I know DSM V, what is the ICD 10?
a catalogue for diseases
Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#12[flagged]
Junk food addiction (your word, not TFA’s) is also not in the DSM V, so appealing to authority like that or hanging on the word addiction gets you nowhere as far as whether the comparison to social media is interesting.
For what it’s worth gambling addiction is in the DSM-V. What’s it’s direct route to biochemically alter the brain, like nicotine and food intake?
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#13[flagged]
Pretending a problem doesn't exist just because it has indirect chemical reactions instead of direct chemical reactions is dangerously stupid.
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#14[flagged]
I'm pretty sure all things you experience in this world can "directly biochemically alter the body". This isn't all that pedantic a point either. Your body directly produces neurochemicals from sense data, and, that includes the photons bouncing off of a like button, the particular movement of a scrolling finger, or the sonic vibration of a phone notification.
It wasn't so long ago that people balked at food addiction too. We are now in an era of mass A-B tested and optimised heuristics, the things we can do to manipulate the human brain are more understood.
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#15On the basis of the headline alone, I would say "cigarettes" because I have quit two different social media sites using the technique described in the book "Allen Carr's Easy Way To Stop Smoking"
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#16[flagged]
Doesn’t looking at porn cause a biochemical reaction in the brain? Just seems like the inputs are a lot more complex than you’re making them out to be.
> cause a biochemical reaction in the brain?
That's rather meaningless.
I don't think there's much of anything you can look at, or do, or think about, without brain activity being somehow involved. What with the brain being where thoughts live.
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#17[dead]
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#18[flagged]
I'm pretty sure all things you experience in this world can "directly biochemically alter the body". This isn't all that pedantic a point either. Your body directly produces neurochemicals from sense data, and, that includes the photons bouncing off of a like button, the particular movement of a scrolling finger, or the sonic vibration of a phone notification. It wasn't so long ago that people balked at food addictio…
I mean there is the introduction of a chemical into the blood stream that acts on neurons. This does not happen with screens and speakers.
Re: Is social media more like cigarettes or junk food?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn’t looking at porn cause a biochemical reaction in the brain? Just seems like the inputs are a lot more complex than you’re making them out to be.
> cause a biochemical reaction in the brain? That's rather meaningless. I don't think there's much of anything you can look at, or do, or think about, without brain activity being somehow involved. What with the brain being where thoughts live.
I mean there is the introduction of a chemical into the blood stream that acts on neurons. This does not happen with screens and speakers. It is not meaningless. In fact it's a super important distinction.
By pretending that multimedia can directly alter someone's behavior you throw out the entire idea of human volition. Even if it were true on some level our entire legal code and indeed western society is based on the idea of humans making choices and being responsible for them. Unless they're directly altered like with psychocative chemicals (and sometimes even then). The stimuli you see and hear are not drugs and regulating them as drugs will do more harm and cause more use of force then it prevents.