8 ms·

1950's Can we have a study of Comic Book addiction in Children. 1960's Can we have a study of Television addiction in Children. 1970's Can we have a study

1950's Can we have a study of Comic Book addiction in Children. 1960's Can we have a study of Television addiction in Children. 1970's Can we have a study of Dungeons and Dragons addiction in children 1980's Can we have a study of Console game addiction in Children. 1990's Can we have a study of Computer game addiction in Children. 2000's Can we have a study of Internet addiction in Children. 2010's Can we have a study of Facebook addiction in Children. Oh would you please think of the children...

CamperBob2 9y ago
Sorry, would vouch but looks like I've lost the ability. This is a valid opinion, backed by citing decades of various pointless moral panics, and should not have been flagged.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Why is scientific inquiry bad? It was certainly warranted for television, and the deregulation of children's telvision in the US is widely regarded as a mistake. If there is no evidence (as for example, there is no evidence of anytbing more than a small group of people causing a brief TV panic about D&D, a remarkable preview of Facebook-like credulitiy culture?), then intentional reflection on the impact of the products we make on society is a rational and reasonable precaution.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    Why is scientific inquiry bad? The first step in scientific inquiry is identifying the problem. Since that hasn't been done -- just as it wasn't done in the other examples cited -- that suggests the motivation for "investigation" is politics rather than science. My favorite example is probably the video game moral panic. Nobody seemed to care that the juvenile crime rate took a steep turn down right around the time FPS games began making the news. That wasn't an example of "scientific inquiry," it was a politically-motivated witch hunt. What, exactly, is different this time?
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      This isn't even wrong. It's so divorced from the method as it is commonly taught it makes me wonder if there is a language barrier at play. It's possible to inquire, "For a reasonable definition of 'addiciton' do we see those effects?" Your cherry picked anecdote is cancelled out by mine: standards in television broadcasting for children. Let's leave subsequent anecdote bandying aside and trust in the scientific method a bit, okay?
- musage 9y ago
  What opinion is expressed here? There's a vague implication of "this is unfounded" they cannot even be bothered to put in clear words, much less make a case for, while trying to make up for that by repetition. So it's not okay to "think of the children", ever, but let's play good Samaritan for what is nothing more than a meme because it's a "valid opinion". Got it.
  - mistercow 9y ago
    The observation is that whenever kids fixate on some new activity, the previous generation will always become extremely suspicious that it's harmful. If this hasn't been borne out in the past, then we can't take those suspicions as much evidence that there's anything to worry about.
    - musage 9y ago
      But we're soley not operating on "extreme suspicions because something is new" here. The letter does cite some studies, for starters. And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". There was a time when using x-ray machines in shoe shops seemed totally benign, like a fun, useful thing. Suspicions about that "new thing" as well as others were correct. Including here, that list starts with "comic book" and ends with "internet and facebook" addiction, which are absolutely worth studying.
      - mistercow 9y ago
        >The letter does cite some studies, for starters. Sure, but surely these suspicions would exist anyway. The fact that we're probably thinking about this because of some bias is important to note, because that bias is likely to continue affecting people's thinking moving forward. >And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". I don't think I am. Any randomly selected hypothesis has some possibility of being true, especially one like "is <thing that exists> harmful". The fact that some of them have been borne out doesn't necessarily mean that "new things kids like are especially likely to be bad" is a good heuristic. It's not that it's impossible that "phone addiction" is hurting kids. It's that we've seen this pattern over and over, and when people's thinking is biased, they're likely to continue believing there's a problem long after the majority of evidence suggests that there isn't. Pointing that out to raise people's skepticism is productive.
lerie82 9y ago
I agree with this guy.
CaliforniaKarl 9y ago
The annoying thing (to me) is, I think it would be awesome to have a study (or studies) of how X [fill in X for the appropriate decade] affects/interacts with children. But not just children, how about people of all ages? For example, here's a 1955 short educational piece on addition to toys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eGxoNMFE3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eGxoNMFE3s
musage 9y ago
And, like clockwork, your type of comment shows up, completely unaware of the irony.
ModernMech 9y ago
