Technology “Addiction”(jasonfeifer.com)
jasonfeifer.com
Technology “Addiction”
https://www.jasonfeifer.com/episode/you-are-not-addicted-to-technology/
114 comments
This is a horrible format for providing the transcript, and a long and boring conversation, so I didn't read much of it...but from what I can tell, they're just trying to redefine the word 'addiction' to a narrow, specific, and arbitrary meaning. I've consumed plenty of supposedly-addictive chemicals, and aside from nicotine, none of them have the kind of pyschological hold over me--or rewarding brain-chemical satisfaction--as video games. That's a more narrow focus than "technology", but these days everything is being gamified, so there's no clear delineation.
Agreed.
I personally think one problem with this article is their cult following of science. I guess there isn't conclusive scientific evidence that social media or video games are addictive or detrimental to you. But should I wait possible decades for more conclusive research? I rather not. I know I have been addicted to video games and it has negativity impacted my life.
The reason people are making these 'assumptions' about social media/video games being addictive is because they can see it in their own life and the life of others. The 'hard science' this guy is talking about just hasn't catched up.
I personally think one problem with this article is their cult following of science. I guess there isn't conclusive scientific evidence that social media or video games are addictive or detrimental to you. But should I wait possible decades for more conclusive research? I rather not. I know I have been addicted to video games and it has negativity impacted my life.
The reason people are making these 'assumptions' about social media/video games being addictive is because they can see it in their own life and the life of others. The 'hard science' this guy is talking about just hasn't catched up.
Yet another call to trust personal experiences, stories and subjective opinions as more authoritative than science. It's a bad trend.
Science should be a tool, not be a religion that you MUST trust.
When the voice of the people does not matter anymore because some guy in a white coat said "Science, you know", this is another kind of bad trend.
When the voice of the people does not matter anymore because some guy in a white coat said "Science, you know", this is another kind of bad trend.
There are opinions and personal experiences - valid for one or a few people, and then there are scientific concepts that are universal and generalize everywhere. The Mars helicopter flies OK even though it wasn't designed on Mars. Science works with or without people's approval.
My main concern with stories is that they are prone to emotional appeal and cherry picking of facts. We live in the era of fake news and critical justice mobs after all, we need to be skeptic. What if the story proposes an agenda that is just supporting another group against your own, not including a balanced view of the situation? What if the underlying message is that of social war, non-inclusiveness and dehumanizing towards the "oppressor group"? The Bible itself is a story with many many victims during the last two millennia.
My main concern with stories is that they are prone to emotional appeal and cherry picking of facts. We live in the era of fake news and critical justice mobs after all, we need to be skeptic. What if the story proposes an agenda that is just supporting another group against your own, not including a balanced view of the situation? What if the underlying message is that of social war, non-inclusiveness and dehumanizing towards the "oppressor group"? The Bible itself is a story with many many victims during the last two millennia.
I get what you mean.
I agree with you, some scientific concepts -at our state of understanding-, may seem universal and generalize everywhere, such as Einstein's work on relativity that the Mars helicopter must be using.
What I wanted to emphasize is that, humans are deeply political and biased animals, and will always use a scientific concept to their own interests, even ever so slightly. Just look on the horror of the stuff psychiatry has done the past century : accusing women of being frigid if their child was autistic, saying that their genitalia made them prone to psychiatric disorders, the list goes on...
In my opinion, the concept of "addiction" falls into the 2nd category. Humans are just so complex, that we will never isolate the gene of addiction, but nevertheless, this is not a requisite to start saying that junk-food or smartphones can damage your quality of life.
I agree with you, some scientific concepts -at our state of understanding-, may seem universal and generalize everywhere, such as Einstein's work on relativity that the Mars helicopter must be using.
What I wanted to emphasize is that, humans are deeply political and biased animals, and will always use a scientific concept to their own interests, even ever so slightly. Just look on the horror of the stuff psychiatry has done the past century : accusing women of being frigid if their child was autistic, saying that their genitalia made them prone to psychiatric disorders, the list goes on...
In my opinion, the concept of "addiction" falls into the 2nd category. Humans are just so complex, that we will never isolate the gene of addiction, but nevertheless, this is not a requisite to start saying that junk-food or smartphones can damage your quality of life.
Do you have any advice for breaking video game addiction? I feel like it affects me a lot.
Sorry if this is too obvious or unuseful or feels condescending etc. Just a direction.
Concentrate not on the games but what it replaces. Is it a lack of community? No other outlet to feel skilled and successful? The goal isn't merely to stop playing games, it is to find more healthy but similarly satisfactory replacements (but maybe in a longer timescale). What thoughts are you avoiding, are you in some kind of guilt cycle etc? A key part is to know: your life afterwards won't and should not be merely your current life minus games. That would be terrible and frightening probably. But no, the goal is to feel satisfied through other means. Another thing is to recognize that you are in a local optimum. Perhaps it is a (short-term) rational choice to play games in your situation. To escape the local optimum you'll have to temporarily go through a worse situation where even the only thing you derive real joy from is taken away. Furthermore, it could be that your way of life is a local optimum within a pretty large volume of alternatives. Meaning that it might well be that the current social culture around you isn't giving you much better options, depending on who you are, ie society might be incentivizing this behavior through the state of dating, decaying communities, attention economy, consumerism etc. Still, wouldnt it be better to find it out yourself? For my disagreeable personality, I find it useful to feel hostile to the creators of these attention black holes, these exploiters of young men, and feel viscerally repulsed by what they are doing in the name of profit to destroy a generation. This is no way to live, it's like being a domesticated zoo animal. We are destined to more than this.
Of course a therapist specialized in the area can give better concrete steps.
Concentrate not on the games but what it replaces. Is it a lack of community? No other outlet to feel skilled and successful? The goal isn't merely to stop playing games, it is to find more healthy but similarly satisfactory replacements (but maybe in a longer timescale). What thoughts are you avoiding, are you in some kind of guilt cycle etc? A key part is to know: your life afterwards won't and should not be merely your current life minus games. That would be terrible and frightening probably. But no, the goal is to feel satisfied through other means. Another thing is to recognize that you are in a local optimum. Perhaps it is a (short-term) rational choice to play games in your situation. To escape the local optimum you'll have to temporarily go through a worse situation where even the only thing you derive real joy from is taken away. Furthermore, it could be that your way of life is a local optimum within a pretty large volume of alternatives. Meaning that it might well be that the current social culture around you isn't giving you much better options, depending on who you are, ie society might be incentivizing this behavior through the state of dating, decaying communities, attention economy, consumerism etc. Still, wouldnt it be better to find it out yourself? For my disagreeable personality, I find it useful to feel hostile to the creators of these attention black holes, these exploiters of young men, and feel viscerally repulsed by what they are doing in the name of profit to destroy a generation. This is no way to live, it's like being a domesticated zoo animal. We are destined to more than this.
Of course a therapist specialized in the area can give better concrete steps.
Wow this was definitely the best advice I got on this. Thank you so much for the time you took to share this.
I think my watching of movies or playing of video games is probably due to avoiding other things I don't want to face. I should probably try to address those things or change my environment to be in a more productive state.
I think my watching of movies or playing of video games is probably due to avoiding other things I don't want to face. I should probably try to address those things or change my environment to be in a more productive state.
I used to play console games a lot, but when I got laid off from a job I pawned my Xbox. Haven't regretted it even for a minute, and I sleep more...
PC games are tough because I built my PC for everything - VR, mining, development, etc. It can run just about any game, and I have hundreds in my Steam library. The tough part is that I see it as a valuable asset for other things - makes it hard for me to want to sell it, but if I were to get rid of it I doubt I'd miss gaming much. I've found that unplugging it and putting all the components in a closet makes it not worth the effort to play a game. I only break it out for projects.
I used to play phone games a lot on while commuting in NYC. Since I moved away and don't have that commute time, I uninstalled them all. That quick satisfaction I'd get from dumb games like candy crush or whatever, is no longer alluring. The "wins" are unfulfilling, and the ads and annoying upselling are enough of a deterrence to keep me from installing any games.
My only advice is to remove your access to them, or make it not worth your time to access them. You'll quickly find other ways to fill your time.
Just about every gaming experience I've had is feels like an unfulfilling time sink, but until you feel this way, it will be a tough temptation to break.
PC games are tough because I built my PC for everything - VR, mining, development, etc. It can run just about any game, and I have hundreds in my Steam library. The tough part is that I see it as a valuable asset for other things - makes it hard for me to want to sell it, but if I were to get rid of it I doubt I'd miss gaming much. I've found that unplugging it and putting all the components in a closet makes it not worth the effort to play a game. I only break it out for projects.
I used to play phone games a lot on while commuting in NYC. Since I moved away and don't have that commute time, I uninstalled them all. That quick satisfaction I'd get from dumb games like candy crush or whatever, is no longer alluring. The "wins" are unfulfilling, and the ads and annoying upselling are enough of a deterrence to keep me from installing any games.
My only advice is to remove your access to them, or make it not worth your time to access them. You'll quickly find other ways to fill your time.
Just about every gaming experience I've had is feels like an unfulfilling time sink, but until you feel this way, it will be a tough temptation to break.
Playing games definitely make me feel bad because they're a waste of time and are unfulfilling, but the hard part is that they're also super fun and engaging while you're playing them, which makes it hard to kill that desire to have that feeling.
Only the same advice I have for breaking chemical addictions: just stop already. I don't buy into the idea that any addiction is a disease or that people are powerless over their addictions. I think it's incredibly disempowering, deflects personal responsibility to an unhealthy degree, and does nothing to solve the problem. I don't make light of this; I know how hard it is to stop bad habits, especially if part of the appeal of that bad habit is escaping other problems. At the end of the day, though, you need to choose to stop. One of the other incredibly dangerous ideas to come out of programs like AA is that you have to stop bad habits completely, and that any "slip up" is a personal failing. Moderation is a lot healthier than the guilt and shame these programs try to make people feel for "failing".
