verge of blowing up and more like something I could set down without flinching.

And for the first time in a long time, I had to decide when to look at it.

My phone wasn’t just distracting me. It was directing me

Most of us talk about phone addiction like it’s a failure of discipline. We say we can’t stay off our phones, as if the phone is sitting there innocently and we’re the weak ones crawling back to it. But that framing lets the device, and the companies behind the apps on it, off too easily.

Notifications are tiny, relentless acts of design. They exist to create a moment of urgency, to pull your eyes back to an app, to remind you that something might be waiting. And sometimes that thing is important. It might be a text from your partner, or a fraud alert from your bank.

But often it’s nothing: a discount code, a “you may have missed” post, a push alert about a service you didn’t ask to think about.

Apps make money when you open them, buy through them, scroll through them, engage with them or feed them data about what you do next. A notification is a tiny fishing line thrown into your day, and it’s got you hook, line and sinker.

insert-2

Zooey Liao/CNET/Shutterstock

A 2026 Reviews.org survey found that Americans check their phones an average of 186 times per day, which translates to about 11.6 times per hour awake. The same survey found that nearly half of respondents sleep with their phone at night, and 41.3% feel panic or anxiety when their battery drops below 20%. A 2025 version of the survey put the number even higher, at 205 phone checks per day, and found that 76% of Americans checked their phones within 5 minutes of receiving a notification, compared to 71% in this year’s report.

That all sounded excessive until I thought about my own day. I check my phone when I wake up. I check it while making breakfast. I check it between the paragraphs I write for CNET. I check it in elevators, at red lights (oops), in grocery store lines, while watching TV and while pretending not to check it around other people. Half the time, I’m not even looking for anything specific. I’m just responding to the possibility that something might be there.

The possibility is the powerful part.

Harvard Medical School has described games and social media as operating on a “variable reward system,” the same basic psychological mechanism that makes slot machines compelling: You don’t know when the reward is coming, so you keep pulling. On a phone, the lever is your thumb. The reward might be a like, a message, an email, a reply, a new headline, a new piece of proof that you still exist in other people’s minds.

Notifications remove the need for curiosity. You don’t have to wonder whether something happened. Your phone tells you. Then it tells you again. Then it tells you while you’re working, walking, eating, driving, talking to someone, trying to fall asleep or trying to do nothing at all.

Research has found that these interruptions carry a real cognitive cost. A 2016 study from researchers at the University of British Columbia and the University of Virginia found that participants reported more inattention and hyperactivity symptoms during a week when their phone alerts were on than during a week when alerts were off. 

A separate 2022 PLOS One study found that people responded slightly more slowly during a cognitive task when they heard smartphone notification sounds compared with neutral audio cues — a small effect, but one that suggests even an alert you don’t answer can tug at your attention.

Put simply, a notification can still tug at your focus even if you never pick up the phone. And a 2026 study in Computers in Human Behavior found that social media notifications can disrupt cognitive processing, and those disruptions can last several seconds after the notification.

In other words, the phone doesn’t have to be in your hand to get inside your head.

insert-3

Zooey Liao/CNET/Apple/Shutterstock

That’s what I wanted to test. Not whether I could live without a smartphone. I couldn’t, and honestly, I don’t want to. My phone is how I work, navigate, pay, listen to music, take photos, talk to friends, check my calendar and function as a modern person. I wasn’t trying to become a monk. 

I just wanted to know what would happen if I stopped letting every app on my phone decide when it could interrupt me.

Do Not Disturb wasn’t enough. Focus modes weren’t enough. Those features are useful, sure, but they still treat notifications as inevitable. They hide them, sort them, bundle them, quiet them, but ultimately just delay them. I wanted to see what would happen if they simply didn’t arrive.

So I opened Settings, went to Notifications and started shutting everything down.

It was tedious work, which felt revealing in itself. Every app had its own little permission structure, its own relationship to my attention. Some were obvious: Instagram, X, Slack, Gmail, Apple News. Others were absurd. Did I really need notifications from CarParts.com? Did the DMV Wallet app need a direct line to my nervous system? Did a shopping app need to light up my screen because a pair of pants I had looked at once was now 8% cheaper?

