21–30 of 91 posts
Should we include weed and booze in this as well?
Probably not weed, and definitely not alcohol. Chemical addiction is a physiological phenomenon. Behavior addictions are psychological.
Doubtful, they all work via the same underlying hardware and excitation of the Limbic system doesn't care for the causes.
I've been thinking about this a lot. In terms of political economy, there's a lot of reliance on the ideas of information, free will and rationality. To cut a long story short, if people have information about the market, they can use their knowledge of their own desires to act, which creates some sort of efficiency. Glossing over a load of stuff here because it's a large subject, but that's sort of the spiel you get…
I absolutely think things like loot boxes, sugar and gasoline should be regulated or taxed to decrease their potential to do damage. But at the end of the day you have to provide positive opportunities for people to do the productive thing.
The problem is not caused by markets or property rights. If anything, competition actually makes games least toxic. Look how pay2win games being replaced by vanity items selling games.
Should we include weed and booze in this as well?
The article does indeed mention them both >The nature of addiction has implications—more precisely, temptations—for businesses that sell habituating products. One is to encourage early and frequent consumption. Treat the lads, the saloonkeepers used to say, and you’ll have their money in the till when they’re adults. And the more they drink, the greater the profits. To this day, 80 percent of alcohol sales go to the…
I used to smoke weed all day everyday for 10 years, and knew a ton of others that did so. None of us were poor, all had good jobs and made good income.
Moreover, people that only smoke rarely and have never smoked get the wrong impression about what smoking all day does to you. I would hardly call it being 'stoned', more like being slightly buzzed and less anxious. I don't think anyone who didn't know me would have ever been able to tell, unless I smelled like weed or something.
I now don't smoke at all, and the difference in experience is pretty minimal. I feel about the same as I did when I was smoking constantly, which is a testament to the powerful ability for neuronal self-regulation in the brain; both on and off drugs.
I've been thinking about this a lot. In terms of political economy, there's a lot of reliance on the ideas of information, free will and rationality. To cut a long story short, if people have information about the market, they can use their knowledge of their own desires to act, which creates some sort of efficiency. Glossing over a load of stuff here because it's a large subject, but that's sort of the spiel you get…
Behaviour, especially widespread behaviour, is rarely irrational. Despite its reputation Sweden has become surprisingly unpragmatic in recent years. It is very easy to end up in a situation where you can't continue your studies, but you can't also enter the job market effectively. I absolutely think things like loot boxes, sugar and gasoline should be regulated or taxed to decrease their potential to do damage. But a…
Err, don't the two statements contradict each other?
(1) especially widespread behaviour, is rarely irrational
(2) Sweden has become surprisingly unpragmatic in recent years
I think usage of Capitalism here is a misnomer, because replacing 'capitalism' with 'human greed' or 'human fallibility' changes nothing. The problem is not caused by markets or property rights. If anything, competition actually makes games least toxic. Look how pay2win games being replaced by vanity items selling games.
From Adam Smith: "“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest."
To Gordon Gecko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed_Is_Good_(disambiguation)
Via countless others...
I think usage of Capitalism here is a misnomer, because replacing 'capitalism' with 'human greed' or 'human fallibility' changes nothing. The problem is not caused by markets or property rights. If anything, competition actually makes games least toxic. Look how pay2win games being replaced by vanity items selling games.
Yes, but capitalism is the system that says "human greed is good" and that basing everything self-interest turns out for "the best". From Adam Smith: "“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." To Gordon Gecko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed_Is_Good_(disambiguation) Via countless others...
I've been thinking about this a lot. In terms of political economy, there's a lot of reliance on the ideas of information, free will and rationality. To cut a long story short, if people have information about the market, they can use their knowledge of their own desires to act, which creates some sort of efficiency. Glossing over a load of stuff here because it's a large subject, but that's sort of the spiel you get…
Maybe we can take the lessons learned in adtech et al., and apply them to governing irrational people.
That will mean less "freedom", though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having worked in GameDev, one of the most flooring things I have faced is people asking me for me to introduce said addictive inducing systems and mechanisms.... They want the enjoyment, they want to be "addicted", they want a game "so good" that they can't put it down. This is what I'm talking about though. Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there w…
> there was no point in making a game addictive. This is what you are missing, they were already addictive , it was only not a wide spread thing because games in general didn't had mass appeal back then, it was a niche thing that could be ignored by the broader population. There's a quasi-infinite amount of stories of people becoming addicted to playing StarCraft Broodwar, and that game came in 1998, same with Quake,…
I think the important question is whether playing is impairing the person's ability to function normally.
I've been thinking about this a lot. In terms of political economy, there's a lot of reliance on the ideas of information, free will and rationality. To cut a long story short, if people have information about the market, they can use their knowledge of their own desires to act, which creates some sort of efficiency. Glossing over a load of stuff here because it's a large subject, but that's sort of the spiel you get…
To the detriment of people demanding their "freedom", it turns out people don't always make the best choices for themselves, and for their societies at large. Maybe we can take the lessons learned in adtech et al., and apply them to governing irrational people. That will mean less "freedom", though...