4 ms·

"Drink responsibly" isn't a great analogy. Drinking adds no tangible utility to anything significant. People do it because it's fun, not because it improves the

"Drink responsibly" isn't a great analogy. Drinking adds no tangible utility to anything significant. People do it because it's fun, not because it improves the quality of their work. Group chat adds tangible value to work when used responsibly. You can create a cultural requirement that minimizes interruptions by consigning random chit chat or idle questions to IMs that can be safely ignored for a time by muting notifications. When, "hey which internal CMS has this thing I need?" is an IM I can safely mute when I need to focus instead of a productivity-destroying shoulder tap, that is significant. If they were experiencing a dopamine addiction because they couldn't learn how to properly contextualize and ignore notifications when they needed to be in the zone, that's on them, not the tool.

trhway 10y ago
>Drinking adds no tangible utility to anything significant. People do it because it's fun, not because it improves the quality of their work. many creative people worked or were inspired "under influence" of various stuff causing addiction. >Group chat adds tangible value to work when used responsibly. some claim so. Well, for example cigarettes or a glass of wine help too - by calming down. Wine is also great for heart and blood vessels. And meth (ADHD drugs) is very useful for increasing concentration and productivity even for healthy people. They give it to [healthy] pilots for example. >If they were experiencing a dopamine addiction because they couldn't learn how to properly contextualize and ignore notifications when they needed to be in the zone, that's on them, not the tool. Blame (internal and external) is a typical trap of addiction. The way out is to understand what it isn't about blame, it is about what to do. Honestly accepting your weakness if you can't manage addiction and go sober completely.
- kethinov 10y ago
  It really amazes me that you're doubling down on this absurd analogy. In addition to drinking you've thrown in tobacco and meth(!) as though they somehow compare to the rather vague and amorphous "dopamine addiction" caused by notifications on a computer. To bring all this back into context, Slack has a mute button. You can't mute the physically addictive qualities of drug addictions. This is a completely bizarre comparison. Equally absurd is your equating the tangible productivity benefits of group chat software (minimizing distractions through asynchronous communication) in an office culture to the oft-cited but scientifically questionable benefits of using drugs to be more creative. Even if you could prove that getting addicted to drugs makes you more creative through some sort of peer reviewed scientific study (is studying that in a controlled way even ethical?), I doubt anyone would argue that the tradeoffs were worth it because of the powerfully negative consequences of drug addictions. And, once again, the analogy is absurd because the productivity benefits of using group chat are clearly less ambiguous and the risk of "dopamine addiction" is entirely optional with judicious use of that mute button. And, frankly, as someone who knows multiple people struggling with drug addictions right now, I find the comparison offensive. No one's life will ever be destroyed by Slack the way I've seen people's lives being destroyed by alcohol and drugs.
  - voidz 10y ago
    Absurd, yes, and a bit naive or ignorant too perhaps. But offensive? neh.
    - trhway 10y ago
      gambling addiction is pretty much accepted as an addiction. It has about the same impulse-control issues and instant gratification loop dependency as displayed by IM/email/gaming/forums "dopamine junkies". Cigarettes also considered an addiction. I smoked from 1992 to 2002. I have never felt a cigarette craving as strong as those impulses to check email, this HN forum, etc... I quit smoking yet i'm pretty much slave to the internet communication habit and fighting hard to control it.

trhway 10y ago

>Drinking adds no tangible utility to anything significant. People do it because it's fun, not because it improves the quality of their work. many creative people worked or were inspired "under influence" of various stuff causing addiction. >Group chat adds tangible value to work when used responsibly. some claim so. Well, for example cigarettes or a glass of wine help too - by calming down. Wine is also great for heart and blood vessels. And meth (ADHD drugs) is very useful for increasing concentration and productivity even for healthy people. They give it to [healthy] pilots for example. >If they were experiencing a dopamine addiction because they couldn't learn how to properly contextualize and ignore notifications when they needed to be in the zone, that's on them, not the tool. Blame (internal and external) is a typical trap of addiction. The way out is to understand what it isn't about blame, it is about what to do. Honestly accepting your weakness if you can't manage addiction and go sober completely.

kethinov 10y ago
It really amazes me that you're doubling down on this absurd analogy. In addition to drinking you've thrown in tobacco and meth(!) as though they somehow compare to the rather vague and amorphous "dopamine addiction" caused by notifications on a computer. To bring all this back into context, Slack has a mute button. You can't mute the physically addictive qualities of drug addictions. This is a completely bizarre comparison. Equally absurd is your equating the tangible productivity benefits of group chat software (minimizing distractions through asynchronous communication) in an office culture to the oft-cited but scientifically questionable benefits of using drugs to be more creative. Even if you could prove that getting addicted to drugs makes you more creative through some sort of peer reviewed scientific study (is studying that in a controlled way even ethical?), I doubt anyone would argue that the tradeoffs were worth it because of the powerfully negative consequences of drug addictions. And, once again, the analogy is absurd because the productivity benefits of using group chat are clearly less ambiguous and the risk of "dopamine addiction" is entirely optional with judicious use of that mute button. And, frankly, as someone who knows multiple people struggling with drug addictions right now, I find the comparison offensive. No one's life will ever be destroyed by Slack the way I've seen people's lives being destroyed by alcohol and drugs.
- voidz 10y ago
  Absurd, yes, and a bit naive or ignorant too perhaps. But offensive? neh.
  - trhway 10y ago
    gambling addiction is pretty much accepted as an addiction. It has about the same impulse-control issues and instant gratification loop dependency as displayed by IM/email/gaming/forums "dopamine junkies". Cigarettes also considered an addiction. I smoked from 1992 to 2002. I have never felt a cigarette craving as strong as those impulses to check email, this HN forum, etc... I quit smoking yet i'm pretty much slave to the internet communication habit and fighting hard to control it.