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

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#81

Post by jrochkind1 »

travisjungroth wrote: post #73
jrochkind1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Implying it's not a real addiction because it's a coping mechanism is so off. Like you're not really an alcoholic if you just drink to escape the trauma from when you went to war. My understanding is that addiction is avoidance at its core. You're either avoiding the cravings, the withdrawals, or something else all together. There doesn't have to be some other underlying issue. People get hooked on opiates in hospita…

Aside from the obvious that they are using opioids to avoid the "underlying issue" of physical pain, I wonder if those whose prescribed hospital opioid use becomes addiction (vs those whom it doesn't) are more likely to be those with underlying "somethings in their life" they are trying to avoid. But then, who doesn't have underlying "somethings", so.

At any rate, I will agree it's not a useful diagnostic to determine if something is "really" addiction or not. It may be useful self-reflection for "treating" the addiction though. (Or may not, at any rate if the person isn't recognizing it there is no value to forcing them to try to fit to your narrative).

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#82

Post by jrochkind1 »

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.…

> 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.

I suspect if we continue on the path of criminalizing tobacco use, this could change... That isn't a difference between the two drugs chemically, I think, but between their social contexts (specifically criminalization/expense).

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#83

Post by bumby »

thegrimmest wrote: post #77
bumby wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I agree with you but think it’s also important to recognize the devils advocate position. > I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that humans aren’t as capable of making rational decisions, or at least not nearly as rational as we’d like to think. In the context of systems like nationalized healthcare, this can become a negative externality. If I’m responsible…

> I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health. Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.

>One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them.

Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just means I know how to balance the rights of the individual with the overall welfare of society.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#84

Post by kempbellt »

rasen58 wrote: post #25
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.

I used to play console games a lot, but when I got laid off from a job I pawned my Xbox. Haven't regretted it even for a minute, and I sleep more...

PC games are tough because I built my PC for everything - VR, mining, development, etc. It can run just about any game, and I have hundreds in my Steam library. The tough part is that I see it as a valuable asset for other things - makes it hard for me to want to sell it, but if I were to get rid of it I doubt I'd miss gaming much. I've found that unplugging it and putting all the components in a closet makes it not worth the effort to play a game. I only break it out for projects.

I used to play phone games a lot on while commuting in NYC. Since I moved away and don't have that commute time, I uninstalled them all. That quick satisfaction I'd get from dumb games like candy crush or whatever, is no longer alluring. The "wins" are unfulfilling, and the ads and annoying upselling are enough of a deterrence to keep me from installing any games.

My only advice is to remove your access to them, or make it not worth your time to access them. You'll quickly find other ways to fill your time.

Just about every gaming experience I've had is feels like an unfulfilling time sink, but until you feel this way, it will be a tough temptation to break.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#85

Post by jrochkind1 »

rusk wrote: post #15

Whether you are “addicted” to something or not (and what defines “addiction”) is the wrong question, in my opinion. The correct one is whether your repeated, compulsive behaviour is affecting anyone else. If you knew it was, could you stop?

or if you like how it's affecting you, and if not, can stop.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#86

Post by MattRix »

twodave wrote: post #78
MattRix wrote: post #60

Was a bit annoying to see that Nir’s main counter examples were “Do you want Netflix to make less engaging shows? Do you want to make less engaging podcasts?”. I don’t know if anyone says they’re addicted to podcasts, but either way those clearly aren’t the most addictive things out there… and on top of that, services like Netflix could easily add in simple screens like “hey, youve watched 5 episodes in a row, would…

>modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. I may be in the minority, but as a 36-year-old I think the opposite is true. As a teenager I was very loyal to just a handful (3-5) video games, with one in particular (Subspace, later known as Continuum) taking up most of my playtime. In those days it was actually the community that made games sticky. I would feel as if I were le…

Ha I’m also 36! To be clear I don’t mean modern games are “better” games, that’s obviously subjective. I mean that the design techniques are more advanced. Games have evolved as designers learn which mechanics and systems are more compelling. There are less rough edges, less places to get stuck… more enticing rewards, more carefully designed progression paths, etc.

This is especially true in most modern “service based” games. Fortnite is an obvious example where there are certain rewards and upgrades that can only be earned by playing every day, and playing at least X hours per season, etc.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#87

Post by ghodith »

dalbasal wrote: post #27
TimPC wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alcoho…

“This has been experimentally proven in rodents”

If you are talking about the rat park[0] series of experiments, that conclusion has hardly been “experimentally proven.” There are many replication issues and the authors themselves don’t support the popular conclusion often taken from their research.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#88

Post by twodave »

MattRix wrote: post #86
twodave wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. I may be in the minority, but as a 36-year-old I think the opposite is true. As a teenager I was very loyal to just a handful (3-5) video games, with one in particular (Subspace, later known as Continuum) taking up most of my playtime. In those days it was actually the community that made games sticky. I would feel as if I were le…

Ha I’m also 36! To be clear I don’t mean modern games are “better” games, that’s obviously subjective. I mean that the design techniques are more advanced. Games have evolved as designers learn which mechanics and systems are more compelling. There are less rough edges, less places to get stuck… more enticing rewards, more carefully designed progression paths, etc. This is especially true in most modern “service base…

For sure--it's kind of sad they don't even have to hide it.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#89

Post by hxtk »

thegrimmest wrote: post #57
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…

> rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods. So individuals are not responsible for their decisions? I personally would rather not live in a world where my choices are artificially limited by someone's idea of what is "good for me". I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself, and willing to accept consequences of my mistakes.

Your choices are already being shaped in that way. That's why, for example, modern residential roads are designed with shorter sight distances, narrower lanes, speed bumps/humps, and more roadside shrubbery compared to their counterparts from a century ago. It turns out that the mere suggestion of a speed limit—albeit carrying force of law—does not make everyone choose to drive that speed. Instead, human factors are taken into account so that it "feels more natural" to drive the road at the speed the engineers intended. We try to make it easier to use the system in a way that is safe and accomplishes the user's goals than in a way that causes harm.

Human factors isn't a binary question of whether or not we influence the choices made by individuals. In the real world, individual choices are always influenced by a variety of factors. The question is that, when we are aware that a particular design decision will influence the choices of individuals, is it ethical to make that decision in whatever way maximizes the profitability of the product, without regard for any predictable impact it will have? Simply maintaining willful ignorance of human factors in engineering does not make the world functionally better or worse than if that same decision had been made from a position of understanding of those factors and an attitude of malice/benevolence/apathy.

I don't think it's contradictory to tell consumers to make their own choices while at the same time telling producers not to design products that needlessly influence consumers to make destructive choices.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#90

Post by thegrimmest »

bumby wrote: post #83
thegrimmest wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health. Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.

> One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just mea…

I don't think it it's hyperbolic really. The only relevant question is where the line is and by what principle it is defined. Is the difference between freedom and slavery clear and well-drawn? or is it a spectrum? I'm inclined to the former view. The only legitimate social contract is the one keeps the peace and manages the commons (this is already quite a lot). Everything on top that tries to shape our behaviour or compel us to cooperate is a violation of a person's right to be their own master.

> I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road.

You can perfectly well drive on whatever side of whatever road you want assuming it's a private road. Public spaces have rules, and always have. What's not fine is managing the interactions of private people minding their own business.

Post reply on HN