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

Technology “Addiction”

jasonfeifer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 115 posts

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#61

Post by lolinder »

defaultname wrote: post #48
louis___ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. The " discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.) " rethoric is always pushed by lobbies for industries who do not want to be considered responsible for the harm their products cause. For example, MacDonalds and other fast-food producers have been pushing that in order to fight rampant obesity, people should do more sport, rather than have limited access to…

I've eaten at McDonalds. Yet I only eat there infrequently, usually when traveling and want something quick. I'm not obese. Did they forget to put the "addictive" additive in mine? Misusing the word addictive to mean "things that aren't beneficial, and can be detrimental in excess" is not helpful to anyone. People who are depressed self-sabotage in a wide variety of ways. They sleep all day. Maybe overeat. Maybe sit…

There are also hundreds of millions of people who drink socially and never become alcoholics. Are the hundred million alcoholics "people with zero responsibility or control", or is it more likely that some bodies react differently to certain addictive substances than other bodies?

If you allow for different reactions to alcohol, why could the same not be true for sugar and fat?

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#62

Post by possibleworlds »

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…

“Actual addictions” are caused by actually addictive substances or patterns of behaviour. Genetic predisposition is also a significant and often misunderstood factor. Yes there can be links to underlying mental health issues, but addictions are primarily cause by things that are actually addictive. Nicotine, for example, causes immediate withdrawals and cravings in the short term, and basically rewires your brain chemistry with sustained long term use. Addiction to nicotine is not caused by depression, it is caused by nicotine.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#63

Post by grenoire »

thegrimmest wrote: post #59
grenoire wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, this is about the equivalent of telling somebody with a substance dependence (I think weed is likely the best analogue, with a weaker physiological dependence, that is) to just quit it . These devices are not inhaled, injected, ingested, but they are very much a tool in releasing hormones.

What if the person doesn't want to quit? What to take into your body and how to regulate your health are deeply personal choices. Why not just let people make them?

I didn't remark on that but I'll entertain your comment: I think it's about having the facilities to educate people about the effects, and help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#64

Post by dahart »

Took some time to read the transcript before jumping to conclusions, but the whole episode never gets passed the sticking point that “addiction” has a clinical meaning, and many people are using the word in the popular more common and less strict meaning of the word, simply compulsive behavior.

The problem here is that the non-clinical “addiction” is a valid definition. It appears in the dictionary (see #2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction). People actually understand what it means accurately as well, nobody is getting confused and hearing the clinical definition. I’d agree that researchers into social media problems should avoid it, but the misuse is not by and large confusing or misleading most people.

Instead of discussing the validity of the popular meaning, it’s framed and titled as “not addiction”, which just plays on the confusion of the term rather than clarifying or offering alternatives!

“Caffeine addiction” is routinely thrown around, and everyone knows what it means. People who know the clinical term say that there is “caffeine dependence”, not addiction. This episode didn’t offer any alternative words for what social media is doing, it just stayed stuck on “not addiction”. They could have suggested talking about dependence or habit forming or compulsions or a weakness for social media. The author could have guided the discussion towards establishing the right terminology for what social media does, but instead chooses to re-emphasize the idea that “addiction” is the wrong word over and over again.

> The hallmark of addiction is that it interferes with social or family or occupational life. But when you use social media or the internet, you are generally participating in your social or family or occupational life.

This is an unfortunately dismissive and pretty misleading framing IMO. We all know that the harmful sides of social media are exactly the parts that don’t involve family and occupation life, and that those parts of the internet are enormous. The article discussed Netflix, which doesn’t involve social interaction. YouTube is mostly not friends talking to friends. Qanon didn’t happen because people were talking with their family and co-workers.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#65

Post by grenoire »

to11mtm wrote: post #53
grenoire wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, this is about the equivalent of telling somebody with a substance dependence (I think weed is likely the best analogue, with a weaker physiological dependence, that is) to just quit it . These devices are not inhaled, injected, ingested, but they are very much a tool in releasing hormones.

You're absolutely correct. A few years ago I went gluten free to see if it helped with some other health issues (it did, NCGS.) So, between late 2016 and the end of 2020, I avoided gluten as best as I could. Which all but eliminates most fast food and the majority of prepackaged foods/snacks/etc. Portion control became incredibly easy. I ate when I was hungry. Sometimes people would comment on how little I was eating…

I think the same treatment is necessary for these sorts of foods. It's hard to regulate both in terms of classification (what're the thresholds?) and regulation (how to get politicians to take action?). It's going to take time, but I'm hopeful.

Happy to hear you managed to cut out the junk for a long time, I hope you haven't rebounded in full!

