Technology “Addiction”
jasonfeifer.com
Technology “Addiction”
1–10 of 115 posts
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#2Feel like this is all semantics. Sure the term "addiction" isn't fully applicable but the claim that because it's not addictive that there is nothing to the premise is spurious. I suggest everyone read the hacking of the American mind by Ronald lustig.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#3I say this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm reminded of Bob Saget's scene in the movie Half Baked. It's vulgar, be warned.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#4"You can't be addicted to technology because people have historically panicked over other addictions like novels and hobbies" is such a vapid argument. Human beings have a strong propensity for addiction to stimulation, in whatever form they can get it. Novels, sports, hobbies, social media, whatever. We know this, we want this, and we're willing to give it to each other in increasingly convenient ways. Player pianos, novels, television, smartphone, the march of convenient stimulation goes ever on. That doesn't stop it from being an addiction.
There is a dangerous threshold where the stimulation becomes so easy it threatens our everyday lives. My sister in law is a kindergarten teacher. She says kids ask her on a regular basis how to get their parents to talk to them instead of looking at their phones.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#5This is a horrible format for providing the transcript, and a long and boring conversation, so I didn't read much of it...but from what I can tell, they're just trying to redefine the word 'addiction' to a narrow, specific, and arbitrary meaning. I've consumed plenty of supposedly-addictive chemicals, and aside from nicotine, none of them have the kind of pyschological hold over me--or rewarding brain-chemical satisfaction--as video games. That's a more narrow focus than "technology", but these days everything is being gamified, so there's no clear delineation.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#6Disclaimer: I did not listen to the podcast, I merely skimmed the transcript.
Is 'addiction' to social media the same as an addiction to heroin? No of course not. But it is evident that some people have great trouble to not have it control their life to a certain degree. If addiction is defined as "a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences" I think you could argue that some people are addicted to social media. Just because you're not injecting something into your bloodstream doesn't mean it can't be an addiction, many lives are destroyed by gambling addiction for example.
Also from the blurb:
>discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.)
It's always you who has to break the addiction. I don't see how this makes it an "addiction" instead of just an addiction without the scare quotes.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#7There is an interesting point there - that new things are compelling in a way that can't really justify the effort we put into it. That radio was compelling in its time. I don't have a problem with using the word 'addiction' though.
But the tech we have now is coming through much faster - there is no way that we can play with it in our 'natural' way (over years) and overcome it. I think it is an overwhelming change.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#8I haven't listened to the episode, so this may be off, but...
our broad use of the word “addiction” can cause real harm.
I would say that the opposite is (at least) as harmful. Quantifying and medically defining addiction narrowly has led to a lot of harm. Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction?
Withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism are among the most dangerous, and deadly, much worse than cocaine. That doesn't quite capture what addiction is though. Withdrawal symptoms are short lived, and addicts of many substances are extremely likely to regress well after this part. Cannabis can be habit forming. There are no withdrawal symptoms, and motivated quitters seem to have good success rates... even returning to moderate use. OTOH, it is a very common experience that someone decides not to consume... but does, repeatedly, with impacts on other areas of life.
We know that context and comorbidity is very important.
I think there's no doubt that technology creates impulsive & compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to.
It's all complex. There aren't real dividing lines between procrastination, self discipline issues addiction and such. People call it addiction because it walks and quacks like addiction. I'm more inclined to say that research definitions are incorrect that layman ones. If a researcher narrows the definition to observable neurochemistry or withdrawal symptoms, excluding other addictions with similar behavioural effects... who is wrong here?
That said, I haven't listened. Adding depth and nuance to our understanding of different addiction (or addiction like) experiences may be useful.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#9We’re reaching a tipping point in our society where some peoples lived experience is primarily digital, and the physical is an accessory. Our world, peoples health, and the things we need for a fulfilling life will suffer as a result.
Re: Technology “Addiction”
#10I haven't listened to the episode, so this may be off, but... our broad use of the word “addiction” can cause real harm. I would say that the opposite is (at least) as harmful. Quantifying and medically defining addiction narrowly has led to a lot of harm. Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though.…
Really interesting take. Is there a 'more' missing from second-last para?