Live data from Hacker News

Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

psypost.org

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#81

Facebook, reddit, twitter, blind are like halfway betazoid telepathy on start trek. If you knew exactly how others judged you internally without them saying it, you would be devastated as a human. But the betazoids were fine. Maybe we just need time to develop coping mechanisms.

It's easy for writers to create a species that supposedly has a working society without figuring out the details of it, or even demonstrating that the details can be figured out. I furthermore suspect that several races are actually unworkable in the way they've been presented. Take the race from Darmok, whose entire method of communication is referencing scenes from history, and who don't seem to have any method of communicating mathematics or quantities; how could they develop civilization and technology to the point of building spaceships? Does every engineer have to learn the strength of every joint, the power requirements of every component, by reverse engineering, or what? It seems others have made this complaint before, and someone spends a whole article arguing that it's possible if we assume they're just extremely sophisticated[1]. (One also wonders how the Klingons managed to develop spacefaring technology while holding their scientists and engineers in contempt.)

Star Trek has enough WTFs with biology (see e.g. "Genesis", where some virus that alters people's DNA causes extreme body modification including bone growth over a period of a few days, and changing their DNA back to normal also undoes all the body modification; everyone who's lost a limb wishes DNA worked that way) and physics (to give just one example: in "The Next Phase", Geordi is "phased out" and can walk through walls but doesn't fall through the floor; [2] claims the writers had an explanation that was cut from the episode, but the comments poke further holes in it), not to mention other plot holes (e.g. in DS9, in "Tears of the Prophets" the Dominion has created a bunch of cheap and powerful orbital weapon platforms that should turn the tide of the war with the Federation; the main characters manage to plant a Federation warp signature on their power source and cause the automated weapon platforms to destroy it, after which the Federation destroys the platforms and retakes that one system; patching this vulnerability should be trivial and there is no reason the Dominion shouldn't start setting up orbital weapon platforms in all their other systems, but they don't, as if some dumb villain said "You have failed me!" and killed the underling and scrapped the project (and as if the Federation knows this happened, because we never see anyone say "Gosh, what'll we do if the Dominion makes more weapon platforms programmed to never shoot their power source no matter its warp signature?"), but we don't see that scene; but then for some reason you see a few more platforms in one system a year later when it's too late to matter), that I put "the writers didn't seriously think it through" near the top of my list of explanations whenever something doesn't make sense to me. So I wouldn't take the depiction of Betazoids to be evidence that Betazoids could work as depicted.

To play devil's advocate with the Betazoids: telepathy might make tyranny much more workable, if you can use it to detect any signs of betrayal, and beat people into submission until you can tell that they are fully cowed. You might, then, expect a stagnant society dominated by a despot and his loyal henchmen. On the other hand, maybe they could take the strategy of feeling completely cowed, but then, when they happen to see the tyrant in a vulnerable position, suddenly feeling strong and vengeful; the propensity to react in that way isn't an emotion, so the tyrant might not be able to detect it. (I think some humans have that kind of reaction for similar reasons.) Who knows. (Or maybe they gave themselves telepathy via genetic engineering after they'd developed spacefaring and had a stable, non-tyrannical society.) We don't actually have proof yet that humans will reach the point of colonizing other planets, though it does seem plausible.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/st...

[2] https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/5798/why-didnt-geo...

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but this is the root of my dilemma from which my own understanding has grown. If I agree with you right here and now, have we not technically formed our own 'echo chamber'? Echo chambers from the outside look like inside out fishbowls because they are. But every set of agreeable statements, whether shared between individuals or distributed through time, same system - pieces are just labeled differently. Howe…

> If I agree with you right here and now, have we not technically formed our own 'echo chamber'? Good point, but no. Agreement is not necessarily an indication of conformance. You have to also consider to what degree that agreement, or disagreement, must be exercised. I agree and disagree with many political opinions, but I don't join groups who share my political opinions. My personal opinions often remain personal.…

> In math and logic agreement is attained by a proof.

Of course I agree with this. Just makes me think of bad ways of understanding math and logic. Having to carry it around inside myself as though I am it, because nothing else besides myself, others like myself, and actual computers can test the understanding. Proofs can be written with the utmost rigor. There's still room for error. No proof is perfect.

