Technology “Addiction” • Hacker News Board

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#21

Post by dalbasal » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

re-al wrote: post #7

There 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.

I think it's worth noting a difference between first & second hand perspective. It's generally other people (eg parents) who were critical of radio/tv/comic/etc use. They call it addiction.

With technology "addiction," there is a lot of first hand experience. People consider themselves addicted, and can't stop doing X without external help or abstinence devices.

If someone wants, tries and fails to abstain from anything, is that not an operative definition of addiction?

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#22

Post by ethbr0 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #8

I 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.…

Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will.

If someone wilfully chooses to take a substance / perform an action that has subsequent negative effects (potentially including detoxing), then that seems a fair individual decision.

If someone takes a substance that destroys or decreases their future ability to choose not to take that substance in the future... that's a completely different level of danger.

... I'm not sure which categories social media and mobile gaming fall into.

My gut says if it's not the latter yet, then that's only because we / they haven't gotten there yet. Because the latter is obviously a more lucrative business to be in.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#23

Post by Sigmoid » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

caymanjim wrote: post #5

This 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 satisf…

Agreed.

I personally think one problem with this article is their cult following of science. I guess there isn't conclusive scientific evidence that social media or video games are addictive or detrimental to you. But should I wait possible decades for more conclusive research? I rather not. I know I have been addicted to video games and it has negativity impacted my life.

The reason people are making these 'assumptions' about social media/video games being addictive is because they can see it in their own life and the life of others. The 'hard science' this guy is talking about just hasn't catched up.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#24

Post by dalbasal » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #22

dalbasal wrote: post #8

I 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.…

Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will. If someone wilfully chooses to take a substance / perform an action that has subsequent negative effects (potentially including detoxing), then that seems a fair individual decision. If someone takes a substance that destroys or decreases their future ability to choose not to take that substance in the future... that's…

Both, I suppose.

Once you start seeing people locking away their smartphone, because they don't trust themselves to abstain or moderate... that's very clearly an attempt to impose their own will on themselves. Call it whatever you want, but it's a lot like a scene from trainspotting.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#25

Post by rasen58 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

caymanjim wrote: post #5

This 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 satisf…

Do you have any advice for breaking video game addiction? I feel like it affects me a lot.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#26

Post by approxim8ion » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:30 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #22

dalbasal wrote: post #8

I 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.…

Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will. If someone wilfully chooses to take a substance / perform an action that has subsequent negative effects (potentially including detoxing), then that seems a fair individual decision. If someone takes a substance that destroys or decreases their future ability to choose not to take that substance in the future... that's…

The problem is it's hard to classify decisions as willful if your judgement is impaired, don't you think? I might think I'm doing this consciously, but I could well be brainwashed/conditioned into making the choice.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#27

Post by dalbasal » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

TimPC wrote: post #19

dalbasal wrote: post #8

I 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.…

He doesn’t argue that the behaviours aren’t harmful at all but rather often manifest as a coping mechanism for another condition. He thinks it’s a dangerous idea to treat social media addiction as something to treat directly rather than something that likely indicates another problem. I don’t think it’s perfect because actual addictions are often caused by other problems (ex. Depression). I really wish the expert was…

Yeah... maybe (obviously) I shouldn't have commented without listening, caveats or no.

That said, this is also true of heroin addiction. It is highly related to other, often social, malaises. This has been experimentally proven in rodents. Lonely, unhappy rodents are far more addiction prone. It has been observed in people too, notably the vietnam war example.

I don't even think there is a common treatment for alcoholism anymore that doesn't relate to "underlying" issues. AA, and related group therapies are all about creating a supportive community. Social isolation is a major factor in addiction.

That's kind of what I meant. These hard lines don't exist, and I think many that do exist for research purposes. Hard to study something that isn't discreetly defined. Physical withdrawal symptoms were once a primary researchers' definition of addiction, even though addicts rarely think of it that way.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#28

Post by jl6 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #22

dalbasal wrote: post #8

I 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.…

Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will. If someone wilfully chooses to take a substance / perform an action that has subsequent negative effects (potentially including detoxing), then that seems a fair individual decision. If someone takes a substance that destroys or decreases their future ability to choose not to take that substance in the future... that's…

Feels like you are drawing a distinction between harms, and recursive harms.

Harmful things can be analyzed; the risks can be quantified and weighed up against the benefits; the downside can be limited.

Recursively harmful things - which not only cause harm but precipitate further rounds of harm - are harder to analyze and have potentially infinite downside.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#29

Post by twodave » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

I'm no scholar or researcher, just someone who's experienced impulsive behavior as a regular old human. I'd categorize any activity that attempts to short-circuit the usual reward center of the brain as potentially addictive. Using an addictive substance or technology isn't in itself an addiction, rather the point we start making unhealthy choices to support our use (e.g. choosing to stay home instead of hang out with friends, skipping meals, lying, etc.) is where the world of the addict begins.

Video games short-circuit our reward center with achievements, making the effort involved in feeling a sense of accomplishment much less than it should be.

Pornography and casual sex short-circuit the effort involved to consummate a fulfilling relationship with something much less than it should be.

Drugs short-circuit the process of personal growth, removing pain and introducing happy feelings that don't align with our current situation.

Food as a drug can combat feelings of loneliness, though the effects of the resulting obesity can drive us to isolation.

None of the feelings or sensations brought on by these things are inherently bad or wrong. They all share in common the fact that chasing after pleasure or sensation puts the cart before the horse, as if one could actually be fulfilled by these things instead of them being effects caused by the real things, those things we're short-circuiting. Addiction fine-tunes the brain so that real, wholesome things start to seem unfulfilling, even boring. It's a real shame because those real, wholesome things are often the only way out.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#30

Post by caddemon » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

re-al wrote: post #7

There 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.

It seems to me this is the first era where the content is practically endless, which I think is a meaningful distinction that can make phone/social media worse than prior technologies.

Growing up I spent a lot of time on AIM and then texting with one of those keyboard cellphones, but I only messaged with my immediate friend group - so it was limited for the most part to a specific after school window. My grandfather's day used to revolve around his favorite radio shows, but those had a set air time. When they were over, they were over.

Getting invested in books or video games is a bit different, but even those were limited in the sense you would have to pay for each particular book or game, or at least make regular trips to the library.

Now a days there is 0 cost or inconvenience to obtaining more content, with no real time restrictions. So it is all too easy to not realize how long you've just spent on social media or to stay up much too late scrolling on your phone. Filling time with your phone is the path of least resistance moreso than it is something to look forward to.

I think the fact the content has no clear stopping points also contributes to that feeling that you haven't actually done anything after hours on social media. Obviously it is not productive time, but it somehow manages to feel like nothing.