I've seen versions of several of these ruin people's lives very close to me. For example, I knew someone who played WOW to the detriment of his schooling, health, and social life. WOW is another product that is explicitly engineered to be addictive. The difference between then and now is cell phones and social media are consumed at a scale that affects almost everyone, to a degree that hasn't been seen before. It's worth studying whether this is something we should worry about or not.
- ashleyn 9y ago
  Soudns like a parenting mishap to me.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    It might be and you would notice this is the norm with smartphones. Parents find it much easier to jam a smartphone in front of their child when out and about than to deal with their boredom.
  - rickycook 9y ago
    to be honest, this happened to me and i don’t blame my parents at all. looking back on it, how were they to understand the difference between wow and everything else i played? it’s all the same to them. we had frequent fights about how long i spent playing, when they’d ask me to do things in the middle of a raid (multi player coop thing; up to 40 players back then). in my head, it was incredibly important to me. now, i realise how stupid that was. most people i think don’t realise how games can effect people mentally. to his day, 10 years later i still have dreams about my character sitting in a void, alone, asking me to come and play. this is serious addiction, and you can’t blame parents for not understanding it.
    - pmarreck 9y ago
      Raiding at least taught teamwork... Some of the best people I knew in WoW ended up being very successful in their own right... for example the guy who was THE best raid-leader ever ended up managing a chain of stores
decebalus1 9y ago
Yeah, no. The moment content creators realized they can engineer addiction by borrowing ideas from the gambling industry and often innovating in this area, we have a problem. Especially when more and more companies profit from 'habit forming'. Read up on why Dong Nguyen pulled Flappy Bird off the app store and why Steve Jobs was a low-tech parent. I agree, we shouldn't think of the children, we should probably think of the adults also.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  > Read up on why Dong Nguyen pulled Flappy Bird off the app store And yet, pandora was already out of the box, and that game spawned a million knockoffs
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Each of those was progressively more addictive (well, barring D&D which involved reading books and thinking). In 2020s, it will might be VR, in 2030s, it might be they spend too much time socializing with artificial beings, and so on. There is a point where it is worth thinking about whether it is a good thing or not. I know I will for my kid.
tim333 9y ago
No harm studying any of that lot. They are asking for a study not a ban.
peferron 9y ago
Exactly! If it wasn't a problem before then it won't be a problem today either. Nothing fallacious about that. The evolution of technology usually has very limited impact; WW1 and WW2 were barely more destructive than the wars that preceded them, after all, and WW3 will surely be no worse. Edit: The above is sarcasm. It probably deserves the downvotes, but at least I want to make clear that I don't mean this stuff. The amount of psychological research, behavior tracking, and personalization that goes into keeping people "engaged" with their phones has never been seen before. It just seems so outlandish to argue that it won't be a problem because we turned out fine despite having TV as kids, nevermind that it only offered a handful of completely un-personalized TV channels and zero user tracking (apart from the tiny fraction with a Nielsen box). I just don't get it, especially here on HN where I'm sure many people have an idea of what's going on behind e.g. the Facebook feed.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  And what's more, television certainly did drastically change people's attention spans, the nature of news and the public debate, etc. Compare the rhetoric of 19th-Century politicians with what you hear today.
  - ryukafalz 9y ago
    Serious question, I don't know the answer to this: was the rhetoric of 19th century politicians different because people were more civil/thoughtful in general or just because there were (most likely) proportionally fewer people paying attention? (Doubtless a bit of both, I suppose.)
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php Voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters was significantly higher, so I don't think that's it.
j2bax 9y ago
Did any of the pre-internet Time sucks have the ability to monitor billions of people’s usage patterns and incrementally fine tune so as to increase time/money spent? No, I didn’t think so...
quickthrower2 9y ago
What's wrong with doing all of these studies? Aren't you glad we know about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, UV light, radiation, too much sugar etc.?
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  Yeah, because those are all equivalent. "People who smoke are getting lung cancer. We'd better investigate the carcinogenic properties of tobacco." "People who get too much sun are exhibiting symptoms from melanoma to premature aging. Could this be related to UV exposure?" "People who work with radioactive material are dropping like flies. What the heck's up with that?" "People who consume excessive sugar are experiencing symptoms from obesity to insulin resistance to heart disease. Could there be a connection?" "Kids who spend a lot of time on iPhones are ... well, fine, I guess, but there's got to be some grant money in there somewhere."
