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

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#91

Post by defaultname »

lolinder wrote: post #61
defaultname wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

While alcohol addiction usually does begin with depression or lack of self control, the physiological effect of ongoing abuse is seen worldwide. This isn't at all true for whatever NOT MY FAULT BLAME [INSERT TARGET HERE] easy solution Americans are pitching today.

Are the Japanese addicted to McDonalds? Are the French? Are Mexicans? Are the British? Are Chileans?

The tale in another comment that someone had McDonalds and then they went back every day for two weeks straight literally reads like parody. If someone were mocking that sort of lazy, not-my-faultism they'd author a comment precisely like that, thinking they were exaggerating and making it sound absurd.

Is it American Exceptionalism that makes for this remarkable, magical dietary addiction? Or is it a market that is particularly susceptible for easy victims and easy "not my fault" answers. Blame it on Big McDonalds. Make a documentary (usually cartoonishly full of misstatements and lies) and it gets Eaten Up, pardon the pun, because it's an easy, incredibly lazy thing to blame.

Obesity is a problem around the globe, and in every country it's different causes. Calories became a lot cheaper, and people like eating. If you think one magical ingredient is the cause, get a grip. It isn't so simple. And eventually it 100% comes down to self control.

If someone spends 9 hours scrolling through TikToks, that isn't TikTok's fault. It really isn't. It is remarkable reading people imagine up the nefarious ingredient that puts the responsibility on someone other than themselves.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#92

Post by slibhb »

dalbasal wrote: post #67
slibhb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Obviously natural language is never absolutely discrete. Let's say there's a spectrum between fairly discrete and fairly meaningless. I'm saying we should move toward the discrete side of things.

If we need to invent a new word to describe something, we can, we don't need to repurpose an old word and in doing so rob it of its meaning.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#93

Post by slibhb »

louis___ wrote: post #16
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.…

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…

You're ligitating free will here and you've decided it doesn't exist. Well, right or wrong, people who believe in their own agency make better choices. It's somewhat bizarre to me to see you criticzing the idea that people should be held responsible for what they put in their mouths, chew, and swallow. You write like it's such an awful idea that people could choose to eat healthier foods or exercise more.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#94

Post by dalbasal »

ghodith wrote: post #87
dalbasal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My apologies. "Replication crisis" (or Ted Talks, really) strikes again. I should have said "demonstrated," though that's probably a cop out.

From the wiki article and its meta research source, it seems that researchers do support the general idea that housing, enrichment and social conditions affect addiction. Popular science has just overstated the results.

"While the Rat Park studies did not use methods that are reliable by current standards, enrichment has been shown to reliably reduce opioid consumption and this effect can generalise to other drugs of abuse."

https://journals.helsinki.fi/jrn/article/view/10.31885.jrn.1...

Incidentally, I don't understand why stuff like this is still ambiguous. This is a classroom experiment, resource-wise. Why hasn't it been refined, replicated and conducted at scale sufficient to be reliable?

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#95

Post by rusk »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #85
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.

Yes, thank you - I had a feeling I had missed some critical aspect!

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#96

Post by ethbr0 »

drooogs wrote: post #58
ethbr0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will. I don't claim to speak for all addicts, but this is not how I would describe my experiences, at least not under my conception of "free will". I "wanted" to stop doing drugs in the same way a lazy person "wants" to go to the gym more. whenever the moment came to actually do it, I had to admit that I didn't want it nea…

Thanks for taking the time to write all that out and share your experience!!

I'd say my definition of "free will" is this context is more a hill's slope than a traffic light.

In that the slope is the difficulty of making (or not making) a decision. Where addiction doesn't preclude "not", but makes it harder / less likely.

I.e. the internalization of the external "10/100 non-addicts would choose to do X" vs "60/100 addicts would choose to do X"

Or to put it another way, whereas someone might be able to avoid doing something on everything except their 10% worse days, an addict might except on their 50% worse days.

Would be very curious with how that jives with your lived experience? When you made decisions (positive or negative), did it feel like the odds were tilted? Or did it feel exactly like it did before you started using?

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#97

Post by travisjungroth »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #81
travisjungroth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 determi…

Oh yeah, I would bet heavily that likelihood of addiction to prescribed medications is correlated with the context of your life.

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#99

Post by bumby »

thegrimmest wrote: post #90
bumby wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you’re in the US, there is a “general welfare” clause within the social contract

Re: Technology “Addiction”

#100

Post by thegrimmest »

bumby wrote: post #99
thegrimmest wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you’re in the US, there is a “general welfare” clause within the social contract

Where is this social contract written? I don't see anything about welfare in the constitution.
Post reply on HN