I don't have any actual advice for you. Some people swear by cognitive behavioral therapy. I prefer to manage my various negative tendencies myself. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far and I pay a price, and that tends to bring me back to a state of equilibrium.
I don't have any actual advice for you. Some people swear by cognitive behavioral therapy. I prefer to manage my various negative tendencies myself. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far and I pay a price, and that tends to bring me back to a state of equilibrium.
Hm I actually think stopping completely is very important.
If I let myself watch even one tv show or install one game to play then I'll have the urge to keep doing that action for hours and the next day as well.
I find it a lot healthier to eliminate these dangerous activities altogether.
But curious to hear if you have other thoughts
I find it a lot healthier to eliminate these dangerous activities altogether.
But curious to hear if you have other thoughts
What worked for me was not eliminating videogames but using them as a sort of carrot-on-a-stick. A reward for doing what I should be doing, if you will. Playing videogames can be a hobby like many others, you don't need to completely eliminate that from your life.
You first need to find what you would like to do outside of gaming, things like reading, exercising, learning an instrument or a language, and so on. Then force yourself to do those things regularly, just half an hour or a hour each day. Even better if you find somebody to hold you accountable and nag you when necessary. As a reward for being "good", allow yourself to be "bad" and play videogames.
I work my ass off during the week, exercise, read literature, study Chinese and meet friends. I achieve enough during the week not to feel bad if I spend most of the weekend playing. The weekend session can be a good motivator during the week, but you have to be disciplined.
You first need to find what you would like to do outside of gaming, things like reading, exercising, learning an instrument or a language, and so on. Then force yourself to do those things regularly, just half an hour or a hour each day. Even better if you find somebody to hold you accountable and nag you when necessary. As a reward for being "good", allow yourself to be "bad" and play videogames.
I work my ass off during the week, exercise, read literature, study Chinese and meet friends. I achieve enough during the week not to feel bad if I spend most of the weekend playing. The weekend session can be a good motivator during the week, but you have to be disciplined.
Hm I feel like I wouldn't be disciplined enough for that though.
If I got a taste of video games or TV, then I wouldn't want to stop.
So I feel like it's just better to stop entirely and never touch them again.
Depends on the kind of game. E.g. multiplayer games, especially with persistence, are just very addictive, so if you know that you are vulnerable to those addiction triggers, it's best to abstain completely. That's of course only useful for avoiding future addictions, and doesn't really help with an ongoing addiction, which are hard to control, but withdrawal should be mild, so going cold turkey (uninstall, sell/delete account(s) and perhaps the hardware) should be viable. Oh, and it's not particularly nice to people, but if it's game that's only played within a community, you could also grief / troll / insult / cheat for a day or so to get permabanned / ejected from the community and burn your name.
Haha that's a good idea on trying to ban yourself.
Yeah I think I just need to abstain from all games in general since even if I let myself play some single player game I'll eventually let myself play a multiplayer one again later.
Being willing to do whatever it takes is the only way. If that means trashing your phone, you've got to be willing to go through with it. If you're not willing to make sacrifices to change then the addiction will just continue to run its course.
I say this as someone who handled it poorly as a teenager and young adult--I eventually overcame the addiction by replacing it with a more social hobby (guitar), after a lot of self-isolation and lost sleep. Trashing my computer would have been a far quicker way, and my life would look completely different today if I'd done it.
I say this as someone who handled it poorly as a teenager and young adult--I eventually overcame the addiction by replacing it with a more social hobby (guitar), after a lot of self-isolation and lost sleep. Trashing my computer would have been a far quicker way, and my life would look completely different today if I'd done it.
I tried to do this with reading books by putting a kindle on my desk so that I would see that want to read (I did a lot of reading in high school and it was very enjoyable so I'm sure I'll still enjoy it).
But I just ended up ignoring the kindle and still continue to play mobile games on my phone or watch TV and movies on my laptop.
I agree with trashing things completely and I tried to do things like hiding the app store on my phone but I would still end up sometimes still opening the play store and installing a game. But I can't get rid of my phone completely since I do need it for other work things.
I want to replace these bad activities with a better activity but it seems hard when I can just start playing a movie and get that instant dopamine without needing to do any work.
I agree with trashing things completely and I tried to do things like hiding the app store on my phone but I would still end up sometimes still opening the play store and installing a game. But I can't get rid of my phone completely since I do need it for other work things.
I want to replace these bad activities with a better activity but it seems hard when I can just start playing a movie and get that instant dopamine without needing to do any work.
See if you can transfer the addiction to a fitness game? Suddenly the addiction becomes a virtue and is strengthened by the endorphin highs.
Disclaimer: I did not listen to the podcast, I merely skimmed the transcript.
Is 'addiction' to social media the same as an addiction to heroin? No of course not. But it is evident that some people have great trouble to not have it control their life to a certain degree. If addiction is defined as "a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences" I think you could argue that some people are addicted to social media. Just because you're not injecting something into your bloodstream doesn't mean it can't be an addiction, many lives are destroyed by gambling addiction for example.
Also from the blurb:
>discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.)
It's always you who has to break the addiction. I don't see how this makes it an "addiction" instead of just an addiction without the scare quotes.
Is 'addiction' to social media the same as an addiction to heroin? No of course not. But it is evident that some people have great trouble to not have it control their life to a certain degree. If addiction is defined as "a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences" I think you could argue that some people are addicted to social media. Just because you're not injecting something into your bloodstream doesn't mean it can't be an addiction, many lives are destroyed by gambling addiction for example.
Also from the blurb:
>discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.)
It's always you who has to break the addiction. I don't see how this makes it an "addiction" instead of just an addiction without the scare quotes.
Very much so. All addictions even the chemical ones are happening in the brain. Whether the condition is present with or without the initial introduction of chemicals is moot.
I'm glad the comments here are quoting addiction to social media rather than technology. If the tech wasn't connected to real people providing input I don't think these people would care.
I'm probably an outlier (though maybe not so much on HN) that I'm more addicted to computers as an extension of myself and can easily go without touching my phone or social media for a day and much less so my PC/laptop.
I'm glad the comments here are quoting addiction to social media rather than technology. If the tech wasn't connected to real people providing input I don't think these people would care.
I'm probably an outlier (though maybe not so much on HN) that I'm more addicted to computers as an extension of myself and can easily go without touching my phone or social media for a day and much less so my PC/laptop.
There are things which were considered addictions and then they became normal and even encouraged behavior, such as reading. Is it a real addiction if it depends on the historical period? Drug addiction doesn't.
I'm no scholar or researcher, just someone who's experienced impulsive behavior as a regular old human. I'd categorize any activity that attempts to short-circuit the usual reward center of the brain as potentially addictive. Using an addictive substance or technology isn't in itself an addiction, rather the point we start making unhealthy choices to support our use (e.g. choosing to stay home instead of hang out with friends, skipping meals, lying, etc.) is where the world of the addict begins.
Video games short-circuit our reward center with achievements, making the effort involved in feeling a sense of accomplishment much less than it should be.
Pornography and casual sex short-circuit the effort involved to consummate a fulfilling relationship with something much less than it should be.
Drugs short-circuit the process of personal growth, removing pain and introducing happy feelings that don't align with our current situation.
Food as a drug can combat feelings of loneliness, though the effects of the resulting obesity can drive us to isolation.
None of the feelings or sensations brought on by these things are inherently bad or wrong. They all share in common the fact that chasing after pleasure or sensation puts the cart before the horse, as if one could actually be fulfilled by these things instead of them being effects caused by the real things, those things we're short-circuiting. Addiction fine-tunes the brain so that real, wholesome things start to seem unfulfilling, even boring. It's a real shame because those real, wholesome things are often the only way out.
Video games short-circuit our reward center with achievements, making the effort involved in feeling a sense of accomplishment much less than it should be.
Pornography and casual sex short-circuit the effort involved to consummate a fulfilling relationship with something much less than it should be.
Drugs short-circuit the process of personal growth, removing pain and introducing happy feelings that don't align with our current situation.
Food as a drug can combat feelings of loneliness, though the effects of the resulting obesity can drive us to isolation.
None of the feelings or sensations brought on by these things are inherently bad or wrong. They all share in common the fact that chasing after pleasure or sensation puts the cart before the horse, as if one could actually be fulfilled by these things instead of them being effects caused by the real things, those things we're short-circuiting. Addiction fine-tunes the brain so that real, wholesome things start to seem unfulfilling, even boring. It's a real shame because those real, wholesome things are often the only way out.
I find this comment quite insightful.
‘Addiction’ is a complicated and loaded term, which may or may not be helpful. Sometimes, it’s more question of examining one’s life and making the very difficult choices necessary to be happy in the long run.
It’s also an insightful point that, when ‘addicted’, normal or moderate behaviors can start to feel meaningless - as if they would lead to an intolerably dry life. Trusting this will not be the case is important when making a change.
‘Addiction’ is a complicated and loaded term, which may or may not be helpful. Sometimes, it’s more question of examining one’s life and making the very difficult choices necessary to be happy in the long run.
It’s also an insightful point that, when ‘addicted’, normal or moderate behaviors can start to feel meaningless - as if they would lead to an intolerably dry life. Trusting this will not be the case is important when making a change.
I haven't listened to the episode, so this may be off, but...
our broad use of the word “addiction” can cause real harm.