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#66

Post by travisjungroth »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #47
travisjungroth wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes. My experience is that they're not just similar, they're the same. The tug of a vape pen and the tug of a phone are indistinguishable from another except for the object they point to. If I didn't have one on me, I'd reach for the other.

Interesting to hear similar experiences, I haven't heard this talked about much, specifically with cigarettes and social media. But yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't go so far to say exactly the same for me, the "withdrawal" feeling of not having smoked a cigarettes was stronger for me than anything with social media, providing another dimension. But yeah, I identify with what you are saying, the circumstances and feelin…

The manifestations of the addictions are certainly different. I'm really experienced in this. I've quit many addictions. Some of them many times!

In a context that I'm not going to share on HN right now (find and message me if you're curious) I set an intention to face my addictions. I named six things that had pulled on me in my life. I was going to work through them, one by one. But when the time came, I realized there was no "one by one". They were all the same. Six sides of the same die.

The root thing was an aversion to the present moment. A refusal to face whatever was going on right then. At its deepest: a separation from awareness.

That's what caused me to reach for the vape pen, the phone, the addiction die. I was literally turning away from something. What pulls me out is to face the craving. Just let it in. Just be aware. Then, maybe, something behind that will reveal itself and I'll face that, too.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#67

Post by dalbasal »

slibhb wrote: post #40
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.…

> People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though I'm sure they would if tobacco was as hard to get as heroin. We often find ourselves in this position where we have to choose between a broad and a narrow defintion (for addiction in this case). Maybe there is no right way to decide but I'd say we've been too often going with the broad definition. We tell ourselves "there aren't real dividing lines"…

There's a difference between meaningless an imprecise. Words like fascism, species, decency, beauty, and such do have meaning. They just don't have precise, F=ma like meaning.

There's also no problem defining and measuring addiction using discrete definitions such as withdrawal symptom severity, rehabilitation success rates or neurochemical signature. The problem arises when researchers (or anyone) then believes that this is the definition of addiction, when in reality it is a definition contrived for the purpose os (valid and useful) research. In a different context, it might be useful to think of these as indicators of... Usefulness is contextual.

Discrete language is fine. It just isn't the way we communicate normally, and it's impossible to use only discrete language to describe things we don't understand fully.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#68

Post by thegrimmest »

grenoire wrote: post #63
thegrimmest wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the person doesn't want to quit? What to take into your body and how to regulate your health are deeply personal choices. Why not just let people make them?

I didn't remark on that but I'll entertain your comment: I think it's about having the facilities to educate people about the effects, and help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to.

> facilities to educate people about the effects

I think we already do a pretty good job at this, don't you? Drug awareness education in one form or another has been part of the curriculum since the 19th century.

> help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to

We have lots of NGOs that are setup to help drug addicts. Are they not doing a good job?

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#69

Post by grenoire »

thegrimmest wrote: post #68
grenoire wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't remark on that but I'll entertain your comment: I think it's about having the facilities to educate people about the effects, and help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to.

> facilities to educate people about the effects I think we already do a pretty good job at this, don't you? Drug awareness education in one form or another has been part of the curriculum since the 19th century. > help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to We have lots of NGOs that are setup to help drug addicts. Are they not doing a good job?

You missed my point, sorry if it wasn't clear: These should exist for 'device addicts' and addiction.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#70

Post by jrochkind1 »

travisjungroth wrote: post #66
jrochkind1 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting to hear similar experiences, I haven't heard this talked about much, specifically with cigarettes and social media. But yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't go so far to say exactly the same for me, the "withdrawal" feeling of not having smoked a cigarettes was stronger for me than anything with social media, providing another dimension. But yeah, I identify with what you are saying, the circumstances and feelin…

The manifestations of the addictions are certainly different. I'm really experienced in this. I've quit many addictions. Some of them many times! In a context that I'm not going to share on HN right now (find and message me if you're curious) I set an intention to face my addictions. I named six things that had pulled on me in my life. I was going to work through them, one by one. But when the time came, I realized t…

Yup that absolutely resonates. (And many of us are probably guessing the same thing about the setting you're implying as well and I have some things to say about that too, but HN doesn't have a DM function).

How do you relate to the claims in the OP about: "For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression."

While I guess he's trying to say that's what makes it different than "real addiction", in my experience and that of many people I know, this is hitting the nail on the head for many experiences of "conventional" addiction too.

Your experiences/thoughts?

Perhaps this is related to your statement about "maybe, something behind that will reveal itself and I'll face that, too" Although OP author seems to suggest that as a result you should only focus on the "thing behind" and ignore the "addiction" that is just a manifestation of the deeper thing, but what I think I'm picking up and agree with from you is, sometimes you need to "deal with" the addiction to get to the thing behind it. Both/and/simultaneous.

Post reply on HN