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Yes, of course, everything seems obvious in hindsight.
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      And resources for scientific snipe hunts are basically unlimited.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Given Apple's vast cash pile I don't think this is going to delay your next technological fix by more than an hour or two.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        The idea that phones are changing our attention span and giving rise to harmful addictive behaviors, especially applied to children, does not strike me as outlandish or unworthy of investigation.
pessimizer 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that there weren't studies about comic book addiction and dungeons and dragons addiction, although there were studies on the influence of violent comic books, and possible associations of violence and dissociation with reality with D&D. Other than those two, video game, internet, and Facebook addiction are real things. And now, video games and Facebook are being intentionally and consciously designed to encourage addiction. The only thing I'd agree with you about is that it's just as bad for adults as it is for children. Presumably, though, we generally allow adults to make their own decisions about their addictions, and just offer help when they want to break them. Also, kids are creating the habits that are going to be the substrate for their thinking over the rest of their lives. If you think somebody who got hooked on heroin in their 20s has a tough time quitting at 40, imagine somebody trying to quit at the same age but who started at 10.
- rock_hard 9y ago
  What I don’t understand about the whole debate is that people can actually get addicted to anything...collecting bookmarks, chocolate, sex, etc... Any nobody in their right mind would suggest to regulate or ban those. I think as society we need to rethink addictions...as people with a issue...a issue that we need to provide help to break. Instead we are pointing fingers and avoiding the necessary conversation.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Equating moral panics with suggestions to do a rigorous study is facile.
nordsieck 9y ago
One of the most effective things about capitalism is that when new things replace old things, the new things are preferred by consumers over the things they replace. This is an extremely good feature when talking about most consumer goods. Modern cups are just as good as old cups but way less expensive. Modern cars are significantly better in basically all ways (perhaps excepting repairability). There may be a danger, however, when talking about technologies that people use, in part, to keep themselves from being bored - to absorb their attention in other words. For me personally, Facebook/Internet/Computer Games >> TV >> Radio >> Books at capturing my attention. I suspect that this isn't a very unusual experience. It may seem reasonable on its face to not let technological artifacts push you around or manipulate you, but honestly, it's not just a computer or a TV. Between TV, the Internet and Computer Games, it's the very best and most able of hundreds of thousands of people working every day to capture your attention. Honestly, I have no idea if the current generation of attention capturing technology is dangerous. But I do know that what ever displaces what we have now will be better at capturing our attention. And the next generation will be better than that. And eventually, if the trend continues, there will be something that's so good at capturing attention that it is dangerous.
freyir 9y ago
Funny, but I feel phone/Internet addiction in my own life. I don't need a study or concerned parents to know it's real, at least for some susceptible people.
kriro 9y ago
The WHO actually defines addiction to video games as a (psychological) disease now in their ICD. Not sure if the new list is in effect already, my last update was "will be on the 2018 list". I vaguely remember the Jonathan Blow video where he talked about Facebook games and how gaming companies hire psychologists to make sure that skinner rat feeling is maximized. It was pretty disturbing at the time, these days tons of games seem to be "optimized" this way. My guess is higher addiction rates are a logical conclusion. Looking at some Pokemon Go players or WoW players gives me enough anecdotal evidence to think one can get addicted t games quite quickly. Why one would expose children to this psycho-lab unsupervised...I don't know.
sreyaNotfilc 9y ago
My point exactly. Kids are going to use whatever their parents put in their hands. All of my nieces and nephews has some type of smart device (tablet, or phone). They are on it all the time. They never paid for it but it was given to them by their parents. If parents stop giving their kids smart devices, then they will use that spare time doing something else (e.g. video games, homework, hanging out, smoking, idunno). There's no need for a study at all. Kids, in general, don't have money to buy an $800 device.