I would say that the opposite is (at least) as harmful. Quantifying and medically defining addiction narrowly has led to a lot of harm. Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction?
Withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism are among the most dangerous, and deadly, much worse than cocaine. That doesn't quite capture what addiction is though. Withdrawal symptoms are short lived, and addicts of many substances are extremely likely to regress well after this part. Cannabis can be habit forming. There are no withdrawal symptoms, and motivated quitters seem to have good success rates... even returning to moderate use. OTOH, it is a very common experience that someone decides not to consume... but does, repeatedly, with impacts on other areas of life.
We know that context and comorbidity is very important.
I think there's no doubt that technology creates impulsive & compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to.
It's all complex. There aren't real dividing lines between procrastination, self discipline issues addiction and such. People call it addiction because it walks and quacks like addiction. I'm more inclined to say that research definitions are incorrect that layman ones. If a researcher narrows the definition to observable neurochemistry or withdrawal symptoms, excluding other addictions with similar behavioural effects... who is wrong here?
That said, I haven't listened. Adding depth and nuance to our understanding of different addiction (or addiction like) experiences may be useful.
our broad use of the word “addiction” can cause real harm.
I would say that the opposite is (at least) as harmful. Quantifying and medically defining addiction narrowly has led to a lot of harm. Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction?
Withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism are among the most dangerous, and deadly, much worse than cocaine. That doesn't quite capture what addiction is though. Withdrawal symptoms are short lived, and addicts of many substances are extremely likely to regress well after this part. Cannabis can be habit forming. There are no withdrawal symptoms, and motivated quitters seem to have good success rates... even returning to moderate use. OTOH, it is a very common experience that someone decides not to consume... but does, repeatedly, with impacts on other areas of life.
We know that context and comorbidity is very important.
I think there's no doubt that technology creates impulsive & compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to.
It's all complex. There aren't real dividing lines between procrastination, self discipline issues addiction and such. People call it addiction because it walks and quacks like addiction. I'm more inclined to say that research definitions are incorrect that layman ones. If a researcher narrows the definition to observable neurochemistry or withdrawal symptoms, excluding other addictions with similar behavioural effects... who is wrong here?
That said, I haven't listened. Adding depth and nuance to our understanding of different addiction (or addiction like) experiences may be useful.
Exactly this.
The "discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.)" rethoric is always pushed by lobbies for industries who do not want to be considered responsible for the harm their products cause.
For example, MacDonalds and other fast-food producers have been pushing that in order to fight rampant obesity, people should do more sport, rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods.
The "discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.)" rethoric is always pushed by lobbies for industries who do not want to be considered responsible for the harm their products cause.
For example, MacDonalds and other fast-food producers have been pushing that in order to fight rampant obesity, people should do more sport, rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods.
Seriously, this is about the equivalent of telling somebody with a substance dependence (I think weed is likely the best analogue, with a weaker physiological dependence, that is) to just quit it. These devices are not inhaled, injected, ingested, but they are very much a tool in releasing hormones.
You're absolutely correct.
A few years ago I went gluten free to see if it helped with some other health issues (it did, NCGS.)
So, between late 2016 and the end of 2020, I avoided gluten as best as I could. Which all but eliminates most fast food and the majority of prepackaged foods/snacks/etc.
Portion control became incredibly easy. I ate when I was hungry. Sometimes people would comment on how little I was eating, but I was still energetic and kicking ass at work/etc. My body also fairly quickly started to adjust to a more 'proper' weight. (As long as I wasn't drinking. There were parts of that time of my life where I sometimes did, never to where it interfered with work but definitely was hiding from my personal life circumstances.)
ANNNNYWAY. Late last year I decided to try gluten again to see whether I still had a bad reaction and/or if it was moreso specific types that caused me issues (They all kinda bother me, but barley makes me ragey....)
I remember the first thing I ate from McDonalds last year. It was a double cheeseburger.
I then spent the next 2 weeks straight getting at least one meal a day from McD's. It was an eye-opener on how addictive some of the components in a food can be to your neurons.
A few years ago I went gluten free to see if it helped with some other health issues (it did, NCGS.)
So, between late 2016 and the end of 2020, I avoided gluten as best as I could. Which all but eliminates most fast food and the majority of prepackaged foods/snacks/etc.
Portion control became incredibly easy. I ate when I was hungry. Sometimes people would comment on how little I was eating, but I was still energetic and kicking ass at work/etc. My body also fairly quickly started to adjust to a more 'proper' weight. (As long as I wasn't drinking. There were parts of that time of my life where I sometimes did, never to where it interfered with work but definitely was hiding from my personal life circumstances.)
ANNNNYWAY. Late last year I decided to try gluten again to see whether I still had a bad reaction and/or if it was moreso specific types that caused me issues (They all kinda bother me, but barley makes me ragey....)
I remember the first thing I ate from McDonalds last year. It was a double cheeseburger.
I then spent the next 2 weeks straight getting at least one meal a day from McD's. It was an eye-opener on how addictive some of the components in a food can be to your neurons.
>Which all but eliminates most fast food and the majority of prepackaged foods/snacks/etc. Portion control became incredibly easy.
One prevalent theory about why just about elimination diet works is because of this effect of an easy decision heuristic to make smarter food choices. That seems more plausible to me than a single instance of the gluten in a 150 calorie bun being the culprit (unless you have something like celiacs disease, of course). Regardless, I’m glad you found a regimen that works for you.
One prevalent theory about why just about elimination diet works is because of this effect of an easy decision heuristic to make smarter food choices. That seems more plausible to me than a single instance of the gluten in a 150 calorie bun being the culprit (unless you have something like celiacs disease, of course). Regardless, I’m glad you found a regimen that works for you.
I think the same treatment is necessary for these sorts of foods. It's hard to regulate both in terms of classification (what're the thresholds?) and regulation (how to get politicians to take action?). It's going to take time, but I'm hopeful.
Happy to hear you managed to cut out the junk for a long time, I hope you haven't rebounded in full!
Happy to hear you managed to cut out the junk for a long time, I hope you haven't rebounded in full!
What if the person doesn't want to quit? What to take into your body and how to regulate your health are deeply personal choices. Why not just let people make them?
I didn't remark on that but I'll entertain your comment: I think it's about having the facilities to educate people about the effects, and help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to.
> facilities to educate people about the effects
I think we already do a pretty good job at this, don't you? Drug awareness education in one form or another has been part of the curriculum since the 19th century.
> help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to
We have lots of NGOs that are setup to help drug addicts. Are they not doing a good job?
I think we already do a pretty good job at this, don't you? Drug awareness education in one form or another has been part of the curriculum since the 19th century.
> help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to
We have lots of NGOs that are setup to help drug addicts. Are they not doing a good job?
You missed my point, sorry if it wasn't clear: These should exist for 'device addicts' and addiction.
I've eaten at McDonalds. Yet I only eat there infrequently, usually when traveling and want something quick. I'm not obese.
Did they forget to put the "addictive" additive in mine?
Misusing the word addictive to mean "things that aren't beneficial, and can be detrimental in excess" is not helpful to anyone.
People who are depressed self-sabotage in a wide variety of ways. They sleep all day. Maybe overeat. Maybe sit flicking through TikTok all day. Some even clean endlessly. That doesn't mean any of those things are "addictive".
This whole discussion borders on parody. People with zero responsibility or self-control screaming that they have no self direction and need their world corralled and constrained for them. Beyond bizarre. And apparently these amazingly addictive ingredients only work on Americans, who seem to lack any self-reflection or inquisitiveness as to why that is.
I read a Robertson Davies trilogy for hours last night. Probably stayed up a little late. Blame it on Big Books and the Book Cartel for Addicting me like this.
Did they forget to put the "addictive" additive in mine?
Misusing the word addictive to mean "things that aren't beneficial, and can be detrimental in excess" is not helpful to anyone.
People who are depressed self-sabotage in a wide variety of ways. They sleep all day. Maybe overeat. Maybe sit flicking through TikTok all day. Some even clean endlessly. That doesn't mean any of those things are "addictive".
This whole discussion borders on parody. People with zero responsibility or self-control screaming that they have no self direction and need their world corralled and constrained for them. Beyond bizarre. And apparently these amazingly addictive ingredients only work on Americans, who seem to lack any self-reflection or inquisitiveness as to why that is.
I read a Robertson Davies trilogy for hours last night. Probably stayed up a little late. Blame it on Big Books and the Book Cartel for Addicting me like this.
There are also hundreds of millions of people who drink socially and never become alcoholics. Are the hundred million alcoholics "people with zero responsibility or control", or is it more likely that some bodies react differently to certain addictive substances than other bodies?
If you allow for different reactions to alcohol, why could the same not be true for sugar and fat?
If you allow for different reactions to alcohol, why could the same not be true for sugar and fat?
While alcohol addiction usually does begin with depression or lack of self control, the physiological effect of ongoing abuse is seen worldwide. This isn't at all true for whatever NOT MY FAULT BLAME [INSERT TARGET HERE] easy solution Americans are pitching today.
Are the Japanese addicted to McDonalds? Are the French? Are Mexicans? Are the British? Are Chileans?
The tale in another comment that someone had McDonalds and then they went back every day for two weeks straight literally reads like parody. If someone were mocking that sort of lazy, not-my-faultism they'd author a comment precisely like that, thinking they were exaggerating and making it sound absurd.
Is it American Exceptionalism that makes for this remarkable, magical dietary addiction? Or is it a market that is particularly susceptible for easy victims and easy "not my fault" answers. Blame it on Big McDonalds. Make a documentary (usually cartoonishly full of misstatements and lies) and it gets Eaten Up, pardon the pun, because it's an easy, incredibly lazy thing to blame.
