6 ms·

I'm a gamer and about as attached to tech as you can be without actually having mental issues over it. My wife and I recently bought a house and I've been find

I'm a gamer and about as attached to tech as you can be without actually having mental issues over it. My wife and I recently bought a house and I've been finding that I'd rather spend time fixing it up than playing games or doing other stuff with electronics much of the time. That doesn't mean that I've quit wholesale, though. I eventually get physically or mentally tired and want to just relax, and it's back to the games I go. My point is that tech isn't what drives my life, it's just one of the things that I enjoy. And actually improving our house has proven even more enjoyable. I don't think the "solution" for "tech addiction" (as most people see it) is limiting phone time or focusing on the tech at all. Instead, the solution is for people to find a hobby that doesn't require an internet/cable connection and enjoy that instead. And if they don't, it doesn't bother me a bit. People can do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others. People who have an actual "addiction" should seek professional help, though. Not some random guy that's making a startup, but someone with an actual degree in a profession that can help with mental issues.

loceng 8y ago
The private market will do a far better job fixing the status quo than the government or industrial complexes will. Some "random guy that's making a startup" presumably would do things to be safe, and ethical, no? You can make generalizations and assumptions otherwise, though that isn't very helpful. If you've ever had the displeasure to experience the healthcare system, you'd learn too that "professionals" are indoctrinated in a system that doesn't update their knowledge, keeps their knowledge in silos, and overall is inefficient and not getting people access to the most recent/best information/knowledge. Edit to add: I should have clarified/furthered my thoughts - and it's true you shouldn't by default trust a startup to do things safely or ethically, you should certainly do your due diligence that they aren't making claims that can't be backed up, nor are following processes (etc) that can do more than what is a pre-existing level of acceptable risk/harm. Presumably however, if they're/a startup is expecting to survive in the long-term they'd need to be leveraged and connected with safety and people with the appropriate knowledge, because they should be scrutinized more thoroughly if they're involved with health. Otherwise they're going to die off - and hopefully without hurting too many people or getting too big, like where we could reference Theranos.
- bendoernberg 8y ago
  What about the last 15 years leads you to believe that we can rely on startup founders to care about safety and ethics?
  - loceng 8y ago
    I can only imagine there are a lot of health tech companies we could find/reference who have received VC money, and who haven't hurt anyone - who are aware of the ethics and are good people. Of course there will be people who are naive, perhaps the "mercenary" type who see an opportunity, get money, and try to push for growth and marketshare without caring about health and safety first; Theranos seems to be one of these situations.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  > Some "random guy that's making a startup" presumably would do things to be safe, and ethical, no? That's a very risky assumption to make. Ethics are often secondary considerations for engineer and business thinking (for better or worse). To the point that people advocate the removal of ethics courses from university STEM curricula (not sure how widespread this viewpoint is, but I've heard it my entire adult life, so this whole century).
  - loceng 8y ago
    I should have clarified/furthered my thoughts - and it's true you shouldn't by default trust a startup to do things safely or ethically, you should certainly do your due diligence that they aren't making claims that can't be backed up, nor are following processes (etc) that can do more than what is a pre-existing level of acceptable risk/harm. Presumably however, if they're/a startup is expecting to survive in the long-term they'd need to be leveraged and connected with safety and people with the appropriate knowledge, because they should be scrutinized more thoroughly if they're involved with health. Otherwise they're going to die off - and hopefully without hurting too many people or getting too big, like where we could reference Theranos.
- rhcom2 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ip26 8y ago
actually improving our house has proven even more enjoyable Plus you get to enjoy the fruits of your labor. That was what completely killed my interest in any amount of game grind- it hit me mid-game that if I spent that time grinding my actual corporeal self, I'd have something to show for it after. I've since improved my AeT mile pace (your "all-day" level) from around 15:00 to 10:00ish. (My dream/goal is to get to 7:00-8:00 at that level of exertion)
