Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists who make apps addictive

1843magazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#31

Post by blablabla123 »

netcan wrote: post #4

The development of online software over the last 10-15 years is a case study in feedback loops. It really has flipped the paradigm. For lotus notes, success is when a user makes the software do what she wants, like sending an email. In the modern equivalent, the software (designer) succeeds, when the user does what the software wants, like sending an email.

> In the modern equivalent, the software (designer) succeeds, when the user does what the software wants

After all that's what the creators always wanted, sometimes more, sometimes less successful. Thinking of myself, I found technology much more addictive 15-20 years ago. I cannot seriously imagine myself playing these very stupid online games that are full of add-ons you need to buy and weird, unnecessary instructions to 'guide' the user.

Most really addictive things were created by accident like Flappy bird or HN.

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#32

Post by wasdfff »

all2 wrote: post #25
gaius wrote: post #21

I don’t use FB myself anymore but my wife still does and this morning she showed me some posts by a friend of ours. He’s... troubled anyway, but recently he seems to have become addicted to self-harming and posting the photos on FB for the reactions and comments. Congratulations, FB scientists, this is your contribution to the world.

Their contribution is profiting from his self harm, which is worse in some ways.

How do these researchers justify such a lack of empathy in their product? If I worked for a company that makes a product that does objective harm to society, like Facebook or a missile, I would feel like I wasted years of my life as I would be giving great effort to something where the outcome can only be regression, not improvement of anyone’s life. Exploiting these behavioral feedback loops for profit is cruel and dystopian. I already feel terribly for all the people I encounter who could be so much more focused on their own ambitions if they weren’t spending 4+ hours a day trapped in the infinite scroll of social media. I know how much of a setback that kind of addiction can be, because it used to be me.

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#33

Post by mental1896 »

ryandrake wrote: post #27
koliber wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every UI presents an opinion. In many cases, that opinion is unclear, muddled, or counterintuitive. As developers and designers pay more attention to the UX, that opinion becomes more clear and unilateral. In the end, the decision to like a piece of software or website depends on how well your expectations align with the opinion that the UI expresses. If you feel manipulated, it means that you did not want to do some…

Look at the path “configuration defaults” have taken. Whenever software has settings or can do things multiple ways, there is usually a default out-of-the-box setting. Long time ago, the default was often whatever was easiest to program or took up the fewest compute resources: the variable is zero initialized by the OS, so therefore the setting will default to off. Then, the rule became: the default should be the way…

On the bright side, the more restrictive these apps become, the more susceptible they become to competition.

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#34

Post by piyh »

I found this youtube talk a while back. It's given by a consultant who's selling these skills and has slides titled "Use of coercive monitization".

Some of the more disturbing parts are when he highlights forum posts about targeting whales and people who say things like "I have to do every challenge and every side quest and it takes away from my enjoyment of the game" and "I've restarted this game hundreds of times because my character isn't perfect".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zex3b2mDnUw&t=17m16s

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#35

Post by piyh »

blablabla123 wrote: post #31
netcan wrote: post #4

The development of online software over the last 10-15 years is a case study in feedback loops. It really has flipped the paradigm. For lotus notes, success is when a user makes the software do what she wants, like sending an email. In the modern equivalent, the software (designer) succeeds, when the user does what the software wants, like sending an email.

> In the modern equivalent, the software (designer) succeeds, when the user does what the software wants After all that's what the creators always wanted, sometimes more, sometimes less successful. Thinking of myself, I found technology much more addictive 15-20 years ago. I cannot seriously imagine myself playing these very stupid online games that are full of add-ons you need to buy and weird, unnecessary instructi…

Your definition of "really addictive" is only yours. To find the broadly addictive apps, open up top grossing in an app store and count how many places down the slot machine games are.

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#36

Post by piyh »

fegu wrote: post #16
logicallee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, this is probably the most insightful comment I've read in the past 2 years on HN. Thanks. It is also a giant market opportunity. If there were a video site for tutorials (in every field) that just show what you want and not emphasize "user engagement" (time on site) instead of, "hey what's up youtube justin here and today we're going to take a look at how to (click, snip, tie, step, whatever). Intro music. So la…

Made me chuckle. Spot on. Also why I only go to YouTube as a last resort.

Being able to open up and read the video transcript has saved me hours

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#37

Post by okmokmz »

wasdfff wrote: post #32
all2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their contribution is profiting from his self harm, which is worse in some ways.

How do these researchers justify such a lack of empathy in their product? If I worked for a company that makes a product that does objective harm to society, like Facebook or a missile, I would feel like I wasted years of my life as I would be giving great effort to something where the outcome can only be regression, not improvement of anyone’s life. Exploiting these behavioral feedback loops for profit is cruel and…

>How do these researchers justify such a lack of empathy in their product?

$$$$ and/or personality disorders I imagine

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#38

Post by logicallee »

piyh wrote: post #36
fegu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Made me chuckle. Spot on. Also why I only go to YouTube as a last resort.

Being able to open up and read the video transcript has saved me hours

it's weird, because we pay with our attention. Would people "pay" for a 7 second video that shows exactly what they want perfectly clearly, by watching a 30 second advertisement? Maybe yes, maybe no, but those 7 seconds are more valuable than 2 minutes of filler, during which you have to watch the ad anyway. I think there's room for some kind of micropayment for short tutorials (7 seconds) but I think attention (attention to ads, i.e. sitting through one) might not be it.

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#39

Post by staplers »

xte wrote: post #3

Hum, mumble mumble... I may have experimented something like that, having become an Emacs addicted... But I'm sure enough that no Emacs devs work with such theory in mind :-) Maybe I also have a rebound effect against certain platforms/apps/digital jails... How many sharing this around here? Anyway, seriously: in the history we (as society) learn to distinguish good and bad things, generally the hard way, we develop…

Makes you wonder if a jail can be called such if it is made "fun". Eventually the need to maintain "fun" disappears if no options to leave are present.

Re: Scientists who make apps addictive

#40

Post by all2 »

okmokmz wrote: post #37
wasdfff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do these researchers justify such a lack of empathy in their product? If I worked for a company that makes a product that does objective harm to society, like Facebook or a missile, I would feel like I wasted years of my life as I would be giving great effort to something where the outcome can only be regression, not improvement of anyone’s life. Exploiting these behavioral feedback loops for profit is cruel and…

>How do these researchers justify such a lack of empathy in their product? $$$$ and/or personality disorders I imagine

Willful ignorance or cognitive dissonance may also explain some of this. See Nazi Germany: citizens knew something was going on, but they willed the whispering away.
Post reply on HN