Obesity is a problem around the globe, and in every country it's different causes. Calories became a lot cheaper, and people like eating. If you think one magical ingredient is the cause, get a grip. It isn't so simple. And eventually it 100% comes down to self control.
If someone spends 9 hours scrolling through TikToks, that isn't TikTok's fault. It really isn't. It is remarkable reading people imagine up the nefarious ingredient that puts the responsibility on someone other than themselves.
Are the Japanese addicted to McDonalds? Are the French? Are Mexicans? Are the British? Are Chileans?
The tale in another comment that someone had McDonalds and then they went back every day for two weeks straight literally reads like parody. If someone were mocking that sort of lazy, not-my-faultism they'd author a comment precisely like that, thinking they were exaggerating and making it sound absurd.
Is it American Exceptionalism that makes for this remarkable, magical dietary addiction? Or is it a market that is particularly susceptible for easy victims and easy "not my fault" answers. Blame it on Big McDonalds. Make a documentary (usually cartoonishly full of misstatements and lies) and it gets Eaten Up, pardon the pun, because it's an easy, incredibly lazy thing to blame.
Obesity is a problem around the globe, and in every country it's different causes. Calories became a lot cheaper, and people like eating. If you think one magical ingredient is the cause, get a grip. It isn't so simple. And eventually it 100% comes down to self control.
If someone spends 9 hours scrolling through TikToks, that isn't TikTok's fault. It really isn't. It is remarkable reading people imagine up the nefarious ingredient that puts the responsibility on someone other than themselves.
> rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods.
So individuals are not responsible for their decisions? I personally would rather not live in a world where my choices are artificially limited by someone's idea of what is "good for me". I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself, and willing to accept consequences of my mistakes.
So individuals are not responsible for their decisions? I personally would rather not live in a world where my choices are artificially limited by someone's idea of what is "good for me". I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself, and willing to accept consequences of my mistakes.
Your choices are already being shaped in that way. That's why, for example, modern residential roads are designed with shorter sight distances, narrower lanes, speed bumps/humps, and more roadside shrubbery compared to their counterparts from a century ago. It turns out that the mere suggestion of a speed limit—albeit carrying force of law—does not make everyone choose to drive that speed. Instead, human factors are taken into account so that it "feels more natural" to drive the road at the speed the engineers intended. We try to make it easier to use the system in a way that is safe and accomplishes the user's goals than in a way that causes harm.
Human factors isn't a binary question of whether or not we influence the choices made by individuals. In the real world, individual choices are always influenced by a variety of factors. The question is that, when we are aware that a particular design decision will influence the choices of individuals, is it ethical to make that decision in whatever way maximizes the profitability of the product, without regard for any predictable impact it will have? Simply maintaining willful ignorance of human factors in engineering does not make the world functionally better or worse than if that same decision had been made from a position of understanding of those factors and an attitude of malice/benevolence/apathy.
I don't think it's contradictory to tell consumers to make their own choices while at the same time telling producers not to design products that needlessly influence consumers to make destructive choices.
Human factors isn't a binary question of whether or not we influence the choices made by individuals. In the real world, individual choices are always influenced by a variety of factors. The question is that, when we are aware that a particular design decision will influence the choices of individuals, is it ethical to make that decision in whatever way maximizes the profitability of the product, without regard for any predictable impact it will have? Simply maintaining willful ignorance of human factors in engineering does not make the world functionally better or worse than if that same decision had been made from a position of understanding of those factors and an attitude of malice/benevolence/apathy.
I don't think it's contradictory to tell consumers to make their own choices while at the same time telling producers not to design products that needlessly influence consumers to make destructive choices.
FWIW, I agree with you but think it’s also important to recognize the devils advocate position.
>I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself
I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that humans aren’t as capable of making rational decisions, or at least not nearly as rational as we’d like to think. In the context of systems like nationalized healthcare, this can become a negative externality. If I’m responsible (in part) of paying for your healthcare, there may be an argument that I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.
>I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself
I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that humans aren’t as capable of making rational decisions, or at least not nearly as rational as we’d like to think. In the context of systems like nationalized healthcare, this can become a negative externality. If I’m responsible (in part) of paying for your healthcare, there may be an argument that I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.
> I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.
Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.
Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.
>One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them.
Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just means I know how to balance the rights of the individual with the overall welfare of society.
Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just means I know how to balance the rights of the individual with the overall welfare of society.
I don't think it it's hyperbolic really. The only relevant question is where the line is and by what principle it is defined. Is the difference between freedom and slavery clear and well-drawn? or is it a spectrum? I'm inclined to the former view. The only legitimate social contract is the one keeps the peace and manages the commons (this is already quite a lot). Everything on top that tries to shape our behaviour or compel us to cooperate is a violation of a person's right to be their own master.
> I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road.
You can perfectly well drive on whatever side of whatever road you want assuming it's a private road. Public spaces have rules, and always have. What's not fine is managing the interactions of private people minding their own business.
> I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road.
You can perfectly well drive on whatever side of whatever road you want assuming it's a private road. Public spaces have rules, and always have. What's not fine is managing the interactions of private people minding their own business.
If you’re in the US, there is a “general welfare” clause within the social contract
Where is this social contract written? I don't see anything about welfare in the constitution.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
Nationalized healthcare which you’ve previously stated you're against, for example, would likely be payed for by a tax. If you remember, the Supreme Court ruled the penalties within the ACA amounted to a tax and were legal. Article I Section 8 also outlines Congress’s ability to regulate commerce, despite your claim that amicable interactions of private individuals “minding their own business” are outside its jurisdiction. You can be against all of these as policy, but that doesn’t mean they breach the social contract or are somehow immoral.
Your Rugged Constitution[1], while old, is interesting because it frames each Article in terms of both what you give and what you get from the social contract, the former part being lost on many people. For example, regarding the aforementioned clause, you give the federal government additional power in exchange for the ability “to take care of the needs of the country at home”, I.e., general welfare.
[1] Findlay, Bruce Allyn, and Esther Blair Findlay. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -, 1919.
Nationalized healthcare which you’ve previously stated you're against, for example, would likely be payed for by a tax. If you remember, the Supreme Court ruled the penalties within the ACA amounted to a tax and were legal. Article I Section 8 also outlines Congress’s ability to regulate commerce, despite your claim that amicable interactions of private individuals “minding their own business” are outside its jurisdiction. You can be against all of these as policy, but that doesn’t mean they breach the social contract or are somehow immoral.
Your Rugged Constitution[1], while old, is interesting because it frames each Article in terms of both what you give and what you get from the social contract, the former part being lost on many people. For example, regarding the aforementioned clause, you give the federal government additional power in exchange for the ability “to take care of the needs of the country at home”, I.e., general welfare.
[1] Findlay, Bruce Allyn, and Esther Blair Findlay. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -, 1919.
You're ligitating free will here and you've decided it doesn't exist. Well, right or wrong, people who believe in their own agency make better choices. It's somewhat bizarre to me to see you criticzing the idea that people should be held responsible for what they put in their mouths, chew, and swallow. You write like it's such an awful idea that people could choose to eat healthier foods or exercise more.
He doesn’t argue that the behaviours aren’t harmful at all but rather often manifest as a coping mechanism for another condition. He thinks it’s a dangerous idea to treat social media addiction as something to treat directly rather than something that likely indicates another problem. I don’t think it’s perfect because actual addictions are often caused by other problems (ex. Depression). I really wish the expert was forced to answer questions like whether it’s worthwhile to treat alcohol addiction directly without treating an underlying depression. It seems like this definition may not quite work the way he wants it to. The distinction may be if you treat the depression directly the social media addiction disappears but if you treat the depression directly the alcoholism still needs to be dealt with.
Yeah... maybe (obviously) I shouldn't have commented without listening, caveats or no.
That said, this is also true of heroin addiction. It is highly related to other, often social, malaises. This has been experimentally proven in rodents. Lonely, unhappy rodents are far more addiction prone. It has been observed in people too, notably the vietnam war example.
I don't even think there is a common treatment for alcoholism anymore that doesn't relate to "underlying" issues. AA, and related group therapies are all about creating a supportive community. Social isolation is a major factor in addiction.
That's kind of what I meant. These hard lines don't exist, and I think many that do exist for research purposes. Hard to study something that isn't discreetly defined. Physical withdrawal symptoms were once a primary researchers' definition of addiction, even though addicts rarely think of it that way.
That said, this is also true of heroin addiction. It is highly related to other, often social, malaises. This has been experimentally proven in rodents. Lonely, unhappy rodents are far more addiction prone. It has been observed in people too, notably the vietnam war example.
I don't even think there is a common treatment for alcoholism anymore that doesn't relate to "underlying" issues. AA, and related group therapies are all about creating a supportive community. Social isolation is a major factor in addiction.
That's kind of what I meant. These hard lines don't exist, and I think many that do exist for research purposes. Hard to study something that isn't discreetly defined. Physical withdrawal symptoms were once a primary researchers' definition of addiction, even though addicts rarely think of it that way.
“This has been experimentally proven in rodents”
If you are talking about the rat park[0] series of experiments, that conclusion has hardly been “experimentally proven.” There are many replication issues and the authors themselves don’t support the popular conclusion often taken from their research.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
If you are talking about the rat park[0] series of experiments, that conclusion has hardly been “experimentally proven.” There are many replication issues and the authors themselves don’t support the popular conclusion often taken from their research.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
My apologies. "Replication crisis" (or Ted Talks, really) strikes again. I should have said "demonstrated," though that's probably a cop out.
From the wiki article and its meta research source, it seems that researchers do support the general idea that housing, enrichment and social conditions affect addiction. Popular science has just overstated the results.