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  This is exactly my experience. It probably helped that I did just enough game design to be acutely aware of even less-obvious time sink mechanisms, but I don't think it was an essential feature of what changed. Even simple puzzle games and other things that aren't manipulative started to pale in the face of the realization that "hey, I could go fix a broken shelf or read a book or exercise and get a lasting benefit". It's not a sense of duty or anything else people would describe as "not being lazy", doing something fruitful just started feeling better. I still play games, and I'm happy with that, but the set of games has shrunk to things with ongoing interest and no grind, and the timing to stretches where I'm tired, stuck (e.g. at an airport), or playing with friends. I don't doubt that addictiveness is a real factor, but I think lots of horror stories about gaming and tech addiction grab the wrong end of the stick. I've seen a half dozen people take "young men now work fewer hours, and game for a similar number more hours" and say "obviously, games destroyed their will to work!" Meanwhile, half my friends have gamed heavily when they had crap jobs, short-term rented apartments, etc, and then stopped as soon as they got bored and found opportunities for lasting improvements. Games are a fantastic way to kill a lot of time comfortably, but that doesn't mean they override all our other impulses.
  - wccrawford 8y ago
    I generally only read fiction, so I see video games and books as being in the same category: They're great for relaxation and entertainment, and occasionally bring a new plot or idea, but generally not nearly as useful as fixing or making things. And that's okay. But getting myself to believe that was okay took some doing. I struggled with it for years before I finally found a good balance that didn't make me think I should be more production instead of relaxing.
hollerith 8y ago
(1) Professional help for addiction tends to be very expensive; in contrast, even buying a "specialty" smartphone to replace one's existing smartphone would cost much less. (2) Even those who can easily afford the best professional help, e.g., Ben Affleck, end up having to go back into an in-patient addiction treatment center multiple times (3 times so far for Affleck, the first time's being in 2001), which casts doubt on the effectiveness of professional help. (3) Some people need to advance in their career before they can afford professional help, but addiction makes it harder for a person to make progress in life. An affordable tech solution or partial-solution to addiction can help break this vicious cycle.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- WalterSear 8y ago
  Not relevant, since the fundamental issues still aren't being addressed. By and large, dysfunction will just find a different way to manifest itself. Moreover, treating the symptom without treating the disease will be an inordinate struggle until the underlying issues are understood, processed and addressed. This will leave most of the afflicted no better off, and in some ways, significantly worse for the failed effort. Mental health is costly and difficult. There is no shortcut around this. You can't replace it with an app, or we would have replaced it with a book.
  - hollerith 8y ago
    Recovering mental health usually takes years. The sufferer or people who care about the sufferer have to learn enough to solve the problem. They must free themselves from false beliefs and keep trying things till they find something that works. Addiction is an obstacle to learning and (more generally) to making progress in life because a large fraction of one's potentially-productive time gets absorbed by the addictive behavior. Replacing an iPhone or Android phone with a phone that is even slightly less addictive (if such a phone existed) would allow a person and those who care about the person to engage in the probably-years-long process of learning and trial and error faster, resulting in fewer years lost to addiction (statistically speaking). * * * Seeing concrete examples of lives ruined by addiction (or by some other illness) makes a person uncomfortable. A natural human response would be for me to reduce that uncomfortable feeling by telling myself it will happen to me because, e.g., (a) the sufferer behaved immorally whereas I am moral or, e.g., (b) the sufferer did not obey the rules of society whereas I do. Are you sure that you haven't reduced your discomfort around addiction by telling yourself that it cannot happen to you or those you love because you and those you love are willing to do the hard work of getting to the "root cause" of the addiction? (Or maybe you believe that it can happen to you, but that you will be able to fix the root cause before a large fraction of your life is ruined by the addiction.) I ask because your comment skates close to what we might call "essentialism", in which you argue that it is useless for you and I try to help the addict because what is wrong is something essential to the addict, so of course only the addict himself can help.
hollerith 8y ago
>My wife and I recently bought a house and I've been finding that I'd rather spend time fixing it up than [engaging in things that many people get addicted to] I propose that most of the hours lost to tech addiction will be lost by people with a severe life problem (e.g., they're paralyzed and in a wheelchair; e.g., they have an incurable disabling illness; e.g., they cannot get a job because they're ugly and have an IQ of 70) in addition to the addiction. Most of them will not be able to find anyone trustworthy and sane to marry them. Most of them will not be able to buy a house. It is natural for a person to respond to the assertion that X is dangerous (or pernicious) by focusing on how dangerous X is to people sufficiently like themselves without considering the danger (or perniciousness) to people in different life circumstances.

