5 ms·

Or just log out of any social media. No need to turn off the internet.

stephengillie 9y ago
Or simply exercise some self-control, and do not visit social media while you are working, studying, or otherwise occupied. If you hate what you're doing so much, that you have to do something so unhealthy as locking yourself in isolation to perform the task, you probably shouldn't do it. Listen to yourself, and go do what you want to do instead.
- Techn0logist 9y ago
  This is a naive and harmful view of self-control. You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful. We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet. I have found that unfettered access to it is reducing life quality, and I'm not waiting for twenty double-blind peer-reviewed studies to show this obvious reality. It is much healthier to admit that we have limits, that we are fallible in the face of such overwhelming pleasure, and accept the approach of physically distancing ourselves from the internet.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    By this logic, all humans are incapable of performing any task due to the existence of the internet. Some yearn for a simpler time, when all humans were incapable of performing any task due to the existence of television, radio, books, friends, meteorology, the opposite sex, or beer. But if you would rather be distracted by trees and bugs, remarkable vistas and epic adventures, feel free to continue using this narrative to get what you want.
    - Techn0logist 9y ago
      Isn't that merely the slippery slope fallacy? Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely eliminate our agency, it reduces our agency due to the fallible nature of self-control. Secondly, all of the other activities you listed do not reduce our agency to the extent that the internet does. Some things are more addictive than others. To claim that meteorology and the internet have the same risk to our agency is absolutely absurd. Thirdly, establishing distance from the internet (e.g. not involving computers when they aren't necessary, using the computer at the library instead of keeping one at home, adding restrictions to a smartphone or using a dumbphone) is not the same as giving it up altogether.
      - stephengillie 9y ago
        > Isn't that merely the slippery slope fallacy? You're correct, you did present a slippery slope. > Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely eliminate our agency... > You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful. Which is it? Is the draw of the internet simply too powerful to ignore? Or is it possible to partially ignore this distraction? > Secondly, all of the other activities you listed do not reduce our agency to the extent that the internet does. Internet access reduces your agency? Sorry to hear that. Internet access increases my agency. > Thirdly, establishing distance from the internet (e.g. not involving computers when they aren't necessary, using the computer at the library instead of keeping one at home, adding restrictions to a smartphone or using a dumbphone) is not the same as giving it up altogether. > We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet. You're excusing convenience. If the internet is so harmful, why risk any contact? And are all parts of the internet equally harmful? Back to the original point, if you don't want to use the internet, then don't. But if you don't want to use the internet, why are you using it to tell other people that you don't want to use it?
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    Quazarz vs. The Jealous Machines was inspired by a similar sentiment. Great album. http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/534316470/first-listen-shabazz-palaces-quazarz-vs-the-jealous-machines http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/534316470/first-listen-shabazz...
- jdietrich 9y ago
  Self-control is cognitively expensive. Our short-term impulses rarely align with our long-term goals. There's a surprisingly small intersection between the set of things that feel good right now and the set of things that contribute to a happy and fulfilled life.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    Which is why it's important to recognize those intersections, see them coming before they arrive, and act when the time is right. A time for everything, and everything in its own time. Construct safe spaces for yourself, that always provide what feels good to you, but will only let you contribute to your own (and other people's) long life and prosperity.
- watwut 9y ago
  On the other hand, it is cool when people who are not perfect and does not have iron super awesome self control get advice how to max life. The underlying idea that non perfect people should just forget it is wrong. Moreover, school has also classes one hates and student need to finish those too. They don't cancel out entertaining classes.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    If you don't want to use the internet, then don't. Feel free to use other tools to help yourself not use that tool.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

Or simply exercise some self-control, and do not visit social media while you are working, studying, or otherwise occupied. If you hate what you're doing so much, that you have to do something so unhealthy as locking yourself in isolation to perform the task, you probably shouldn't do it. Listen to yourself, and go do what you want to do instead.

Techn0logist 9y ago
This is a naive and harmful view of self-control. You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful. We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet. I have found that unfettered access to it is reducing life quality, and I'm not waiting for twenty double-blind peer-reviewed studies to show this obvious reality. It is much healthier to admit that we have limits, that we are fallible in the face of such overwhelming pleasure, and accept the approach of physically distancing ourselves from the internet.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  By this logic, all humans are incapable of performing any task due to the existence of the internet. Some yearn for a simpler time, when all humans were incapable of performing any task due to the existence of television, radio, books, friends, meteorology, the opposite sex, or beer. But if you would rather be distracted by trees and bugs, remarkable vistas and epic adventures, feel free to continue using this narrative to get what you want.
  - Techn0logist 9y ago
    Isn't that merely the slippery slope fallacy? Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely eliminate our agency, it reduces our agency due to the fallible nature of self-control. Secondly, all of the other activities you listed do not reduce our agency to the extent that the internet does. Some things are more addictive than others. To claim that meteorology and the internet have the same risk to our agency is absolutely absurd. Thirdly, establishing distance from the internet (e.g. not involving computers when they aren't necessary, using the computer at the library instead of keeping one at home, adding restrictions to a smartphone or using a dumbphone) is not the same as giving it up altogether.
    - stephengillie 9y ago
      > Isn't that merely the slippery slope fallacy? You're correct, you did present a slippery slope. > Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely eliminate our agency... > You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful. Which is it? Is the draw of the internet simply too powerful to ignore? Or is it possible to partially ignore this distraction? > Secondly, all of the other activities you listed do not reduce our agency to the extent that the internet does. Internet access reduces your agency? Sorry to hear that. Internet access increases my agency. > Thirdly, establishing distance from the internet (e.g. not involving computers when they aren't necessary, using the computer at the library instead of keeping one at home, adding restrictions to a smartphone or using a dumbphone) is not the same as giving it up altogether. > We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet. You're excusing convenience. If the internet is so harmful, why risk any contact? And are all parts of the internet equally harmful? Back to the original point, if you don't want to use the internet, then don't. But if you don't want to use the internet, why are you using it to tell other people that you don't want to use it?
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  Quazarz vs. The Jealous Machines was inspired by a similar sentiment. Great album. http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/534316470/first-listen-shabazz-palaces-quazarz-vs-the-jealous-machines http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/534316470/first-listen-shabazz...
jdietrich 9y ago
Self-control is cognitively expensive. Our short-term impulses rarely align with our long-term goals. There's a surprisingly small intersection between the set of things that feel good right now and the set of things that contribute to a happy and fulfilled life.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  Which is why it's important to recognize those intersections, see them coming before they arrive, and act when the time is right. A time for everything, and everything in its own time. Construct safe spaces for yourself, that always provide what feels good to you, but will only let you contribute to your own (and other people's) long life and prosperity.
watwut 9y ago
On the other hand, it is cool when people who are not perfect and does not have iron super awesome self control get advice how to max life. The underlying idea that non perfect people should just forget it is wrong. Moreover, school has also classes one hates and student need to finish those too. They don't cancel out entertaining classes.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  If you don't want to use the internet, then don't. Feel free to use other tools to help yourself not use that tool.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]