CamperBob2 9y ago

Sorry, would vouch but looks like I've lost the ability. This is a valid opinion, backed by citing decades of various pointless moral panics, and should not have been flagged.

KirinDave 9y ago
Why is scientific inquiry bad? It was certainly warranted for television, and the deregulation of children's telvision in the US is widely regarded as a mistake. If there is no evidence (as for example, there is no evidence of anytbing more than a small group of people causing a brief TV panic about D&D, a remarkable preview of Facebook-like credulitiy culture?), then intentional reflection on the impact of the products we make on society is a rational and reasonable precaution.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  Why is scientific inquiry bad? The first step in scientific inquiry is identifying the problem. Since that hasn't been done -- just as it wasn't done in the other examples cited -- that suggests the motivation for "investigation" is politics rather than science. My favorite example is probably the video game moral panic. Nobody seemed to care that the juvenile crime rate took a steep turn down right around the time FPS games began making the news. That wasn't an example of "scientific inquiry," it was a politically-motivated witch hunt. What, exactly, is different this time?
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    This isn't even wrong. It's so divorced from the method as it is commonly taught it makes me wonder if there is a language barrier at play. It's possible to inquire, "For a reasonable definition of 'addiciton' do we see those effects?" Your cherry picked anecdote is cancelled out by mine: standards in television broadcasting for children. Let's leave subsequent anecdote bandying aside and trust in the scientific method a bit, okay?
musage 9y ago
What opinion is expressed here? There's a vague implication of "this is unfounded" they cannot even be bothered to put in clear words, much less make a case for, while trying to make up for that by repetition. So it's not okay to "think of the children", ever, but let's play good Samaritan for what is nothing more than a meme because it's a "valid opinion". Got it.
- mistercow 9y ago
  The observation is that whenever kids fixate on some new activity, the previous generation will always become extremely suspicious that it's harmful. If this hasn't been borne out in the past, then we can't take those suspicions as much evidence that there's anything to worry about.
  - musage 9y ago
    But we're soley not operating on "extreme suspicions because something is new" here. The letter does cite some studies, for starters. And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". There was a time when using x-ray machines in shoe shops seemed totally benign, like a fun, useful thing. Suspicions about that "new thing" as well as others were correct. Including here, that list starts with "comic book" and ends with "internet and facebook" addiction, which are absolutely worth studying.
    - mistercow 9y ago
      >The letter does cite some studies, for starters. Sure, but surely these suspicions would exist anyway. The fact that we're probably thinking about this because of some bias is important to note, because that bias is likely to continue affecting people's thinking moving forward. >And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". I don't think I am. Any randomly selected hypothesis has some possibility of being true, especially one like "is <thing that exists> harmful". The fact that some of them have been borne out doesn't necessarily mean that "new things kids like are especially likely to be bad" is a good heuristic. It's not that it's impossible that "phone addiction" is hurting kids. It's that we've seen this pattern over and over, and when people's thinking is biased, they're likely to continue believing there's a problem long after the majority of evidence suggests that there isn't. Pointing that out to raise people's skepticism is productive.

lerie82 9y ago

I agree with this guy.

CaliforniaKarl 9y ago

The annoying thing (to me) is, I think it would be awesome to have a study (or studies) of how X [fill in X for the appropriate decade] affects/interacts with children. But not just children, how about people of all ages? For example, here's a 1955 short educational piece on addition to toys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eGxoNMFE3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eGxoNMFE3s

musage 9y ago

And, like clockwork, your type of comment shows up, completely unaware of the irony.