"While the Rat Park studies did not use methods that are reliable by current standards, enrichment has been shown to reliably reduce opioid consumption and this effect can generalise to other drugs of abuse."
https://journals.helsinki.fi/jrn/article/view/10.31885.jrn.1...
Incidentally, I don't understand why stuff like this is still ambiguous. This is a classroom experiment, resource-wise. Why hasn't it been refined, replicated and conducted at scale sufficient to be reliable?
From the wiki article and its meta research source, it seems that researchers do support the general idea that housing, enrichment and social conditions affect addiction. Popular science has just overstated the results.
"While the Rat Park studies did not use methods that are reliable by current standards, enrichment has been shown to reliably reduce opioid consumption and this effect can generalise to other drugs of abuse."
https://journals.helsinki.fi/jrn/article/view/10.31885.jrn.1...
Incidentally, I don't understand why stuff like this is still ambiguous. This is a classroom experiment, resource-wise. Why hasn't it been refined, replicated and conducted at scale sufficient to be reliable?
Hm, in my observations and reflections, most addictions are in part coping mechanisms for something else.
So I think what he's saying about treating the gaming "addiction" without attention to the underlying trauma being coped with -- probably applies to actual/other addiction too, rather than being a distinction?
So I think what he's saying about treating the gaming "addiction" without attention to the underlying trauma being coped with -- probably applies to actual/other addiction too, rather than being a distinction?
“Actual addictions” are caused by actually addictive substances or patterns of behaviour. Genetic predisposition is also a significant and often misunderstood factor. Yes there can be links to underlying mental health issues, but addictions are primarily cause by things that are actually addictive. Nicotine, for example, causes immediate withdrawals and cravings in the short term, and basically rewires your brain chemistry with sustained long term use. Addiction to nicotine is not caused by depression, it is caused by nicotine.
> People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though
I'm sure they would if tobacco was as hard to get as heroin.
We often find ourselves in this position where we have to choose between a broad and a narrow defintion (for addiction in this case). Maybe there is no right way to decide but I'd say we've been too often going with the broad definition. We tell ourselves "there aren't real dividing lines" and this becomes an excuse to expand definitions. One problem with this is that broad definitions are often less useful. In the worst case, expanding a definition results in meaningless (consider words like fascism and terrorism).
If addiction is "impulsive & compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to" then anything can be addiction. Is that useful? I don't think so, I think it trivializes the concept and if that definition sticks, we'll have to come up with a new word. That's fine, I guess, but do we gain anything in that process?
I'm sure they would if tobacco was as hard to get as heroin.
We often find ourselves in this position where we have to choose between a broad and a narrow defintion (for addiction in this case). Maybe there is no right way to decide but I'd say we've been too often going with the broad definition. We tell ourselves "there aren't real dividing lines" and this becomes an excuse to expand definitions. One problem with this is that broad definitions are often less useful. In the worst case, expanding a definition results in meaningless (consider words like fascism and terrorism).
If addiction is "impulsive & compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to" then anything can be addiction. Is that useful? I don't think so, I think it trivializes the concept and if that definition sticks, we'll have to come up with a new word. That's fine, I guess, but do we gain anything in that process?
There's a difference between meaningless an imprecise. Words like fascism, species, decency, beauty, and such do have meaning. They just don't have precise, F=ma like meaning.
There's also no problem defining and measuring addiction using discrete definitions such as withdrawal symptom severity, rehabilitation success rates or neurochemical signature. The problem arises when researchers (or anyone) then believes that this is the definition of addiction, when in reality it is a definition contrived for the purpose os (valid and useful) research. In a different context, it might be useful to think of these as indicators of... Usefulness is contextual.
Discrete language is fine. It just isn't the way we communicate normally, and it's impossible to use only discrete language to describe things we don't understand fully.
There's also no problem defining and measuring addiction using discrete definitions such as withdrawal symptom severity, rehabilitation success rates or neurochemical signature. The problem arises when researchers (or anyone) then believes that this is the definition of addiction, when in reality it is a definition contrived for the purpose os (valid and useful) research. In a different context, it might be useful to think of these as indicators of... Usefulness is contextual.
Discrete language is fine. It just isn't the way we communicate normally, and it's impossible to use only discrete language to describe things we don't understand fully.
Obviously natural language is never absolutely discrete. Let's say there's a spectrum between fairly discrete and fairly meaningless. I'm saying we should move toward the discrete side of things.
If we need to invent a new word to describe something, we can, we don't need to repurpose an old word and in doing so rob it of its meaning.
If we need to invent a new word to describe something, we can, we don't need to repurpose an old word and in doing so rob it of its meaning.
> People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though.
Because it's easier to get tobacco. Just ask someone, or pick up left-over pieces from the streets and build a new cigarette out of it. It's what I see certain homeless people doing all the time.
Because it's easier to get tobacco. Just ask someone, or pick up left-over pieces from the streets and build a new cigarette out of it. It's what I see certain homeless people doing all the time.
Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will.
If someone wilfully chooses to take a substance / perform an action that has subsequent negative effects (potentially including detoxing), then that seems a fair individual decision.
If someone takes a substance that destroys or decreases their future ability to choose not to take that substance in the future... that's a completely different level of danger.
... I'm not sure which categories social media and mobile gaming fall into.
My gut says if it's not the latter yet, then that's only because we / they haven't gotten there yet. Because the latter is obviously a more lucrative business to be in.
If someone wilfully chooses to take a substance / perform an action that has subsequent negative effects (potentially including detoxing), then that seems a fair individual decision.
If someone takes a substance that destroys or decreases their future ability to choose not to take that substance in the future... that's a completely different level of danger.
... I'm not sure which categories social media and mobile gaming fall into.
My gut says if it's not the latter yet, then that's only because we / they haven't gotten there yet. Because the latter is obviously a more lucrative business to be in.
Both, I suppose.
Once you start seeing people locking away their smartphone, because they don't trust themselves to abstain or moderate... that's very clearly an attempt to impose their own will on themselves. Call it whatever you want, but it's a lot like a scene from trainspotting.
Once you start seeing people locking away their smartphone, because they don't trust themselves to abstain or moderate... that's very clearly an attempt to impose their own will on themselves. Call it whatever you want, but it's a lot like a scene from trainspotting.
The problem is it's hard to classify decisions as willful if your judgement is impaired, don't you think? I might think I'm doing this consciously, but I could well be brainwashed/conditioned into making the choice.
Feels like you are drawing a distinction between harms, and recursive harms.
Harmful things can be analyzed; the risks can be quantified and weighed up against the benefits; the downside can be limited.
Recursively harmful things - which not only cause harm but precipitate further rounds of harm - are harder to analyze and have potentially infinite downside.
Harmful things can be analyzed; the risks can be quantified and weighed up against the benefits; the downside can be limited.
Recursively harmful things - which not only cause harm but precipitate further rounds of harm - are harder to analyze and have potentially infinite downside.
That's a good, simpler way of putting it: summing over all harms, including future ones.
For single act harms, future terms don't exist.
And for recursive, add in a probability weighting, if one wants to be pedantic about modeling.
For single act harms, future terms don't exist.
And for recursive, add in a probability weighting, if one wants to be pedantic about modeling.
> Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will.
I don't claim to speak for all addicts, but this is not how I would describe my experiences, at least not under my conception of "free will".
I "wanted" to stop doing drugs in the same way a lazy person "wants" to go to the gym more. whenever the moment came to actually do it, I had to admit that I didn't want it nearly as much as I said I did. sure, I wanted the "outcome" of quitting, but in the meantime, I really wanted to keep doing drugs. so I did.
every day I had a clear goal in mind: getting money and acquiring drugs. I was fairly strategic in pursuing this goal; I was even capable of abstaining for a while (eg, to pass a drug test) if it increased the security of my future supply.
I was in and out of treatment for a while (primarily to appease others), but I ultimately stopped doing drugs because I didn't want to anymore. this happened rather suddenly, over the course of just a few months. a few areas of my life improved simultaneously, partially through my own efforts, but partially just luck. I now lead a fairly normal life.
anyways, the reason I type all this out is because I really don't like it when people describe addition this way, especially if they aren't/weren't addicts themselves (not assuming anything about you in particular). depending on what you think "free will" is, it may be more or less accurate. but it is usually a prelude to an argument about how addicts aren't competent to make choices for themselves and how society should Do Something About It, usually involving curtailing the freedoms of people unfortunate enough to be identified as addicts. addicts don't need to be controlled or disciplined (unless they are hurting others, of course). they just need to reach that tipping point in quality of life where drugs don't seem so appealing. at least that is my belief, based on my own experience and observations of others going through it.
I don't claim to speak for all addicts, but this is not how I would describe my experiences, at least not under my conception of "free will".
I "wanted" to stop doing drugs in the same way a lazy person "wants" to go to the gym more. whenever the moment came to actually do it, I had to admit that I didn't want it nearly as much as I said I did. sure, I wanted the "outcome" of quitting, but in the meantime, I really wanted to keep doing drugs. so I did.
every day I had a clear goal in mind: getting money and acquiring drugs. I was fairly strategic in pursuing this goal; I was even capable of abstaining for a while (eg, to pass a drug test) if it increased the security of my future supply.
I was in and out of treatment for a while (primarily to appease others), but I ultimately stopped doing drugs because I didn't want to anymore. this happened rather suddenly, over the course of just a few months. a few areas of my life improved simultaneously, partially through my own efforts, but partially just luck. I now lead a fairly normal life.
anyways, the reason I type all this out is because I really don't like it when people describe addition this way, especially if they aren't/weren't addicts themselves (not assuming anything about you in particular). depending on what you think "free will" is, it may be more or less accurate. but it is usually a prelude to an argument about how addicts aren't competent to make choices for themselves and how society should Do Something About It, usually involving curtailing the freedoms of people unfortunate enough to be identified as addicts. addicts don't need to be controlled or disciplined (unless they are hurting others, of course). they just need to reach that tipping point in quality of life where drugs don't seem so appealing. at least that is my belief, based on my own experience and observations of others going through it.
