3 ms·

Isn't it a chemical addiction? I mean, what does Heroin do to your brain? Releases a ton of extra dopamine and serotonin and crap, right? And what happens when

Isn't it a chemical addiction? I mean, what does Heroin do to your brain? Releases a ton of extra dopamine and serotonin and crap, right? And what happens when you see that 14 people liked your post? Okay, so maybe Facebook doesn't change the way that your brain's receptors work with long-term use, but don't deny that people keep going back for that hit of inclusion.

majormajor 9y ago
What happens to someone's ability to function regularly if they're constantly going back for heroin hits? Compare that to what happens if you keep opening the Facebook app on your phone. Effect size matters. A lot. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that Facebook is even as bad as the classic "couch potato" TV junkie scenario. It's impossible to prevent someone from making bad decisions, so the size of the downside risk has to be strongly considered before claiming a problem is worth heavy-handed fixes.
- ck425 9y ago
  There's a growing body of research suggesting fb is worse due to frequency. It might have a smaller effect than tv or heroin but it happens way more often than either of those.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    Point me to the people dying from Facebook addiction a la heroin abuse and I'll believe you that it's "worse." People behave differently due to new technology, sure, that's a given. Is it catastrophically worse than easy access to extremely potent drugs? The outcomes suggest no.
freehunter 9y ago
Is having a conversation a chemical addiction? If I say something that receives a negative response, will I not try to follow it up with something that receives a positive response? After I've received that positive response, will I not try to please my conversation partner more to keep feeling good about myself? Should we then ban conversations? Some people use "it releases dopamine" like that's a bad thing, like our bodies weren't wired with dopamine receptors to teach us how to function in a society. Are you proposing we get rid of everything that releases dopamine? We should all live a bleak and meaningless life? Humans are social creatures. We're wired to seek positive feedback from our peers. Getting a laugh in a face-to-face conversation is no different than getting a smiley face in an SMS is no different than getting likes on Facebook.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  If I give you 5 dollars is that a chemical addiction? Obviously not, but you believe gambling can be addictive right?
  - freehunter 9y ago
    My point is, dopamine is addictive. Banning or controlling anything that releases dopamine is a futile effort.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      I don't think people want to ban social media, but they do want it to be controlled and subject to regulation in a similar although lesser degree to gambling.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      You've just shifted your goalposts.
      - freehunter 9y ago
        No, I restated a summary of my original post. Same goalposts. Same location.
        dredmorbius 9y ago
        I don't find that a consistent representation of your statements: "Is having a conversation a chemical addiction?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16343850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16343850 "My point is, dopamine is addictive." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16344356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16344356 This means your argument isn't over whether or not social media (or other dopaminagenic activities) are or aren't addictive. You've conceded that point. Which ryandrake had expressly rejected another two posts up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16342034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16342034 The question is whether or not they ought be regulated in some way. I'd also focus far less on the specific mechanism (though gambling, drugs, social interactions, and A/B-tested sticky-on-page highly-habit-forming social media all do, as you've explicitly stated, rely on the same chemical mechanism), and instead, in the resultant behaviours. I'm well aware that etymologies are neither clinical diagnostic tools nor necessary indications of present use. I still find them interesting in informing a discussion. And the etymology of "addiction" is a case in point: c. 1600, "tendency, inclination, penchant" (a less severe sense now obsolete); 1640s as "state of being (self)-addicted" to a habit, pursuit, etc., from Latin addictionem (nominative addictio) "an awarding, a delivering up," noun of action from past participle stem of addicere "to deliver, award; devote, consecrate, sacrifice" (see addict (v.)). In the sense "compulsion and need to take a drug as a result of prior use of it" from 1906, in reference to opium (there is an isolated instance from 1779 with reference to tobacco). https://www.etymonline.com/word/addiction https://www.etymonline.com/word/addiction

majormajor 9y ago

What happens to someone's ability to function regularly if they're constantly going back for heroin hits? Compare that to what happens if you keep opening the Facebook app on your phone. Effect size matters. A lot. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that Facebook is even as bad as the classic "couch potato" TV junkie scenario. It's impossible to prevent someone from making bad decisions, so the size of the downside risk has to be strongly considered before claiming a problem is worth heavy-handed fixes.

ck425 9y ago
There's a growing body of research suggesting fb is worse due to frequency. It might have a smaller effect than tv or heroin but it happens way more often than either of those.
- majormajor 9y ago
  Point me to the people dying from Facebook addiction a la heroin abuse and I'll believe you that it's "worse." People behave differently due to new technology, sure, that's a given. Is it catastrophically worse than easy access to extremely potent drugs? The outcomes suggest no.

freehunter 9y ago

Is having a conversation a chemical addiction? If I say something that receives a negative response, will I not try to follow it up with something that receives a positive response? After I've received that positive response, will I not try to please my conversation partner more to keep feeling good about myself? Should we then ban conversations? Some people use "it releases dopamine" like that's a bad thing, like our bodies weren't wired with dopamine receptors to teach us how to function in a society. Are you proposing we get rid of everything that releases dopamine? We should all live a bleak and meaningless life? Humans are social creatures. We're wired to seek positive feedback from our peers. Getting a laugh in a face-to-face conversation is no different than getting a smiley face in an SMS is no different than getting likes on Facebook.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
If I give you 5 dollars is that a chemical addiction? Obviously not, but you believe gambling can be addictive right?
- freehunter 9y ago
  My point is, dopamine is addictive. Banning or controlling anything that releases dopamine is a futile effort.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    I don't think people want to ban social media, but they do want it to be controlled and subject to regulation in a similar although lesser degree to gambling.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    You've just shifted your goalposts.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      No, I restated a summary of my original post. Same goalposts. Same location.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        I don't find that a consistent representation of your statements: "Is having a conversation a chemical addiction?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16343850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16343850 "My point is, dopamine is addictive." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16344356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16344356 This means your argument isn't over whether or not social media (or other dopaminagenic activities) are or aren't addictive. You've conceded that point. Which ryandrake had expressly rejected another two posts up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16342034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16342034 The question is whether or not they ought be regulated in some way. I'd also focus far less on the specific mechanism (though gambling, drugs, social interactions, and A/B-tested sticky-on-page highly-habit-forming social media all do, as you've explicitly stated, rely on the same chemical mechanism), and instead, in the resultant behaviours. I'm well aware that etymologies are neither clinical diagnostic tools nor necessary indications of present use. I still find them interesting in informing a discussion. And the etymology of "addiction" is a case in point: c. 1600, "tendency, inclination, penchant" (a less severe sense now obsolete); 1640s as "state of being (self)-addicted" to a habit, pursuit, etc., from Latin addictionem (nominative addictio) "an awarding, a delivering up," noun of action from past participle stem of addicere "to deliver, award; devote, consecrate, sacrifice" (see addict (v.)). In the sense "compulsion and need to take a drug as a result of prior use of it" from 1906, in reference to opium (there is an isolated instance from 1779 with reference to tobacco). https://www.etymonline.com/word/addiction https://www.etymonline.com/word/addiction