Cal Newport on Why We'll Look Back at Our Smartphones Like Cigarettes

Post by jpttsn » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

Pharmakon wrote: post #98

skohan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that is absolutely true, nicotine is not meaningfully toxic on its own as far as I'm aware. That said, it doesn't mean it's not dangerous. For instance, Opiates were once thought of as a "perfect anesthetic" because they achieve the desired effect with little to no toxicity, but we've all seen how that played out over the last few decades.

Nicotine is quite toxic at moderately high doses, ask any farmer who works with nicotinoid pesticides, or any ER attending. Nicotine is a potent neurotoxin, it’s just that typical use from smoking and food falls below the threshold for poisoning your nAChRs receptors. However with vaping, that’s no longer the case, especially when people spill their vaping liquid on clothing or skin.

Post by chrisweekly » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

kashyapc wrote: post #127

blub wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Prof. C also discuss the benefits of mixing focused time with communication and idea exchange time? E.g: closed door work with open work areas. I encountered a similar idea in "The New Science of Building Great Teams" by Alex Pentland, where the concept of exploration is introduced: "The best team players also connect their teammates with one another and spread ideas around. And they are appropriately explorator…

Not quite. In my view, Prof. C's work is more fundamental in nature; he doesn't prescribe anything particular. But describes what works, based on his observations, and lets us judge for ourselves. Among other things, he goes in detail (with studies backing up his points) on what provides "optimal experience" to humans. And covers topics like "order in consciousness", "sense of self", "entropy", "freedom", "purpose",…

Post by kashyapc » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #133

kashyapc wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. In my view, Prof. C's work is more fundamental in nature; he doesn't prescribe anything particular. But describes what works, based on his observations, and lets us judge for ourselves. Among other things, he goes in detail (with studies backing up his points) on what provides "optimal experience" to humans. And covers topics like "order in consciousness", "sense of self", "entropy", "freedom", "purpose",…

Thanks, yes, this. Rel to your 2nd quote, an explanation might be found in the "experiencing self" vs "remembering self", which IIRC Kahneman mentions in the intro to "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow."

Post by anu7df » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

Post by skorbenko » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 8:26 PM UTC

kashyapc wrote: post #108

keiferski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This book follows the recent trend of: find obvious slightly un-talked-about idea, create a fancy sounding term to describe it (preferably with as few words as possible - one is best, like Blink or Outliers .) These words should be vague and have hundreds of meanings - 'work', 'deep', or 'source', for example. Then, while you could summarize the idea in a single page, write 100+ pages framing the issue as a fundament…

Newport is on a 3-book contract[1] on more or less the same subject with slightly different framing. So he's obliged to drum-up attention about it. Also as someone else pointed out in a different thread, Newport places too much attention on "quantity"; it doesn't sit quite well with me. Yes, his bigger point is entirely valid (and I appreciate him bringing it to our attention), but no—there is not enough material to…