Thanks for taking the time to write all that out and share your experience!!
I'd say my definition of "free will" is this context is more a hill's slope than a traffic light.
In that the slope is the difficulty of making (or not making) a decision. Where addiction doesn't preclude "not", but makes it harder / less likely.
I.e. the internalization of the external "10/100 non-addicts would choose to do X" vs "60/100 addicts would choose to do X"
Or to put it another way, whereas someone might be able to avoid doing something on everything except their 10% worse days, an addict might except on their 50% worse days.
Would be very curious with how that jives with your lived experience? When you made decisions (positive or negative), did it feel like the odds were tilted? Or did it feel exactly like it did before you started using?
I'd say my definition of "free will" is this context is more a hill's slope than a traffic light.
In that the slope is the difficulty of making (or not making) a decision. Where addiction doesn't preclude "not", but makes it harder / less likely.
I.e. the internalization of the external "10/100 non-addicts would choose to do X" vs "60/100 addicts would choose to do X"
Or to put it another way, whereas someone might be able to avoid doing something on everything except their 10% worse days, an addict might except on their 50% worse days.
Would be very curious with how that jives with your lived experience? When you made decisions (positive or negative), did it feel like the odds were tilted? Or did it feel exactly like it did before you started using?
I really like the duck-typing analogy for addiction. Addiction is a complex set of causes, symptoms, and consequences and every addiction is different.
> Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though.
I suspect if we continue on the path of criminalizing tobacco use, this could change... That isn't a difference between the two drugs chemically, I think, but between their social contexts (specifically criminalization/expense).
I suspect if we continue on the path of criminalizing tobacco use, this could change... That isn't a difference between the two drugs chemically, I think, but between their social contexts (specifically criminalization/expense).
>> People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though.
Not really a fair comparison of addictive qualities. If heroin were legal, regulated, and priced accordingly, no-one would prostitute themselves (or others) for it.
Not really a fair comparison of addictive qualities. If heroin were legal, regulated, and priced accordingly, no-one would prostitute themselves (or others) for it.
> People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction?
Because you can walk to an ashtray and pick out cigarette butts, which is about as dirty as the prostitution.
Because you can walk to an ashtray and pick out cigarette butts, which is about as dirty as the prostitution.
It is not what we put into ourselves that is dirty, but what comes out of us.
"Nir Eyal: The vast majority of people stop playing these video games. Do you think people are still going to be playing Fortnite and Candy Crush in 10 years or so? Of course not, they'll be doing something else once they get interested in other things that they decide to pursue. So, if it's really the behavior this technology is doing to us, that shouldn't make sense. They should be addicts for life, but that's clearly not what happens."
pretty vapid. someone could have an unhealthy unrelationship w/ games w/o literally playing the same game for a decade lol. and in any case, saying "they shoudl be addicts for life" shows this guy isn't at all up to date on addiction science. most addictions resolve themselves after a period of time
pretty vapid. someone could have an unhealthy unrelationship w/ games w/o literally playing the same game for a decade lol. and in any case, saying "they shoudl be addicts for life" shows this guy isn't at all up to date on addiction science. most addictions resolve themselves after a period of time
True--still, with many things (I'd say anything besides actual hard drugs) it's easy to confuse casual use with addiction. "Spending a lot of time" playing a video game is NOT the same as skipping meals, lying, self-isolating and losing sleep to keep playing.
yeah, I don't disagree w/ the fact that the word "addiction" shouldn't be thrown around too casually, but I don't like the way they're scolding others for being insufficiently scientific while they demonstrate their own ignorance
and re: hard drugs, casual use of those that doesn't meet addiction thresholds is way more common than most people think
not to mention - it's a little convenient that the author of a book called "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" is telling us that actually, we shouldn't be worried about those products
I always agreed that "addiction" was the wrong word for most/all things that were not chemical substances.
But then i quit smoking cigarettes, which was very challenging, and involved really paying attention to my relationship with smoking and how it made me feel and why I did it. Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes.
The way I used them both as a procrastination, or distraction, device, or to avoid being alone with myself. The fear of what I'd find do if I weren't doing them, how I'd have to find something. The way I reached for both to calm me down, even though they didn't necessarily have that long-term effect. The generally compulsive feeling of them both, difficulty just "deciding" not to do them or even to take a break, and then following through.
> For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression.
Oh yeah, and that so much described my smoking too! (Not an ultimately long-term successful coping mechanism, but an attempt). And definitely a part of addictive relationship with say alcohol for other people I know. I think that is actually common to (substance) addiction for many people, that it's in part related to coping with anxiety or trauma or depression -- rather than this being a distinction from addiction? I mean, surely this is born out by research, it seems such a commonplace of recovery narratives, right? His protestations of the ways technology use is different from addiction just make me think "gee, that sounds a lot like my experience and what I've heard of others experiences of (substance) addiction!" This is in fact the real center of what made me realize social media use did feel like an addiction, that both it and smoking were related to coping with things like this for me.
I am sure there are many ways they are different as well as similar, but I definitely now (and didn't use to) see why people reach for that term to describe "technology" and other non-substance "addictions".
I still haven't managed to quit social media...
But then i quit smoking cigarettes, which was very challenging, and involved really paying attention to my relationship with smoking and how it made me feel and why I did it. Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes.
The way I used them both as a procrastination, or distraction, device, or to avoid being alone with myself. The fear of what I'd find do if I weren't doing them, how I'd have to find something. The way I reached for both to calm me down, even though they didn't necessarily have that long-term effect. The generally compulsive feeling of them both, difficulty just "deciding" not to do them or even to take a break, and then following through.
> For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression.
Oh yeah, and that so much described my smoking too! (Not an ultimately long-term successful coping mechanism, but an attempt). And definitely a part of addictive relationship with say alcohol for other people I know. I think that is actually common to (substance) addiction for many people, that it's in part related to coping with anxiety or trauma or depression -- rather than this being a distinction from addiction? I mean, surely this is born out by research, it seems such a commonplace of recovery narratives, right? His protestations of the ways technology use is different from addiction just make me think "gee, that sounds a lot like my experience and what I've heard of others experiences of (substance) addiction!" This is in fact the real center of what made me realize social media use did feel like an addiction, that both it and smoking were related to coping with things like this for me.
I am sure there are many ways they are different as well as similar, but I definitely now (and didn't use to) see why people reach for that term to describe "technology" and other non-substance "addictions".
I still haven't managed to quit social media...
> Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes.
My experience is that they're not just similar, they're the same. The tug of a vape pen and the tug of a phone are indistinguishable from another except for the object they point to. If I didn't have one on me, I'd reach for the other.
My experience is that they're not just similar, they're the same. The tug of a vape pen and the tug of a phone are indistinguishable from another except for the object they point to. If I didn't have one on me, I'd reach for the other.
Interesting to hear similar experiences, I haven't heard this talked about much, specifically with cigarettes and social media. But yeah, pretty much.
I wouldn't go so far to say exactly the same for me, the "withdrawal" feeling of not having smoked a cigarettes was stronger for me than anything with social media, providing another dimension. But yeah, I identify with what you are saying, the circumstances and feelings around reaching for one or the other were very similar for me too, and with both of them I'd decide "I'm going to not use them for X amount of time" and then renege on my agreement with myself when the feelings arose. I still haven't quit social media...
I wouldn't go so far to say exactly the same for me, the "withdrawal" feeling of not having smoked a cigarettes was stronger for me than anything with social media, providing another dimension. But yeah, I identify with what you are saying, the circumstances and feelings around reaching for one or the other were very similar for me too, and with both of them I'd decide "I'm going to not use them for X amount of time" and then renege on my agreement with myself when the feelings arose. I still haven't quit social media...
The manifestations of the addictions are certainly different. I'm really experienced in this. I've quit many addictions. Some of them many times!
In a context that I'm not going to share on HN right now (find and message me if you're curious) I set an intention to face my addictions. I named six things that had pulled on me in my life. I was going to work through them, one by one. But when the time came, I realized there was no "one by one". They were all the same. Six sides of the same die.
The root thing was an aversion to the present moment. A refusal to face whatever was going on right then. At its deepest: a separation from awareness.
That's what caused me to reach for the vape pen, the phone, the addiction die. I was literally turning away from something. What pulls me out is to face the craving. Just let it in. Just be aware. Then, maybe, something behind that will reveal itself and I'll face that, too.
In a context that I'm not going to share on HN right now (find and message me if you're curious) I set an intention to face my addictions. I named six things that had pulled on me in my life. I was going to work through them, one by one. But when the time came, I realized there was no "one by one". They were all the same. Six sides of the same die.
The root thing was an aversion to the present moment. A refusal to face whatever was going on right then. At its deepest: a separation from awareness.
That's what caused me to reach for the vape pen, the phone, the addiction die. I was literally turning away from something. What pulls me out is to face the craving. Just let it in. Just be aware. Then, maybe, something behind that will reveal itself and I'll face that, too.
Yup that absolutely resonates. (And many of us are probably guessing the same thing about the setting you're implying as well and I have some things to say about that too, but HN doesn't have a DM function).
How do you relate to the claims in the OP about: "For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression."
While I guess he's trying to say that's what makes it different than "real addiction", in my experience and that of many people I know, this is hitting the nail on the head for many experiences of "conventional" addiction too.
Your experiences/thoughts?