By the end, my phone finally felt like it belonged to me instead of everyone else.

How it felt to live without notifications

The first morning was the hardest.

I woke up to a blank screen and immediately felt disconnected, almost physically. I didn’t know what was going on. My phone had become the thing that briefed me on reality before I entered it. 

Without notifications, there was no morning briefing. No passive inventory of the world. No sense of who needed me, who liked something, who was angry, who was selling something, what had happened overnight.

At first, I compensated by checking manually. Messages. Slack. Gmail. Instagram. Then Gmail again. Then Slack again. Then Instagram, because a lot of my social life runs through DMs now, and apparently, my brain considered this a matter of national security.

The strange part was that I wasn’t checking less. I was probably checking more, at least at first. 

A 2019 study on notification batching found something similar: Batching notifications three times a day improved attention, productivity, mood and people’s sense of control over their phones, but completely disabling notifications produced fewer benefits and increased anxiety and fear of missing out.

Larry Rosen, a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, told me that reaction made sense. For many people, waking up to a screen full of alerts has become part of the phone’s reward cycle.

“When you wake up and there’s nothing there, or very little there, you then slip into the anxiety system, because you’re not being fed all this dopamine anymore,” Rosen said.

That tracked with my first 24 hours almost too perfectly. The absence of notifications didn’t immediately make me calm; it made me suspicious if anything.

The annoying dog down the street had finally stopped barking, and now I was awake in the dark, wondering why.

“If you find yourself kind of ping-ponging between the dopaminergic system and the anxiety system, that’s really tough on your brain and your body,” Rosen told me. “It’s exhausting.”

quote-1

By the afternoon, though, something shifted. The manual checks started to feel less urgent. I would open Messages, see nothing important, and close it. I would open Slack, see that the world had not collapsed, and close it. I would open Instagram, find no life-changing DM, and close it too. The loop had lost some of its grip.

The second day felt different. Not exactly peaceful, but less haunted.

Without notifications, I realized how much of my social media use no longer started with social media. I wasn’t deciding to open Instagram or X because I wanted to see what people were saying. The apps were coming to me first, through my lock screen. A like, a reply, a recommended post — each one was a tiny invitation back into the feed. Without those invitations, I didn’t stop caring, but I stopped being dragged there.

A couple of days in, I noticed something else: Some apps really, really hate being quiet. Open Instagram or Facebook after turning off notifications, and they don’t accept it. They ask you to turn alerts back on. They remind you what you might miss. They make the case, again and again, that your life would be better if they had a direct line to your lock screen. There was something almost pathetic about it.

That desperation makes sense in the attention economy, said Kostadin Kushlev, a psychology professor at Georgetown University who studies digital well-being and co-authored the 2019 study I cited earlier on how batching notifications can affect stress, attention and mood.

“Your attention is a product,” Kushlev said. “Notifications are a big part of that.”

quote-2

But turning them off changed things. My phone no longer felt like a live explosive sitting next to me. It felt pristine, almost cloudlike. It was still capable of everything it had been capable of days before, but it had lost the sense of mayhem. It wasn’t buzzing on the table during dinner. The lock screen wasn’t a tiny billboard. No little pileup of other people’s priorities.

By day three or four, I started forgetting about my phone for longer stretches. There was nothing constantly pulling me back. No ding. No screen flash. I had to use my phone on purpose.

If I wanted to know whether someone texted me, I opened Messages. If I wanted to check work, I opened Slack. If I wanted to email, I opened Gmail. That sounds like a tiny distinction, but it changed the emotional texture of the whole thing. Before, my phone constantly made plans for me. Look here. Respond to this. Worry about that. Buy this. Read this. Come back. Don’t leave. Please don’t ever leave.

Axing notifications made me feel more present in a way that was almost embarrassing. I got out of bed faster. I cleaned more. I sat with little gaps in the day instead of filling them instantly. I still checked my phone, but the checks felt cleaner. Less like scratching an itch. More like opening a window.

