Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Acceleration of Addictiveness

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 289 posts

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#161

Post by smakz »

Very interesting essay. Internet addiction is in my opinion spreading like wildfire, spreading well beyond procrastination as Paul Graham said and actually impacting workspace and home environments extremely negatively - the analogy to alcohol is spot on. You aren't procrastinating, you are the equivalent of drunk.

Introspectively, the problem with my addiction lies in the acceleration of production as well as distribution. There are more movies being produced, more novels being written, and more content in general to consume. Technology has been making producing these mediums easier and easier. Musicians used to have to write down lyrics and notes on paper - now there are programs which can practically generate a whole song for them. News can be written by your friends who just got the latest scoop at a major conference. Producing content has never been easier.

At the same time on the distribution side, the internet has made all this content available at your finger tips instantly. As bandwidth increased, it became almost too easy to spend 10 minutes watching news or entertaining on YouTube or a myriad of other free media streaming sites.

These processes will only get more efficient and more effective. As a corollary, the media which seems highly targeted and interesting to you will become increasingly prevalent.

There are no easy answers, and I for one am taking the issue relatively seriously. Getting away for extended periods of time without internet is vital - which is also why I don't own a smart phone.

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#162

Post by sofal »

msg wrote: post #137
mattchew wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does it mean to say it is bad? How about this: if in advance of the behavior, you intend to partake moderately, and in the event you consistently overindulge, and after the fact you regret your excess, then something about this behavior is bad. I'm leaving aside some of the other points you bring up, but if you've got a habit that consistently leads to dissatisfaction and regret, I think it's fair to call it a…

You're assuming that dissatisfaction and regret mean the activity was bad. What if you overindulge in learning and regret knowing all kinds of details about Lisp? Some outside observers don't consider your time wasted, quite the contrary. But by your measurement, regretting knowing Lisp would mean that knowing Lisp is bad. My point is that you can always pick opposing activities that people will feel are time wasted…

I don't think pg's argument relies on an objective definition of bad. The subjective one works fine.

After all, the subject might be wrong!

"Wrong" being subjective, of course.

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#163

Post by natfriedman »

This is what happens when our technology outpaces our culture and becomes a danger to us.

I'm reminded of the atomic bomb: we had the technology to destroy ourselves before (we feared) we had the emotional and cultural institutions to show restraint.

In this case, what's become dangerous is the technology of satisfying human desire.

We see this in pretty much every designed human experience, to varying degrees. Yes, it's in World of Warcraft and Twitter on your iPhone and crystal meth. But it's also in game mechanics in your hybrid car's display, airline loyalty programs, and summer camp rituals that keep campers coming back every year.

All the things in your life that know how to push the happy button.

Very thought-provoking essay.

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#164

Post by akkartik »

johnfn wrote: post #11

Just like PG's last article, there is an inherent irony in finding this on Hacker News. PG is right though, the internet is addictive. The question of what to do about it is still left open, though. For now, I'm going to disconnect for a few hours. Hopefully when I get back on I'll have something productive to show for it.

For the HN audience there's a starker message: You can be either addicted or a purveyor of addictions, Eloi or Morlock. Choose.

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#165

Post by drewcrawford »

pg wrote: post #145
drewcrawford wrote: post #48

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. Why is this "new" addiction wrong ? What does it mean to say it is bad ? pg is taking great pains to distance himself from real addiction, like crystal meth. Yet he never explicitly explains anywhere why the new "addiction" is actually bad , other than trying to loosely associate it with alcohol. I don't think that the "addictiveness" of a thing alone is enough to call it ba…

I defined bad as things you don't want to want. E.g. because while they give you initial pleasure, they might give you net less pleasure in the long run. Though that isn't the only reason you might not want to want something. For example, you might dislike the environmental cost, or the thing might conflict with some principle you held. I don't think there's a sharp distinction between "real" addiction and other type…

I don't think the phrase "don't want to want" has any semantic meaning if you try to break it down.

Here's a silly contrived example: I am addicted to air. A suffocating person has no air. They are very well aware of their addiction. They wish they did not need air. They "don't want to want" air. The whole of NASA probably wishes humans could get along fine without air. But none of this means that dependance on air is "bad" or should be avoided in the normative case.

I agree with you 100% that there is a smooth continuum of addiction. Where we disagree (and where, I would say, you've forgotten to argue something) is that you believe addiction and badness are inherently correlated.

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#168

Post by srw »

wmf wrote: post #38
sendos wrote: post #31

One problem that people who work with computers for a living have versus people who don't, is that, if you are an internet addict and you are, e.g. a nurse, you can always just avoid computers altogether for, say a week or a month, if your addiction gets out of hand. But for people who work with a computer for their day job, avoiding the cause of the addiction is much tougher. It's like if a TV critic had a TV addict…

A while back PG said that he has a separate work computer that's not connected to the Internet. RMS goes even farther, only interacting with the Net via email.

You can browse the internet via email too! :-)

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#169

Post by [deleted] »

sofal wrote: post #162
msg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that dissatisfaction and regret mean the activity was bad. What if you overindulge in learning and regret knowing all kinds of details about Lisp? Some outside observers don't consider your time wasted, quite the contrary. But by your measurement, regretting knowing Lisp would mean that knowing Lisp is bad. My point is that you can always pick opposing activities that people will feel are time wasted…

I don't think pg's argument relies on an objective definition of bad. The subjective one works fine. After all, the subject might be wrong! "Wrong" being subjective, of course.

[deleted]

Re: The Acceleration of Addictiveness

#170

Post by msg »

sofal wrote: post #162
msg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that dissatisfaction and regret mean the activity was bad. What if you overindulge in learning and regret knowing all kinds of details about Lisp? Some outside observers don't consider your time wasted, quite the contrary. But by your measurement, regretting knowing Lisp would mean that knowing Lisp is bad. My point is that you can always pick opposing activities that people will feel are time wasted…

I don't think pg's argument relies on an objective definition of bad. The subjective one works fine. After all, the subject might be wrong! "Wrong" being subjective, of course.

The subjective definition of bad only works if you happen to share the values. But this kind of argument does not bear examination. If we ask, "why is tech addiction bad?" or argue, "tech addiction is great because we it is a pathway to posthumanism", we immediately come to a question of this objective standard. If a subjective notion of evil is all you have, you'll start waving your hands here.
Post reply on HN