I'm not sure if that's more so, an artistic interpretation of mathematics and logic, or, just the other side to it. Even if my memory was eidetic and I knew all there was to know about all existing mathematics and logic, I'm still not sure I'd be certain I know what I know. What's the difference between seeing a connection between two pieces of data, and identifying an inferential rule? Direction, intentional direction. Backwards chaining.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining

> and not by some social pressure to force a predetermined outcome

This is what I always find, I dunno, bizarre. It really seems like, overriding thinking in favor of something, some way of forcing an outcome.

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#83

Facebook, reddit, twitter, blind are like halfway betazoid telepathy on start trek. If you knew exactly how others judged you internally without them saying it, you would be devastated as a human. But the betazoids were fine. Maybe we just need time to develop coping mechanisms.

>Maybe we just need time to develop coping mechanisms.

There is a well known coping mechanism - "Don't do it". Works pretty well for anything addictive. Requires rational thinking and self-discipline, though.

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#84
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Facebook be disrupted by the fentanyl of social networks?

Cute, but your analogy is somewhat flawed as fentanyl is like heroin on steroids. (As long as we’re mixing metaphors...) What the world really needs is the naloxone of social networks.

You misinterpret me, I'm not asking what the world needs, I'm asking what it's possible to give them for profit.

If wondering if we could create a social network that offers 50x the social validation (fentanyl is like 50x the potency of heroin). Maybe machine learning can find the right combination of color flashes to cause people to have a social bliss seizure. Maybe while simultaneously reading their rapid eye movements to extract their credit card information from their short circuiting brains.

Catch me at YC2019

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#85
post #8

Pop science, but this probably helps explain why Facebook/Snapchat/etc are so popular with the teen demographic. I'm kinda glad we didn't have any of that when I was that age. Remembering back to how insecure I felt personally, I can't really begin to imagine the pressure of being on a 'social' platform at that age.

Anecdotal note (I'm in my early twenties)

What personally amazes me is how many people treat their social profiles with the same rigor and attention as a large PR conglomerate. Everything photo took dozens of takes, every post rewritten to maximize the number of keywords. Personal Branding has taken the 'social' out of social media a la Black Mirror (nosedive).

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#86
post #45
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like any other thing in live, facebook can made your life better for some people, can make your life worse for some other. It what you make of it.

I was not suggesting a positive or negative answer. Merely a question to consider at the individual level.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#87

Since modern philosophy has been teaching that reality is a social construct, why wouldn't it follow that each individual self is too? Further, we have been taught that values are socially determined (market prices, fashion, popular arts, ...) and that for the individual the highest moral compass resides in the well-being of others (e.g. utilitarianism, charity drives, altruism, welfare programs, ...). Given this, wo…

There’s nothing pathological about simply seeking and obtaining social acceptance online, if that’s what you’re saying, and social acceptance is part of the self-worth equation, according to the article.

Needing people to like you has little to do with acting for the common good. It’s literally about what you can get rather than what you can give. The first think to do if you want to truly focus on others’ well-being is to stop caring what anyone has to say about who you are and what you do. Living authentically is going to make some people confused or uncomfortable. A lot of people are super judgmental and are looking for validation of their own tastes and choices.

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#88
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cute, but your analogy is somewhat flawed as fentanyl is like heroin on steroids. (As long as we’re mixing metaphors...) What the world really needs is the naloxone of social networks.

You misinterpret me, I'm not asking what the world needs, I'm asking what it's possible to give them for profit. If wondering if we could create a social network that offers 50x the social validation (fentanyl is like 50x the potency of heroin). Maybe machine learning can find the right combination of color flashes to cause people to have a social bliss seizure. Maybe while simultaneously reading their rapid eye move…

If something like this was possible, wouldn't Facebook have already discovered it?

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#89
post #56
post #55

My understanding is that humans have evolved to stake their self worth on social acceptance. Facebook just capitalizes on this need that we all have. It's the natural extension of capitalism and why pure capitalism without regulation is evil.

Could you elaborate on the connection with capitalism?

Capitalism = capitalizing on resources to make a profit. Facebook capitalizes on our need for social acceptance to make a profit.

Re: Facebook addiction linked to staking your self-worth on social acceptance

#90
post #14

Social media is the new smoking. Cancer destroys you physically but these sites destroy your mental health. Not just Facebook but Instagram too for example, it's even worse. And don't forget Twitter.

Overall, how much good vs bad is produced by Silicon Valley? I'm not so sure anymore. It seems like all the companies care about is to disrupt our lives, milking our attention and privacy dry.
Post reply on HN