ModernMech 9y ago

I've seen versions of several of these ruin people's lives very close to me. For example, I knew someone who played WOW to the detriment of his schooling, health, and social life. WOW is another product that is explicitly engineered to be addictive. The difference between then and now is cell phones and social media are consumed at a scale that affects almost everyone, to a degree that hasn't been seen before. It's worth studying whether this is something we should worry about or not.

ashleyn 9y ago
Soudns like a parenting mishap to me.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  It might be and you would notice this is the norm with smartphones. Parents find it much easier to jam a smartphone in front of their child when out and about than to deal with their boredom.
- rickycook 9y ago
  to be honest, this happened to me and i don’t blame my parents at all. looking back on it, how were they to understand the difference between wow and everything else i played? it’s all the same to them. we had frequent fights about how long i spent playing, when they’d ask me to do things in the middle of a raid (multi player coop thing; up to 40 players back then). in my head, it was incredibly important to me. now, i realise how stupid that was. most people i think don’t realise how games can effect people mentally. to his day, 10 years later i still have dreams about my character sitting in a void, alone, asking me to come and play. this is serious addiction, and you can’t blame parents for not understanding it.
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    Raiding at least taught teamwork... Some of the best people I knew in WoW ended up being very successful in their own right... for example the guy who was THE best raid-leader ever ended up managing a chain of stores

decebalus1 9y ago

Yeah, no. The moment content creators realized they can engineer addiction by borrowing ideas from the gambling industry and often innovating in this area, we have a problem. Especially when more and more companies profit from 'habit forming'. Read up on why Dong Nguyen pulled Flappy Bird off the app store and why Steve Jobs was a low-tech parent. I agree, we shouldn't think of the children, we should probably think of the adults also.

pmarreck 9y ago
> Read up on why Dong Nguyen pulled Flappy Bird off the app store And yet, pandora was already out of the box, and that game spawned a million knockoffs

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Each of those was progressively more addictive (well, barring D&D which involved reading books and thinking). In 2020s, it will might be VR, in 2030s, it might be they spend too much time socializing with artificial beings, and so on. There is a point where it is worth thinking about whether it is a good thing or not. I know I will for my kid.

tim333 9y ago

No harm studying any of that lot. They are asking for a study not a ban.

peferron 9y ago

Exactly! If it wasn't a problem before then it won't be a problem today either. Nothing fallacious about that. The evolution of technology usually has very limited impact; WW1 and WW2 were barely more destructive than the wars that preceded them, after all, and WW3 will surely be no worse. Edit: The above is sarcasm. It probably deserves the downvotes, but at least I want to make clear that I don't mean this stuff. The amount of psychological research, behavior tracking, and personalization that goes into keeping people "engaged" with their phones has never been seen before. It just seems so outlandish to argue that it won't be a problem because we turned out fine despite having TV as kids, nevermind that it only offered a handful of completely un-personalized TV channels and zero user tracking (apart from the tiny fraction with a Nielsen box). I just don't get it, especially here on HN where I'm sure many people have an idea of what's going on behind e.g. the Facebook feed.

emodendroket 9y ago
And what's more, television certainly did drastically change people's attention spans, the nature of news and the public debate, etc. Compare the rhetoric of 19th-Century politicians with what you hear today.
- ryukafalz 9y ago
  Serious question, I don't know the answer to this: was the rhetoric of 19th century politicians different because people were more civil/thoughtful in general or just because there were (most likely) proportionally fewer people paying attention? (Doubtless a bit of both, I suppose.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php Voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters was significantly higher, so I don't think that's it.

j2bax 9y ago

Did any of the pre-internet Time sucks have the ability to monitor billions of people’s usage patterns and incrementally fine tune so as to increase time/money spent? No, I didn’t think so...

quickthrower2 9y ago

What's wrong with doing all of these studies? Aren't you glad we know about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, UV light, radiation, too much sugar etc.?