And then I noticed something else: The anxiety of not knowing was smaller than the anxiety that came from the alerts about everything that was.

That was the biggest thing I learned that week.

Notifications promise relief from uncertainty. They tell you that you won’t miss anything. But in exchange, they create a different kind of stress: the feeling that everything is always arriving, that every app is a tiny emergency room, that your attention is something to be triaged by software.

By days five and six, the silence no longer felt like deprivation. It felt like a boundary I should’ve drawn a long time ago. And the strange part was that I didn’t feel farther away from my life. I actually felt closer to the parts I had chosen to pay attention to.

I’m not keeping everything off, but I’m not going back either

I didn’t finish the week wanting to live notification-free forever.

That surprised me a little. I wanted the clean moral ending, the one where I throw my phone into the ocean and become a person who reads hardcover books in linen pants on some far-away beach in Central America. But that’s not what happened. Some notifications are useful. Some are necessary. Some make life easier in ways I don’t want to give up.

The point wasn’t that every notification is bad. It’s that every notification should earn its place in my life.

quote-4

“It’s not really the notifications that are the problem,” Rosen said. “It’s your relationship with your phone that’s the problem.” He encouraged me to decide when I was using technology, rather than letting the technology decide when I should use it.

Before this experiment, my default response to notification requests was yes. Yes, apps could notify me. Yes, Gmail could show every email. Yes, Instagram could tell me who liked what. Yes, news apps could decide which catastrophe gets to appear on my lock screen. After the experiment, the default became no.

That’s the future of notifications I want for myself: not total silence, but intentional interruption.

Messages from people I care about? Yes. Calendar alerts? Yes. Certain work channels during work hours? Eh, probably. Banking and security alerts? Definitely. Every email, every sale, every social media interaction, every breaking news alert that may or may not actually be breaking? Hell no.

insert-4

Zooey Liao/CNET/Apple/Shutterstock

The phone industry has already started to recognize that notifications are a problem, even if it hasn’t fully admitted that notifications are also part of the business model. Apple has Focus modes, Notification Summary and granular controls for each app. Android has notification channels, Digital Wellbeing tools and app-level controls. But most of these tools still place the burden on the user after the attention economy has already moved in. The default experience is still noisy. The cleanup is homework you probably don’t want to do.

“At this point, it’s not a personal fault,” Kushlev said. “It’s the design. They are designed to engage you, to keep you there.”

quote-2

The problem isn’t just screen time — it’s fragmentation. It’s the constant switching, the tiny interruptions, the way your attention gets chopped into smaller and smaller pieces. A 2025 Washington Post analysis of smartphone research noted that frequent phone checking, more than total screen time alone, has been linked with cognitive failures like memory lapses and reduced attention. Pew Research Center has also found that most US adults now own smartphones and about 41% report being online almost constantly — meaning this isn’t a niche problem for screen-addled teenagers. It’s the baseline condition of modern life. 

But we don’t have to keep walking in the same circle. If you feel like you’re too attached to your phone, you don’t have to take the nuclear option as I did. Rosen suggested setting a short timer — 15 minutes, or even 5, if 15 feels too long — and not checking your phone until it goes off. Then you can check everything for a couple of minutes and repeat the process, gradually increasing the time away. Eventually, you’ll feel more comfortable being away from notifications for longer stretches, as I did.

Going notification-free for a week didn’t fix my relationship with my phone. It did something more useful: It made that relationship visible.

I saw which apps I opened because I needed them. I saw which ones I opened because I was anxious. I saw how quickly my brain invented emergencies in the silence. I saw how many companies had been allowed to place themselves between me and whatever I was trying to do.

The week ended, and I turned some notifications back on. But not many.

My phone is no longer completely silent. People can reach me. Work can reach me, which I’m sure my editor will be relieved to hear. Important alerts can still break through. But the damn washing machine app cannot summon me. A shopping app cannot whisper about a price drop. Not every email becomes a lock screen event. Social media no longer gets to turn someone else’s discourse into mine.

