Live data from Hacker News

How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

medium.com

401–410 of 443 posts

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#401
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People already just like photos like that. Or say simply "happy birthday" to everyone when Facebook tells them it's time. It's a small step from this state to a slightly extended set of canned responses to pick from.

The "Happy birthday" messages were nice the first time (circa "thefacebook"), but the more I thought about it the more depressing and creepy it became. I hid my birthday, then closed my wall, and then left facebook entirely. Now it's only sincere messages from a close few, which feels like much more.

definitely agree, on the other hand it's funny to see people who put fake birthdays on facebook actually getting the "happy birthday!" messages on the fake date

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really good essay, thanks for reminding me of that one. I believe it's been posted to HN before (I read it from a link here), but it may have been another comment suggesting it. But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. (about 3/4 down)

I saw it here first as well. It's made a number of appearances: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fwww.mtholyoke.edu%...

hey dang, how about a category link that automatically recycles classic submissions like this?

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#403
post #390

This is classic game theory. You lose as a company if you don't build in these addictive features. So everyone does it because as he made clear, attention is the currency of business currently. All of these companies, and new companies would have to agree not to build these behaviors in. The idea of an FDA or bill of rights for technology is great in the holistic macro sense, but I think unrealistic as it is not alig…

I agree a FDA for tech addictiveness probably won't happen. Now a Chrome extension to block much of it similar to adblock. That would be doable.

Shame beats it. See up-thread. Once people start seeing mindless staring at phones as the public health equivalent of smoking, things will improve.

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#404

There are companies that have whole teams of "addiction specialists" that some video game companies hire to give talks to their producers. I know this from personal experience, they are literally trying to make you addicted and have that goal in mind.

Name names. Or at least LinkedIn titles!

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#405
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power can be done safe, but we also have many examples of it not being done safe. Saying, "well it will be different this time. We will build systems to make corruption, laziness, and dangerous actions impossible!" is believing in a pipe dream.

We have come a long way from Chernobyl. Most of the people posting here probably weren't even alive when it happened. Nuclear power is so well-controlled (unless you build reactors on earthquake hotspots or tsunami zones, I mean c'mon Japan) that you can't even use regular statistical models because the only probable risks are human. Reactors are really, really well-designed these days to seal themselves off in the (…

> how do we provide energy ...? Renewables might work - if people stopped having kids for a while

It seems like you haven't done the math. I have. You're ridiculously wrong.

US marketed energy consumption per capita is 9.5 kW (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co...). That's 9.5 square meters of sunlight. If we pessimistically assume that we can only site solar panels on land (29% of Earth's surface) and only 10% of that, and that we're only using the currently common 16%-efficient polysilicon photovoltaic panels (rather than, say, solar thermal collectors or multijunction cells), then we receive enough solar energy for 60 billion people at current US levels of consumption, according to units(1):

    You have: circlearea(earthradius) * 1000 W/m^2 * 29% * 10% * 16% / 9.5 kW
    You want: billion
	* 62.281752
	/ 0.016056067
That's about eight times Earth's current human population.

Is it too costly? Currently, photovoltaic modules cost about US$0.50 per watt (see http://www.solarserver.com/service/pvx-spot-market-price-ind...), so, for everyone to consume as much marketed energy as USAns, we're talking about an investment of about US$4800 per person, or about US$160 per person per year, assuming a 30-year lifespan for the panels, even if costs didn't drop further. That's only about 1.6% of the nominal world GDP of about US$10k per year per person (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...).

And that's just solar photovoltaic. EGS (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system) and oceanic lithium (see https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_172.shtml) are two other energy resources of similar magnitude to solar photovoltaic, but they're being developed more slowly — photovoltaic is practical today.

Your comment would have been reasonable ten years ago, when solar PV was still expensive. The facts have changed. When the facts change, I change my opinion. When are you going to change yours?

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please elaborate in the form of a list of weird tricks

He just did with this: > I'll explain it all in my next post... By leaving it hanging your curious mind could not resist the temptation and started to fill in the blanks, and when that wasn't enough you posted a request for more. That's why the main characters never get home or never make out — it's a lot like an infinite scroll.

> and when that wasn't enough you posted a request for more

I think that was very much intentional.

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#407
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people out there protecting digital rights and privacy right now. "Protecting" something is an entirely different thing as it being "protected" already.

Depends who he means with "we". Being a Google Design Ethicist, you'd expect he means Google - which isn't exactly well-known for protecting privacy.

I think you missed the last bit of the text:

> Ex-Design Ethicist & Product Philosopher @ Google

Ex.

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#408
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what? The problem with the constant doom is that we get exhausted. At least in the US all we truly care about is war and old people (looking at where the money goes; http://whatwepayfor.com/ ). The problem with the doom sayers is they have no solutions or actionable items that we can say yes or no to. Its just lions and tigers and bears 24/7.

> no solutions or actionable items Well that's not true, they have no palatable solutions or actionable items. No new toy to buy that will fix things, no low effort/high status ritual to perform. Just a bunch of changes that involve sacrifice on our parts, and involve organizing large groups of people and trying to get them to plan for the future and then act in accordance with this plan. Also some of these choices w…

The problem with doomsayers is that they are under the influence of a common, but powerful, pattern of thinking that heavily biases their perception and reasons about reality to be highly negative.

I think of it as "chicken little-ism" and, as parables so often do, it illustrates that nuanced knowledge of the psychological pitfalls has been well understood for centuries.

Yet, somehow even highly educated, professional, scientists seem to be just as susceptible to its lure as the rubes who attend Donald Trump rallies, who are convinced not "the world is going to hell in a hand basket" but that e journey has been completed.

Paul Erlich could be the poster boy for this group. He's still at work, announcing doomsday scenarios to this day.

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/19/mass-extinction-ehrlich...

Which illustrates the cost of giving in to this psychological bias. Should we believe him this time? Wasn't there some other parable about this kind of thing, with a wolf and a young male of our species?

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#409
post #407
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends who he means with "we". Being a Google Design Ethicist, you'd expect he means Google - which isn't exactly well-known for protecting privacy.

I think you missed the last bit of the text: > Ex-Design Ethicist & Product Philosopher @ Google Ex.

Well, that's true. Though we don't know exactly why he quit.

Re: How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds

#410
post #30

Wow, I'm glad this was posted. I think the way we use technology today will be looked back on the same way we look back at naive cigarette smoking in the 1950s. Modern app design isn't about creating things that are good for the user, but about creating want in the user. This is a problem. For example, there are several studies showing that using Facebook in general makes people less happy. User happiness just happen…

I think the more apt metaphor is lead in Roman pipes. They knew lead exposure made you crazy but they still used it in their pipes, on their plates - and it drove them mad. After the planet has warmed beyond a point of no return, after antibiotic resistant bacteria make routine surgery a life-or-death decision, after we have squandered away our resources and used what little we had left to wage futile wars, we will f…

Lead pipes work just fine for most water chemistries. It was the salts of lead used as sweeteners that were much more of a problem. As they say, "the dose is the poison".

If our behavior renders us extinct, then we had a good run.

Post reply on HN