CamperBob2 9y ago
Yeah, because those are all equivalent. "People who smoke are getting lung cancer. We'd better investigate the carcinogenic properties of tobacco." "People who get too much sun are exhibiting symptoms from melanoma to premature aging. Could this be related to UV exposure?" "People who work with radioactive material are dropping like flies. What the heck's up with that?" "People who consume excessive sugar are experiencing symptoms from obesity to insulin resistance to heart disease. Could there be a connection?" "Kids who spend a lot of time on iPhones are ... well, fine, I guess, but there's got to be some grant money in there somewhere."
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Yes, of course, everything seems obvious in hindsight.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    And resources for scientific snipe hunts are basically unlimited.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Given Apple's vast cash pile I don't think this is going to delay your next technological fix by more than an hour or two.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      The idea that phones are changing our attention span and giving rise to harmful addictive behaviors, especially applied to children, does not strike me as outlandish or unworthy of investigation.

pessimizer 9y ago

I'm pretty sure that there weren't studies about comic book addiction and dungeons and dragons addiction, although there were studies on the influence of violent comic books, and possible associations of violence and dissociation with reality with D&D. Other than those two, video game, internet, and Facebook addiction are real things. And now, video games and Facebook are being intentionally and consciously designed to encourage addiction. The only thing I'd agree with you about is that it's just as bad for adults as it is for children. Presumably, though, we generally allow adults to make their own decisions about their addictions, and just offer help when they want to break them. Also, kids are creating the habits that are going to be the substrate for their thinking over the rest of their lives. If you think somebody who got hooked on heroin in their 20s has a tough time quitting at 40, imagine somebody trying to quit at the same age but who started at 10.

rock_hard 9y ago
What I don’t understand about the whole debate is that people can actually get addicted to anything...collecting bookmarks, chocolate, sex, etc... Any nobody in their right mind would suggest to regulate or ban those. I think as society we need to rethink addictions...as people with a issue...a issue that we need to provide help to break. Instead we are pointing fingers and avoiding the necessary conversation.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Equating moral panics with suggestions to do a rigorous study is facile.

nordsieck 9y ago

One of the most effective things about capitalism is that when new things replace old things, the new things are preferred by consumers over the things they replace. This is an extremely good feature when talking about most consumer goods. Modern cups are just as good as old cups but way less expensive. Modern cars are significantly better in basically all ways (perhaps excepting repairability). There may be a danger, however, when talking about technologies that people use, in part, to keep themselves from being bored - to absorb their attention in other words. For me personally, Facebook/Internet/Computer Games >> TV >> Radio >> Books at capturing my attention. I suspect that this isn't a very unusual experience. It may seem reasonable on its face to not let technological artifacts push you around or manipulate you, but honestly, it's not just a computer or a TV. Between TV, the Internet and Computer Games, it's the very best and most able of hundreds of thousands of people working every day to capture your attention. Honestly, I have no idea if the current generation of attention capturing technology is dangerous. But I do know that what ever displaces what we have now will be better at capturing our attention. And the next generation will be better than that. And eventually, if the trend continues, there will be something that's so good at capturing attention that it is dangerous.

freyir 9y ago

Funny, but I feel phone/Internet addiction in my own life. I don't need a study or concerned parents to know it's real, at least for some susceptible people.

kriro 9y ago

The WHO actually defines addiction to video games as a (psychological) disease now in their ICD. Not sure if the new list is in effect already, my last update was "will be on the 2018 list". I vaguely remember the Jonathan Blow video where he talked about Facebook games and how gaming companies hire psychologists to make sure that skinner rat feeling is maximized. It was pretty disturbing at the time, these days tons of games seem to be "optimized" this way. My guess is higher addiction rates are a logical conclusion. Looking at some Pokemon Go players or WoW players gives me enough anecdotal evidence to think one can get addicted t games quite quickly. Why one would expose children to this psycho-lab unsupervised...I don't know.

sreyaNotfilc 9y ago

My point exactly. Kids are going to use whatever their parents put in their hands. All of my nieces and nephews has some type of smart device (tablet, or phone). They are on it all the time. They never paid for it but it was given to them by their parents. If parents stop giving their kids smart devices, then they will use that spare time doing something else (e.g. video games, homework, hanging out, smoking, idunno). There's no need for a study at all. Kids, in general, don't have money to buy an $800 device.