在年轻世代中，弃用智能手机转向“功能机”的趋势正在出现，但数据表明这只是极小众现象。在美国，18至29岁人群中有98%拥有智能手机，30至49岁人群仅下降1个百分点，显示高度普及与结构性依赖。作者将这种依赖描述为“认知嵌合”，并引用1998年提出的“延展心智假说”，强调智能手机已与大脑共同构成单一认知系统。自14岁首次使用智能手机起，长期整合使功能外包成为常态，失去设备将直接削弱行为能力。

这一观点与1985年提出的“交易记忆”理论相呼应，该理论认为亲密关系会形成共享记忆系统。作者以数据丢失为例，说明当外部存储消失时，相关记忆与情感也随之消退。学者指出，移除外部组件的后果类似于移除部分大脑，能力将显著下降。在一个“轻度赛博化”成为社会常态的环境中，不参与这种技术增强，等同于在功能上处于劣势，甚至可被视为一种认知残障。

尽管功能机用户宣称专注力与生活质量提升，但实际代价清晰可量化：回复长消息需约9分钟，群聊接收不稳定，导航与即时安排能力显著下降，工作中仍需依赖“备用智能手机”。这使“彻底去智能化”在实践中难以成立。作者最终否定“成瘾”这一表述，认为更准确的是“手机嵌合”：当技术容量持续增长而生物大脑不可避免衰退时，去除设备并非中性选择，而是一次可预期的能力降级。

Among younger generations, a move from smartphones to “dumbphones” is emerging, but data show it remains a small minority. In the United States, 98 percent of people aged 18 to 29 own a smartphone, and the figure drops by only 1 percentage point among those aged 30 to 49, indicating near-universal adoption and structural dependence. The author frames this reliance as cognitive enmeshment, citing the “extended mind hypothesis” introduced in 1998, which argues that smartphones and brains now form a single cognitive system. Beginning at age 14, long-term integration has normalized offloading functions, making device loss a direct reduction in behavioral competence.

This aligns with the 1985 theory of transactive memory, which holds that close partners form shared memory systems. The author illustrates this with data loss, where erased photos coincided with vanished memories, showing that when external storage disappears, associated recall degrades. Scholars argue that removing an external component produces effects comparable to removing part of the brain. In a society trending toward a “mild cyborg” norm, opting out of technological enhancement places individuals at a functional disadvantage and can be understood as a form of cognitive disability.

Although dumbphone users report improved focus, the costs are quantifiable: composing long messages can take about nine minutes, group messages arrive inconsistently, navigation and spontaneous planning are impaired, and work still requires an “emergency smartphone.” This undermines the feasibility of full disengagement. The author rejects the label of “addiction,” concluding that “phone enmeshment” is more precise: as device capacity steadily increases while biological cognition inevitably declines, abandoning the smartphone represents a predictable downgrade rather than a neutral lifestyle choice.