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

Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 624 posts

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#431

Post by qwertox »

tirant wrote: post #280
vouaobrasil wrote: post #6

I wonder if the new drug of choice is actually technology. In some ways I think that the addiction to technology has some similar mellowing effects as drugs. Some research indicates that smartphone addiction is also related to low self-esteem and avoidant attachment [1] and that smartphones can become an object of attachment [2]. The replacement of drugs by technology is not surprising as it significantly strengthens…

I fear the (negative) impact of our current technological drugs goes beyond the impact of traditional drugs. I’ve seen kids not even 3-4 years old already hooked to smartphone screens. Even toddlers around 1 year old with an smartphone mount in their stroller. Main impact on kids is lack of socialization, lack of emotional regulation and a complete impact on their capabilities to keep their attention. Those used to b…

> I’ve seen kids not even 3-4 years old already hooked to smartphone screens. Even toddlers around 1 year old with an smartphone mount in their stroller.

Now imagine that they would not be engaging with silly YouTube videos, but with an AI trying to get them to interact with them in order to learn to speak, to learn about the world. Things which parents can't dedicate enough time to. Then also give the kids ideas for what to do with the parents, what to talk about, tease them about science and stuff they'd normally have no access to, because it is information mostly hidden in books or in an inaccessible format, like dedicated to students.

I do see a huge potential in this, call it cheaply a "nanny for the brain", to help develop it better and faster. There are certainly risks to it, but if it were well done, in a way in which we assume universities are "places well done", it could be better than just having the kids watching TV.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#432

Post by atombender »

bregma wrote: post #325
atombender wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brainstorm (1983) did it before Neuromancer. The movie is about a device that records and replays sensory and emotional experiences, and a central plot point is that it records the dying moments of a character.

I thought the central point was the porn played on a loop. Maybe I was distracted and missed the real plot. Also maybe mixed up by the fact that one of the principle actors died in real life while the movie was being made.

The porn thing showed that the device could be harmful to the viewer. This adds another dimension of risk to the later scenes where the Walker character is experiencing the death tape.

The actor was Natalie Wood, and the event is shrouded in mystery about how she died. However, the character who dies in the movie is played by Louise Fletcher.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#433

Post by gehwartzen »

9dev wrote: post #409
gehwartzen wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if babies are ignored and raised in isolation they still grow up with normal social skills? I think it’s fairly clear that socialization is learned (a term which I think is equivalent to programmed in this context) and not something as innate (or “in our nature”) as breathing.

That’s a fallacy. Human babies don’t grow up in isolation; if they do, it’s in contrived experiments, and drawing conclusions from that is about as helpful as watching birds in a cage. Humans in their natural environment will interact with other humans socially, mirror their display of emotion, and have a desire for affection.

Of course they will. But that’s is programming. Nurturing, socializing, teaching… all of it is programming. I’m not placing any negative connotations on the word. I’m not sure why you don’t view those things as programming?

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#434

Post by grecy »

mmooss wrote: post #114
ikmckenz wrote: post #13

Teens aren't doing drugs, smoking, drinking, or having sex. And the suicide rate has never been higher.

> Teens aren't ... having sex. Nor are people in their 20s (that is, both groups are having much less sex). That is the most worrying thing to me. People are not even engaging in the most fundamental, unavoidable, pleasurable human drive. They seem very much like traumatized people, on a massive scale, just trying to survive.

> They seem very much like traumatized people, on a massive scale, just trying to survive.

Every few years I like to leave the world for a bit and do something else to reset a bit. For example I just finished walking 779km on the Camino in Spain.

What you said is essentially true for the vast majority of people in our modern world. What we have built is terrible for us, and we’re all suffering and very sick.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#435

Post by FireSquid2006 »

TomK32 wrote: post #297
01100011 wrote: post #259

A question for older folks: what did drugs do for us? Why did we do them? For me, drugs were: - socialization. I met a lot of friends through alcohol & drugs and they became the social glue for my circle. Alcohol & drugs became a large part of my identity. - a way to cope with boredom. Every day is a party when you're high. - identity. In my generation, drugs were mostly cool and associated with iconoclasts, artists,…

The improved treatment, and acceptance, of ADHD is certainly one key element here. I hope we continue to support kids if they show symptoms of any psychological disorder. Here's a 2018 study following kids into adulthood and questioning them on their substance abuse: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5985671/ My brother is one of those really bad cases, while I got my diagnosis just recently; never had more th…

We can take a good thing too far (and probably are at that point). ADHD is being overdiagnosed and medication is being overprescribed, especially in young men.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#436

Post by quesera »

pvaldes wrote: post #87
codr7 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some do, and that's fine too.

> Some do, and that's fine too. And those should learn something from Syd Barret's life Could had been a millionaire rock star, women, expensive toys, children. He could had everything for the rest of his life. But he choose LSD. As a lot of people claim, LSD is a cool and harmless funny drug, right?. His life instead was: living in his mum house since 24 Yo, with his brain like a car crash, and all the time in the w…

I don't think you can speak authoritatively about Syd Barrett's life, or his mental health issues.