Perhaps this is related to your statement about "maybe, something behind that will reveal itself and I'll face that, too" Although OP author seems to suggest that as a result you should only focus on the "thing behind" and ignore the "addiction" that is just a manifestation of the deeper thing, but what I think I'm picking up and agree with from you is, sometimes you need to "deal with" the addiction to get to the thing behind it. Both/and/simultaneous.
How do you relate to the claims in the OP about: "For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression."
While I guess he's trying to say that's what makes it different than "real addiction", in my experience and that of many people I know, this is hitting the nail on the head for many experiences of "conventional" addiction too.
Your experiences/thoughts?
Perhaps this is related to your statement about "maybe, something behind that will reveal itself and I'll face that, too" Although OP author seems to suggest that as a result you should only focus on the "thing behind" and ignore the "addiction" that is just a manifestation of the deeper thing, but what I think I'm picking up and agree with from you is, sometimes you need to "deal with" the addiction to get to the thing behind it. Both/and/simultaneous.
Implying it's not a real addiction because it's a coping mechanism is so off. Like you're not really an alcoholic if you just drink to escape the trauma from when you went to war.
My understanding is that addiction is avoidance at its core. You're either avoiding the cravings, the withdrawals, or something else all together.
There doesn't have to be some other underlying issue. People get hooked on opiates in hospitals. Then they keep doing them to avoid the withdrawals. Doesn't mean they're avoiding something in their life. But it still counts as addiction if they are!
My understanding is that addiction is avoidance at its core. You're either avoiding the cravings, the withdrawals, or something else all together.
There doesn't have to be some other underlying issue. People get hooked on opiates in hospitals. Then they keep doing them to avoid the withdrawals. Doesn't mean they're avoiding something in their life. But it still counts as addiction if they are!
Aside from the obvious that they are using opioids to avoid the "underlying issue" of physical pain, I wonder if those whose prescribed hospital opioid use becomes addiction (vs those whom it doesn't) are more likely to be those with underlying "somethings in their life" they are trying to avoid. But then, who doesn't have underlying "somethings", so.
At any rate, I will agree it's not a useful diagnostic to determine if something is "really" addiction or not. It may be useful self-reflection for "treating" the addiction though. (Or may not, at any rate if the person isn't recognizing it there is no value to forcing them to try to fit to your narrative).
At any rate, I will agree it's not a useful diagnostic to determine if something is "really" addiction or not. It may be useful self-reflection for "treating" the addiction though. (Or may not, at any rate if the person isn't recognizing it there is no value to forcing them to try to fit to your narrative).
Oh yeah, I would bet heavily that likelihood of addiction to prescribed medications is correlated with the context of your life.
"You can't be addicted to technology because people have historically panicked over other addictions like novels and hobbies" is such a vapid argument. Human beings have a strong propensity for addiction to stimulation, in whatever form they can get it. Novels, sports, hobbies, social media, whatever. We know this, we want this, and we're willing to give it to each other in increasingly convenient ways. Player pianos, novels, television, smartphone, the march of convenient stimulation goes ever on. That doesn't stop it from being an addiction.
There is a dangerous threshold where the stimulation becomes so easy it threatens our everyday lives. My sister in law is a kindergarten teacher. She says kids ask her on a regular basis how to get their parents to talk to them instead of looking at their phones.
There is a dangerous threshold where the stimulation becomes so easy it threatens our everyday lives. My sister in law is a kindergarten teacher. She says kids ask her on a regular basis how to get their parents to talk to them instead of looking at their phones.
That's horrifying. As a parent myself, I know I spend too much of my time with my kids on my phone, but I also don't use it at the dinner/lunch table, while I'm reading to them or tucking them in, while we're having an actual conversation or doing an activity like playing a board game or going for a bike ride.
So there's room for improvement, but I hope that being intentional in carving out at least these handful of times every day is something.
So there's room for improvement, but I hope that being intentional in carving out at least these handful of times every day is something.
Whether you are “addicted” to something or not (and what defines “addiction”) is the wrong question, in my opinion. The correct one is whether your repeated, compulsive behaviour is affecting anyone else. If you knew it was, could you stop?
or if you like how it's affecting you, and if not, can stop.
Yes, thank you - I had a feeling I had missed some critical aspect!
agreed that the social media addiction studies are trash, but this is representative of how flawed the understanding of addiction in this discussion is:
Joel Billieux: For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression.
Jason Feifer: Let's say someone comes into a clinic, their gaming usage meets a certain definition of addiction, it is having a negative consequence on their social, family, or occupational life. But a trained clinician like Joel, must be able to look underneath those symptoms and find potential other issues.
that doesn't mean something's not an addiction! substance misuse is almost always a coping method, and one that's masking other issues. I don't believe "gaming addiction" is a big problem or even necessarily real, but it's a little annoying to see these guys critiquing the scientific failures of a particular discourse then demonstrate how flawed their own understanding of addiction is
Joel Billieux: For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression.
Jason Feifer: Let's say someone comes into a clinic, their gaming usage meets a certain definition of addiction, it is having a negative consequence on their social, family, or occupational life. But a trained clinician like Joel, must be able to look underneath those symptoms and find potential other issues.
that doesn't mean something's not an addiction! substance misuse is almost always a coping method, and one that's masking other issues. I don't believe "gaming addiction" is a big problem or even necessarily real, but it's a little annoying to see these guys critiquing the scientific failures of a particular discourse then demonstrate how flawed their own understanding of addiction is
Was a bit annoying to see that Nir’s main counter examples were “Do you want Netflix to make less engaging shows? Do you want to make less engaging podcasts?”. I don’t know if anyone says they’re addicted to podcasts, but either way those clearly aren’t the most addictive things out there… and on top of that, services like Netflix could easily add in simple screens like “hey, youve watched 5 episodes in a row, would you like to take a break”.
The thing this podcast didn’t seem to address is the fact that moder social media is A/B tested for maximum engagement. Similarly, modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. This makes a huge difference to how hard it is to stop engaging with this stuff!
The thing this podcast didn’t seem to address is the fact that moder social media is A/B tested for maximum engagement. Similarly, modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. This makes a huge difference to how hard it is to stop engaging with this stuff!
>modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago.
I may be in the minority, but as a 36-year-old I think the opposite is true. As a teenager I was very loyal to just a handful (3-5) video games, with one in particular (Subspace, later known as Continuum) taking up most of my playtime. In those days it was actually the community that made games sticky. I would feel as if I were letting real people down by not logging in.
Today's games just feel like another job. For me, this started with games like WoW but the feeling has matured since. There's just nothing satisfying to me about a grind. I still like the odd casual game and even the occasional complex game, as long as it doesn't feel too much like work.
Of course, that was also 20 years ago, so I've also changed a lot in that time.
I may be in the minority, but as a 36-year-old I think the opposite is true. As a teenager I was very loyal to just a handful (3-5) video games, with one in particular (Subspace, later known as Continuum) taking up most of my playtime. In those days it was actually the community that made games sticky. I would feel as if I were letting real people down by not logging in.
Today's games just feel like another job. For me, this started with games like WoW but the feeling has matured since. There's just nothing satisfying to me about a grind. I still like the odd casual game and even the occasional complex game, as long as it doesn't feel too much like work.
Of course, that was also 20 years ago, so I've also changed a lot in that time.
Ha I’m also 36! To be clear I don’t mean modern games are “better” games, that’s obviously subjective. I mean that the design techniques are more advanced. Games have evolved as designers learn which mechanics and systems are more compelling. There are less rough edges, less places to get stuck… more enticing rewards, more carefully designed progression paths, etc.
This is especially true in most modern “service based” games. Fortnite is an obvious example where there are certain rewards and upgrades that can only be earned by playing every day, and playing at least X hours per season, etc.
This is especially true in most modern “service based” games. Fortnite is an obvious example where there are certain rewards and upgrades that can only be earned by playing every day, and playing at least X hours per season, etc.
For sure--it's kind of sad they don't even have to hide it.
I say this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm reminded of Bob Saget's scene in the movie Half Baked. It's vulgar, be warned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q
And this, simple "Stop it!" therapy from Bob Newhart: https://vimeo.com/97370236
We’re reaching a tipping point in our society where some peoples lived experience is primarily digital, and the physical is an accessory. Our world, peoples health, and the things we need for a fulfilling life will suffer as a result.
[deleted]
One can be an addict. To my mind the condition of addiction is, at least somewhat, divorced from the object of the addiction. Addiction certainly seems to survive its initial objects absence.
I would probably put the quotes around Technology above, rather than Addicted. Could be it's the pathology expressing itself and whatever the technology is is only tangentially related to what's going on.
To my mind this can all be in a similar silo to gambling or love addiction. How different is a slot machine from many games?
Just my 2 cents and not a professional analysis.
I would probably put the quotes around Technology above, rather than Addicted. Could be it's the pathology expressing itself and whatever the technology is is only tangentially related to what's going on.
To my mind this can all be in a similar silo to gambling or love addiction. How different is a slot machine from many games?
Just my 2 cents and not a professional analysis.
[deleted]
There is an interesting point there - that new things are compelling in a way that can't really justify the effort we put into it. That radio was compelling in its time. I don't have a problem with using the word 'addiction' though.
But the tech we have now is coming through much faster - there is no way that we can play with it in our 'natural' way (over years) and overcome it. I think it is an overwhelming change.
But the tech we have now is coming through much faster - there is no way that we can play with it in our 'natural' way (over years) and overcome it. I think it is an overwhelming change.
I think it's worth noting a difference between first & second hand perspective. It's generally other people (eg parents) who were critical of radio/tv/comic/etc use. They call it addiction.
