3 ms·

It's simple to show addiction is an unsustainable configuration for pretty much any system across all economic levels.

by crawfordcomeaux 9y ago

mark_edward 9y ago
Could you do so? It's non-obvious to me.
- waterlink 9y ago
  That reminds me of an amazing book "Thinking in Systems: A Primer." It is probably on my list of must-read books for software developers and other roles around them.
  - crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
    I haven't read it, but systems theory is at the core of how I've been thinking lately. I'll check it out.
- crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
  If we incompletely define addiction as a cycle of compulsions with negative consequences, it's already an unsustainable process at the individual level. We can predict (and statistics confirm this) lifespans of addicts to be lower than those of comparable non-addicts. If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. Is that clearer?
  - xg15 9y ago
    > If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. That assumes that all addictions are deadly and that the company would mind. A company is not interested in a customer's life span but the span of time they are their customer. if someone dies with 30 after having been a "loyal" customer for 20 years, that's better for them than if they die with 90 but are a customer for 5 years. > They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. Not really if the incentive is strong enough that everyone does it. As seems to be the case with the internet. > At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. That's an assumption. Like the previous point, that won't happen if it's considered "normal". > The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Yes. So what? > Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. I don't see any evidence of that happening. Anyway, what are the sources for that theory?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
xg15 9y ago
How does that fit the GP's observation that more and more design is focused on "engagement" - which, from the techniques involved, is really not much different than designing for addictiveness? Also - without knowing the theories - only because a configuration is unsustainable doesn't mean that such a configuration won't appear. There have been many "self-corrections" of unsustainable configurations in history which I am glad to not have witnessed personally...
- crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
  Not all engagement is created equal. Engagement for engagement's sake promotes addiction because addiction is a coping mechanism to other problems. Without explicitly targeting those problems at a societal level (which includes organizations), they'll remain unchecked and allowed to grow. More specifically, based on my research & recovery experiences, addiction's a learning disorder resulting from things that can be overcome (in part) through emotionally supportive social connections, paying attention to one's needs (which requires being able to pay attention to oneself, courage to face one's own issues, knowing what one's basic humans needs are, learning how to meet those needs alone, and how to meet them with the help of other people), and developing skills for emotional regulation. Any design theory seeking to minimize its contribution to addiction will need to promote human connection (which is based on the quality of interactions and not simply having the ability to interact), respect attention, promote mindfulness, and responsibly use human emotions as inputs. As for unsustainable configurations, they're inevitable. With the advent of global connectivity & new research, humanity is now primed to take more responsibility for its unsustainable configs & devise strategies for intentional corrections, as opposed to passively waiting for inevitable self-corrections. Through solving addiction (or any other unsustainable config), the law of unintended consequences will be invoked at some point and a new unsustainability will emerge because no system is perfect. All we can do is accept this fact and do our best to address things as they come.

It's simple to show addiction is an unsustainable configuration for pretty much any system across all economic levels.

mark_edward 9y ago

Could you do so? It's non-obvious to me.

waterlink 9y ago
That reminds me of an amazing book "Thinking in Systems: A Primer." It is probably on my list of must-read books for software developers and other roles around them.
- crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
  I haven't read it, but systems theory is at the core of how I've been thinking lately. I'll check it out.
crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
If we incompletely define addiction as a cycle of compulsions with negative consequences, it's already an unsustainable process at the individual level. We can predict (and statistics confirm this) lifespans of addicts to be lower than those of comparable non-addicts. If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. Is that clearer?
- xg15 9y ago
  > If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. That assumes that all addictions are deadly and that the company would mind. A company is not interested in a customer's life span but the span of time they are their customer. if someone dies with 30 after having been a "loyal" customer for 20 years, that's better for them than if they die with 90 but are a customer for 5 years. > They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. Not really if the incentive is strong enough that everyone does it. As seems to be the case with the internet. > At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. That's an assumption. Like the previous point, that won't happen if it's considered "normal". > The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Yes. So what? > Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. I don't see any evidence of that happening. Anyway, what are the sources for that theory?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

xg15 9y ago

How does that fit the GP's observation that more and more design is focused on "engagement" - which, from the techniques involved, is really not much different than designing for addictiveness? Also - without knowing the theories - only because a configuration is unsustainable doesn't mean that such a configuration won't appear. There have been many "self-corrections" of unsustainable configurations in history which I am glad to not have witnessed personally...

crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
Not all engagement is created equal. Engagement for engagement's sake promotes addiction because addiction is a coping mechanism to other problems. Without explicitly targeting those problems at a societal level (which includes organizations), they'll remain unchecked and allowed to grow. More specifically, based on my research & recovery experiences, addiction's a learning disorder resulting from things that can be overcome (in part) through emotionally supportive social connections, paying attention to one's needs (which requires being able to pay attention to oneself, courage to face one's own issues, knowing what one's basic humans needs are, learning how to meet those needs alone, and how to meet them with the help of other people), and developing skills for emotional regulation. Any design theory seeking to minimize its contribution to addiction will need to promote human connection (which is based on the quality of interactions and not simply having the ability to interact), respect attention, promote mindfulness, and responsibly use human emotions as inputs. As for unsustainable configurations, they're inevitable. With the advent of global connectivity & new research, humanity is now primed to take more responsibility for its unsustainable configs & devise strategies for intentional corrections, as opposed to passively waiting for inevitable self-corrections. Through solving addiction (or any other unsustainable config), the law of unintended consequences will be invoked at some point and a new unsustainability will emerge because no system is perfect. All we can do is accept this fact and do our best to address things as they come.