Those that can, do not agree that LSD was causative.

Syd was not the only person doing LSD in the 1960s, and if your argument boils down to "people with life-long major neurodivergence, who are living multiple years of extraordinarily stressful life, should not do huge amounts of psychedelic drugs" ... then OK! That's a good rule of thumb!

But the vast majority of people are not latent schizophrenics. And the vast majority of drug users could not approach Syd's consumption in quantity or duration.

So an argument from the same data is that occasional or even moderate use of LSD by almost every adult human, is perfectly safe.

...

Reframed: Every adult can make their own decisions about their personal level of risk tolerance. Hopefully the decision will be an informed one. Syd Barrett can be a huge terrifying red flag, or a bright illuminating green light, depending on the decisions you've made.

On one extreme of risk tolerance, you'd never leave the house. On the other extreme, (with some bad luck, some excellent luck, and a great deal of effort and resources!) you might approach Syd Barrett's lifestyle. Neither extreme is appropriate for most people.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#437

Post by mistermann »

sevensor wrote: post #416
tirant wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear the (negative) impact of our current technological drugs goes beyond the impact of traditional drugs. I’ve seen kids not even 3-4 years old already hooked to smartphone screens. Even toddlers around 1 year old with an smartphone mount in their stroller. Main impact on kids is lack of socialization, lack of emotional regulation and a complete impact on their capabilities to keep their attention. Those used to b…

Why are the moral panics always about the media diets of children? Let’s talk about old people for a minute. 1) They can be socially isolated in ways that few children are. An unsupervised septuagenarian can go literal days without speaking to another live human being. 2) They’re more technologically competent than we give them credit for, certainly enough to spend days doomscrolling their politically aligned newsfee…

>Why are the moral panics always about the media diets of children? Let’s talk about old people for a minute.

This same reasoning is highly applicable to how various "so terrible, they're a threat to X!" are constantly vilified, yet the Normies (who cause most of the problems) get a free pass.

Rigged popularity contests are a terrible way to run a world, yet we insist on it.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#438

Post by HelloMcFly »

chaps wrote: post #430
tremon wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with them having seen people close to them destroyed by drug use. But isn't this a false correlation, then? Were they destroyed by drug use, or by the daily misery of their ghetto neighborhood?

Imagine hearing someone's loved one dying to drug use and asking them, "But isn't this a false correlation?". What a deeply and unsettlingly cold question that lacks any potential for empathy.

Okay, but the person wasn't asking this of the family of a dying loved one, they were asking it in this space where ideas are discussed and examined. Yes, it would be disturbingly unempathetic to ask that question in such a circumstance, but asking it in this circumstance is neither cold, inappropriate, or a demonstration that the asker lacks empathy.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#439

Post by jader201 »

qwertox wrote: post #431
tirant wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear the (negative) impact of our current technological drugs goes beyond the impact of traditional drugs. I’ve seen kids not even 3-4 years old already hooked to smartphone screens. Even toddlers around 1 year old with an smartphone mount in their stroller. Main impact on kids is lack of socialization, lack of emotional regulation and a complete impact on their capabilities to keep their attention. Those used to b…

> I’ve seen kids not even 3-4 years old already hooked to smartphone screens. Even toddlers around 1 year old with an smartphone mount in their stroller. Now imagine that they would not be engaging with silly YouTube videos, but with an AI trying to get them to interact with them in order to learn to speak, to learn about the world. Things which parents can't dedicate enough time to. Then also give the kids ideas for…

Please no.

While what you describe may be better than YouTube/TV, there is no replacement for development through human interaction and contact.

Let’s not give parents another excuse to have devices babysit/raise their children.

EDIT: and if your post is being upvoted -- and it seems to be -- I hope it's by people that don't have children, and will later realize how bad of an idea this is once they do have children.

Re: Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

#440

Post by agency »

sevensor wrote: post #416
tirant wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear the (negative) impact of our current technological drugs goes beyond the impact of traditional drugs. I’ve seen kids not even 3-4 years old already hooked to smartphone screens. Even toddlers around 1 year old with an smartphone mount in their stroller. Main impact on kids is lack of socialization, lack of emotional regulation and a complete impact on their capabilities to keep their attention. Those used to b…

Why are the moral panics always about the media diets of children? Let’s talk about old people for a minute. 1) They can be socially isolated in ways that few children are. An unsupervised septuagenarian can go literal days without speaking to another live human being. 2) They’re more technologically competent than we give them credit for, certainly enough to spend days doomscrolling their politically aligned newsfee…

because children are undergoing a critical phase in their development that has no analogy for older populations? I'm not saying isolation among the elderly is not concerning, nor widespread phone/tech addiction among adults. But I think there’s ample reason to have particular concern for the effects on children.
Post reply on HN