My phone still contains the whole world. That part hasn’t changed.

But now, most of the time, the world has to wait to say something until I open the door.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Taxpayers often submit refund claims when they discover that they overpaid their taxes. Taxpayers usually do this by submitting a formal refund claim using the IRS’s prescribed forms. But this is not always required.

In many cases, taxpayers will submit so-called “informal refund claims” to the IRS during the course of an IRS audit. The IRS treats these informal claims as a refund claim as if the proper tax forms were filed. Given that the tax forms are often not used for informal claims, there may be less certainty as to what the taxpayer’s claim entails. The informal claim itself may just be various business records, complications, etc. or a myriad of other records that the taxpayer submits to the auditor.

This leads to the question as to whether the “variance doctrine,” which can prohibit taxpayers from litigating certain claims in court if they differ substantially from the taxpayer’s position on audit, applies to informal refund claims. The recent Express Scripts, Inc. v. United States, No. 4:21-cv-00035-HEA (E.D. Mo. Feb. 24, 2025) case provides an opportunity to consider this question.

Facts & Procedural History

The taxpayer in this case is a pharmacy benefit manager. It processes prescription drug claims for health plan sponsors and operates mail-order pharmacies.

During an IRS examination, the taxpayer submitted informal claims to the IRS auditor for Section 199 domestic production tax deductions that it omitted from its originally-filed tax returns.

As part of this process, the company provided the IRS with detailed workpapers and memoranda categorizing various revenue streams. These documents specifically identified certain “rebate” revenue and portions of their “mail claims” revenue (those manually entered into their system) as non-qualifying revenue streams that should be excluded from their Domestic Production Gross Receipts (“DPGR”) calculations. The taxpayer took the same positions in the formal administrative refund claims they later filed with the IRS for refunds for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Nearly a decade after the initial claims, the taxpayer determined that both the rebate revenue and manually entered mail claims were qualifying for the Section 199 deduction. The taxpayer filed suit seeking refunds of federal income taxes for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012, claiming it properly qualified for the Section 199 tax deduction for its rebate revenue and manually entered mail claims.

The government moved to dismiss the portions of the refund claims relating to rebate revenue and manually entered mail claims, arguing that the taxpayer was barred by the “substantial variance doctrine” from including revenue streams in tax litigation when they had specifically excluded them during the administrative claims process.

The Framework for Tax Refund Claims

Section 7422(a) allows taxpayers to sue the government for tax refunds. This is one of the permissible means to litigate a tax issue.

Section 7422 states that no suit for tax recovery can be maintained in any court “until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.”

This is the foundation for what courts often call the “pay first, litigate later” system for tax disputes. Under this framework, taxpayers must first pay the disputed tax, then file an administrative refund claim with the IRS, and only afterward can they pursue litigation if the IRS denies their claim or fails to act within six months.

The treasury regulations provide specific requirements for these administrative refund claims. Treasury Regulation § 301.6402-2(b) states that a claim “must set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the commissioner of the exact basis thereof.” This regulation serves as the foundation for the substantial variance doctrine that limits what taxpayers can argue once they get to court.

What Is the Substantial Variance Doctrine?

The substantial variance doctrine operates as a jurisdictional limitation on tax refund litigation. As articulated in Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000), which involved a research tax credit, a taxpayer is barred from presenting claims in a tax refund action that “substantially vary” the legal theories and factual bases set forth in the tax refund claim presented to the IRS.

The doctrine has two distinct branches: one addressing legal theories and another addressing factual bases. For legal theories, the rule states that “any legal theory not expressly or impliedly contained in the application for refund cannot be considered by a court in which a suit for refund is subsequently initiated.” This means taxpayers cannot pursue entirely new legal arguments in court that weren’t presented to the IRS.

The factual variance branch, which was at issue in the Express Scripts case, prohibits taxpayers from substantially varying the factual bases raised in their refund claims. This rule is not all that strict. Minor factual variations are permitted. Taxpayers cannot introduce entirely new factual elements that the IRS never had an opportunity to consider.