With technology "addiction," there is a lot of first hand experience. People consider themselves addicted, and can't stop doing X without external help or abstinence devices.
If someone wants, tries and fails to abstain from anything, is that not an operative definition of addiction?
With technology "addiction," there is a lot of first hand experience. People consider themselves addicted, and can't stop doing X without external help or abstinence devices.
If someone wants, tries and fails to abstain from anything, is that not an operative definition of addiction?
I think it is an 'operative definition of addiction'.
Words are what we choose them to mean. When I spend hours in front of screens, I don't feel like I have made the best use of my time and I feel like I have been somewhat manipulated in those actions. It does feel like nothing. To me its a negative feeling. 'Addiction' encompasses that mixed feeling, where on reflection I seem to have acted against my own interests.
I'm not even keen on trying to find another word for this - I actually want the negativity associated with a term like 'addiction'. I'm not a masochist, but I don't want to start justifying what seems like bad behaviour as if it was a good thing.
Words are what we choose them to mean. When I spend hours in front of screens, I don't feel like I have made the best use of my time and I feel like I have been somewhat manipulated in those actions. It does feel like nothing. To me its a negative feeling. 'Addiction' encompasses that mixed feeling, where on reflection I seem to have acted against my own interests.
I'm not even keen on trying to find another word for this - I actually want the negativity associated with a term like 'addiction'. I'm not a masochist, but I don't want to start justifying what seems like bad behaviour as if it was a good thing.
It seems to me this is the first era where the content is practically endless, which I think is a meaningful distinction that can make phone/social media worse than prior technologies.
Growing up I spent a lot of time on AIM and then texting with one of those keyboard cellphones, but I only messaged with my immediate friend group - so it was limited for the most part to a specific after school window. My grandfather's day used to revolve around his favorite radio shows, but those had a set air time. When they were over, they were over.
Getting invested in books or video games is a bit different, but even those were limited in the sense you would have to pay for each particular book or game, or at least make regular trips to the library.
Now a days there is 0 cost or inconvenience to obtaining more content, with no real time restrictions. So it is all too easy to not realize how long you've just spent on social media or to stay up much too late scrolling on your phone. Filling time with your phone is the path of least resistance moreso than it is something to look forward to.
I think the fact the content has no clear stopping points also contributes to that feeling that you haven't actually done anything after hours on social media. Obviously it is not productive time, but it somehow manages to feel like nothing.
Growing up I spent a lot of time on AIM and then texting with one of those keyboard cellphones, but I only messaged with my immediate friend group - so it was limited for the most part to a specific after school window. My grandfather's day used to revolve around his favorite radio shows, but those had a set air time. When they were over, they were over.
Getting invested in books or video games is a bit different, but even those were limited in the sense you would have to pay for each particular book or game, or at least make regular trips to the library.
Now a days there is 0 cost or inconvenience to obtaining more content, with no real time restrictions. So it is all too easy to not realize how long you've just spent on social media or to stay up much too late scrolling on your phone. Filling time with your phone is the path of least resistance moreso than it is something to look forward to.
I think the fact the content has no clear stopping points also contributes to that feeling that you haven't actually done anything after hours on social media. Obviously it is not productive time, but it somehow manages to feel like nothing.
This is a very dangerous premise and seems to be structured to pushing the linked website's "training"
Smartphone addiction, for example, is a very real thing and causes similar effects to drug addiction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...
Smartphone addiction, for example, is a very real thing and causes similar effects to drug addiction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...
[deleted]
Meh. Whatever. Some things are worth arguing over; some things, not so much.
I classify this as "not so much." I'm fairly familiar with "addiction," in its classic sense, and this doesn't really bother me.
There's no doubt that "gamification" (karma, scores, like/dislike, rate, etc.) is designed to increase users' reliance on a UX. It works. I'm as cynical as they come, and it works on me. It feels like addiction, and putting it aside is uncomfortable (otherwise known as "withdrawal"). Is it seizures, massive cramps, and shitting myself? No, but it is uncomfortable, all the same.
It reminds me of Marie Nyswander's classic "broken brain" theory. That's the one where the doctor, in their lab coat, looks at you all serious, and tells you how your "brain is broken," because of your irresponsible behavior (gotta have the moral judgement there, dontcha know), you have destroyed your brain's capacity for creating endorphins/serotonin/brainjuice/whatever, and you are going to have a lifetime of agony and pain, unless you let them prescribe "Addiction-B-Gon™," the $500/month "nutritional supplement."
Here's the trick. Get them to give it to you in writing, on their letterhead, with their signature at the bottom. Exactly what they told you, verbally; that it's a permanent condition (as opposed to the few months that research proves happens anyway).
The "broken brain theory" has been applied to all sorts of deviant behavior. I've seen it used to explain drug addiction, alcoholism, kleptomania, pedophilia, sexual promiscuity, gambling, video game addiction, shopping addiction, eating disorders, political affiliations, reading too many pulp novels, heavy metal/hip-hop/swing music preferences, etc.
It's like a pseudoscientific Swiss army knife. It's one of those things that pretty much personifies the H. L. Mencken quote: "There's always an easy solution to every human problem; Neat, plausible and wrong."
I classify this as "not so much." I'm fairly familiar with "addiction," in its classic sense, and this doesn't really bother me.
There's no doubt that "gamification" (karma, scores, like/dislike, rate, etc.) is designed to increase users' reliance on a UX. It works. I'm as cynical as they come, and it works on me. It feels like addiction, and putting it aside is uncomfortable (otherwise known as "withdrawal"). Is it seizures, massive cramps, and shitting myself? No, but it is uncomfortable, all the same.
It reminds me of Marie Nyswander's classic "broken brain" theory. That's the one where the doctor, in their lab coat, looks at you all serious, and tells you how your "brain is broken," because of your irresponsible behavior (gotta have the moral judgement there, dontcha know), you have destroyed your brain's capacity for creating endorphins/serotonin/brainjuice/whatever, and you are going to have a lifetime of agony and pain, unless you let them prescribe "Addiction-B-Gon™," the $500/month "nutritional supplement."
Here's the trick. Get them to give it to you in writing, on their letterhead, with their signature at the bottom. Exactly what they told you, verbally; that it's a permanent condition (as opposed to the few months that research proves happens anyway).
The "broken brain theory" has been applied to all sorts of deviant behavior. I've seen it used to explain drug addiction, alcoholism, kleptomania, pedophilia, sexual promiscuity, gambling, video game addiction, shopping addiction, eating disorders, political affiliations, reading too many pulp novels, heavy metal/hip-hop/swing music preferences, etc.
It's like a pseudoscientific Swiss army knife. It's one of those things that pretty much personifies the H. L. Mencken quote: "There's always an easy solution to every human problem; Neat, plausible and wrong."
Took some time to read the transcript before jumping to conclusions, but the whole episode never gets passed the sticking point that “addiction” has a clinical meaning, and many people are using the word in the popular more common and less strict meaning of the word, simply compulsive behavior.
The problem here is that the non-clinical “addiction” is a valid definition. It appears in the dictionary (see #2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction). People actually understand what it means accurately as well, nobody is getting confused and hearing the clinical definition. I’d agree that researchers into social media problems should avoid it, but the misuse is not by and large confusing or misleading most people.
Instead of discussing the validity of the popular meaning, it’s framed and titled as “not addiction”, which just plays on the confusion of the term rather than clarifying or offering alternatives!
“Caffeine addiction” is routinely thrown around, and everyone knows what it means. People who know the clinical term say that there is “caffeine dependence”, not addiction. This episode didn’t offer any alternative words for what social media is doing, it just stayed stuck on “not addiction”. They could have suggested talking about dependence or habit forming or compulsions or a weakness for social media. The author could have guided the discussion towards establishing the right terminology for what social media does, but instead chooses to re-emphasize the idea that “addiction” is the wrong word over and over again.
> The hallmark of addiction is that it interferes with social or family or occupational life. But when you use social media or the internet, you are generally participating in your social or family or occupational life.
This is an unfortunately dismissive and pretty misleading framing IMO. We all know that the harmful sides of social media are exactly the parts that don’t involve family and occupation life, and that those parts of the internet are enormous. The article discussed Netflix, which doesn’t involve social interaction. YouTube is mostly not friends talking to friends. Qanon didn’t happen because people were talking with their family and co-workers.
The problem here is that the non-clinical “addiction” is a valid definition. It appears in the dictionary (see #2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction). People actually understand what it means accurately as well, nobody is getting confused and hearing the clinical definition. I’d agree that researchers into social media problems should avoid it, but the misuse is not by and large confusing or misleading most people.
Instead of discussing the validity of the popular meaning, it’s framed and titled as “not addiction”, which just plays on the confusion of the term rather than clarifying or offering alternatives!
“Caffeine addiction” is routinely thrown around, and everyone knows what it means. People who know the clinical term say that there is “caffeine dependence”, not addiction. This episode didn’t offer any alternative words for what social media is doing, it just stayed stuck on “not addiction”. They could have suggested talking about dependence or habit forming or compulsions or a weakness for social media. The author could have guided the discussion towards establishing the right terminology for what social media does, but instead chooses to re-emphasize the idea that “addiction” is the wrong word over and over again.
> The hallmark of addiction is that it interferes with social or family or occupational life. But when you use social media or the internet, you are generally participating in your social or family or occupational life.
This is an unfortunately dismissive and pretty misleading framing IMO. We all know that the harmful sides of social media are exactly the parts that don’t involve family and occupation life, and that those parts of the internet are enormous. The article discussed Netflix, which doesn’t involve social interaction. YouTube is mostly not friends talking to friends. Qanon didn’t happen because people were talking with their family and co-workers.