Why Does the Variance Doctrine Exist?

The substantial variance rule serves three primary purposes. First, it gives the IRS notice as to the nature of the claim and the specific facts upon which it is predicated. This notice function ensures that the IRS understands exactly what the taxpayer is claiming and why.

Second, it gives the IRS an opportunity to correct errors administratively. This purpose reflects the preference for resolving tax disputes at the administrative level rather than through costly litigation.

Third, it limits any subsequent litigation to those grounds that the IRS had an opportunity to consider and is willing to defend. This purpose helps ensure that courts aren’t faced with entirely new claims that the IRS never had a chance to review.

These purposes reflect the fundamental principle that tax litigation over refund claims is meant to be a review of the IRS’s administrative determination, not an entirely new proceeding where taxpayers can raise new issues.

Applying the Variance Doctrine to Informal Claims

Most refund claims follow the formal procedures outlined in IRS regulations, typically involving the filing of Forms 1040X for individuals, Forms 1120X for corporations, etc. However, courts have long recognized the “informal claim doctrine,” which allows taxpayers to satisfy the administrative claim requirement through less formal means.

An informal claim can suffice when it puts the IRS on notice that the taxpayer is seeking a refund, describes the legal and factual basis for the refund, and has some written component. IRS audits often provide opportunities for taxpayers to make these informal claims as part of the examination process.

The taxpayer in this case made its initial claims through informal claims during an IRS examination, providing detailed workpapers and memoranda. But does the variance doctrine apply differently to informal claims than to formal ones?

The answer is no. Courts have consistently held that the substantial variance doctrine applies equally to informal claims. In fact, the requirements for specificity can be even more important for informal claims, as the IRS must be able to determine from sometimes less structured submissions exactly what the taxpayer is claiming. This case is an example of the court applying the variance doctrine to informal claims.

Merely Additional Evidence of the Amount

The taxpayer argued that the variance doctrine did not apply as the inclusion of rebates and manually entered pharmacy claims merely represented “additional evidence” of the amount of their Section 199 deduction. They contended that because they were still seeking the same Section 199 deduction, there was no substantial variance in their legal theory.

The court rejected this argument, focusing on the fact that the taxpayer had “specifically excluded these amounts throughout the entire administrative claims period and indeed, through this action until it was asserted in the expert reports.” The court found that the taxpayer’s addition of this revenue “changes the facts upon which the IRS assessed Plaintiffs’ claims.”

The court emphasized that Express Scripts “specifically declined to include these items in its claim. As such, the IRS was not given the opportunity to review whether they were properly designated as gross receipts.” Because the IRS never had the opportunity to consider whether these additional revenue streams qualified for the deduction, the substantial variance doctrine barred their inclusion in the litigation.

What if the IRS Reviews the Position on Audit?

The taxpayer also argued that the IRS had waived the substantial variance doctrine by considering the allocation of DPGR. This approach reflects a strategy sometimes used in tax audits where taxpayers argue that the IRS has effectively waived technical requirements by addressing the merits of a claim.

The court rejected this waiver argument on factual grounds, noting that the taxpayer had “specifically exempted the rebates and manually entered mail pharmacy claims” from consideration, so the IRS “could not have considered the merits of these claims because they were not before the IRS for examination.”

The court’s reasoning highlights a critical point: taxpayers cannot claim waiver based on the IRS’s consideration of issues that were never actually presented to the IRS. The waiver argument can only work when the IRS actually considers facts or theories that were raised in the administrative claim.

The Takeaway

This case shows how important it is to provide clear detail and consistency when submitting tax refund claims to the IRS. This includes informal claims submitted to the IRS on audit. Taxpayers who specifically exclude certain factual bases from their administrative refund claims—whether formal or informal—may not be able to later include those bases in litigation, even if their legal theory remains unchanged. The substantial variance doctrine operates as a jurisdictional bar in these cases, which can serve to deny the taxpayer their day in court.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link