loceng 8y ago

The private market will do a far better job fixing the status quo than the government or industrial complexes will. Some "random guy that's making a startup" presumably would do things to be safe, and ethical, no? You can make generalizations and assumptions otherwise, though that isn't very helpful. If you've ever had the displeasure to experience the healthcare system, you'd learn too that "professionals" are indoctrinated in a system that doesn't update their knowledge, keeps their knowledge in silos, and overall is inefficient and not getting people access to the most recent/best information/knowledge. Edit to add: I should have clarified/furthered my thoughts - and it's true you shouldn't by default trust a startup to do things safely or ethically, you should certainly do your due diligence that they aren't making claims that can't be backed up, nor are following processes (etc) that can do more than what is a pre-existing level of acceptable risk/harm. Presumably however, if they're/a startup is expecting to survive in the long-term they'd need to be leveraged and connected with safety and people with the appropriate knowledge, because they should be scrutinized more thoroughly if they're involved with health. Otherwise they're going to die off - and hopefully without hurting too many people or getting too big, like where we could reference Theranos.

bendoernberg 8y ago
What about the last 15 years leads you to believe that we can rely on startup founders to care about safety and ethics?
- loceng 8y ago
  I can only imagine there are a lot of health tech companies we could find/reference who have received VC money, and who haven't hurt anyone - who are aware of the ethics and are good people. Of course there will be people who are naive, perhaps the "mercenary" type who see an opportunity, get money, and try to push for growth and marketshare without caring about health and safety first; Theranos seems to be one of these situations.
Jtsummers 8y ago
> Some "random guy that's making a startup" presumably would do things to be safe, and ethical, no? That's a very risky assumption to make. Ethics are often secondary considerations for engineer and business thinking (for better or worse). To the point that people advocate the removal of ethics courses from university STEM curricula (not sure how widespread this viewpoint is, but I've heard it my entire adult life, so this whole century).
- loceng 8y ago
  I should have clarified/furthered my thoughts - and it's true you shouldn't by default trust a startup to do things safely or ethically, you should certainly do your due diligence that they aren't making claims that can't be backed up, nor are following processes (etc) that can do more than what is a pre-existing level of acceptable risk/harm. Presumably however, if they're/a startup is expecting to survive in the long-term they'd need to be leveraged and connected with safety and people with the appropriate knowledge, because they should be scrutinized more thoroughly if they're involved with health. Otherwise they're going to die off - and hopefully without hurting too many people or getting too big, like where we could reference Theranos.
rhcom2 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ip26 8y ago

actually improving our house has proven even more enjoyable Plus you get to enjoy the fruits of your labor. That was what completely killed my interest in any amount of game grind- it hit me mid-game that if I spent that time grinding my actual corporeal self, I'd have something to show for it after. I've since improved my AeT mile pace (your "all-day" level) from around 15:00 to 10:00ish. (My dream/goal is to get to 7:00-8:00 at that level of exertion)

Bartweiss 8y ago
This is exactly my experience. It probably helped that I did just enough game design to be acutely aware of even less-obvious time sink mechanisms, but I don't think it was an essential feature of what changed. Even simple puzzle games and other things that aren't manipulative started to pale in the face of the realization that "hey, I could go fix a broken shelf or read a book or exercise and get a lasting benefit". It's not a sense of duty or anything else people would describe as "not being lazy", doing something fruitful just started feeling better. I still play games, and I'm happy with that, but the set of games has shrunk to things with ongoing interest and no grind, and the timing to stretches where I'm tired, stuck (e.g. at an airport), or playing with friends. I don't doubt that addictiveness is a real factor, but I think lots of horror stories about gaming and tech addiction grab the wrong end of the stick. I've seen a half dozen people take "young men now work fewer hours, and game for a similar number more hours" and say "obviously, games destroyed their will to work!" Meanwhile, half my friends have gamed heavily when they had crap jobs, short-term rented apartments, etc, and then stopped as soon as they got bored and found opportunities for lasting improvements. Games are a fantastic way to kill a lot of time comfortably, but that doesn't mean they override all our other impulses.
- wccrawford 8y ago
  I generally only read fiction, so I see video games and books as being in the same category: They're great for relaxation and entertainment, and occasionally bring a new plot or idea, but generally not nearly as useful as fixing or making things. And that's okay. But getting myself to believe that was okay took some doing. I struggled with it for years before I finally found a good balance that didn't make me think I should be more production instead of relaxing.

hollerith 8y ago

(1) Professional help for addiction tends to be very expensive; in contrast, even buying a "specialty" smartphone to replace one's existing smartphone would cost much less. (2) Even those who can easily afford the best professional help, e.g., Ben Affleck, end up having to go back into an in-patient addiction treatment center multiple times (3 times so far for Affleck, the first time's being in 2001), which casts doubt on the effectiveness of professional help. (3) Some people need to advance in their career before they can afford professional help, but addiction makes it harder for a person to make progress in life. An affordable tech solution or partial-solution to addiction can help break this vicious cycle.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
WalterSear 8y ago
Not relevant, since the fundamental issues still aren't being addressed. By and large, dysfunction will just find a different way to manifest itself. Moreover, treating the symptom without treating the disease will be an inordinate struggle until the underlying issues are understood, processed and addressed. This will leave most of the afflicted no better off, and in some ways, significantly worse for the failed effort. Mental health is costly and difficult. There is no shortcut around this. You can't replace it with an app, or we would have replaced it with a book.
- hollerith 8y ago
  Recovering mental health usually takes years. The sufferer or people who care about the sufferer have to learn enough to solve the problem. They must free themselves from false beliefs and keep trying things till they find something that works. Addiction is an obstacle to learning and (more generally) to making progress in life because a large fraction of one's potentially-productive time gets absorbed by the addictive behavior. Replacing an iPhone or Android phone with a phone that is even slightly less addictive (if such a phone existed) would allow a person and those who care about the person to engage in the probably-years-long process of learning and trial and error faster, resulting in fewer years lost to addiction (statistically speaking). * * * Seeing concrete examples of lives ruined by addiction (or by some other illness) makes a person uncomfortable. A natural human response would be for me to reduce that uncomfortable feeling by telling myself it will happen to me because, e.g., (a) the sufferer behaved immorally whereas I am moral or, e.g., (b) the sufferer did not obey the rules of society whereas I do. Are you sure that you haven't reduced your discomfort around addiction by telling yourself that it cannot happen to you or those you love because you and those you love are willing to do the hard work of getting to the "root cause" of the addiction? (Or maybe you believe that it can happen to you, but that you will be able to fix the root cause before a large fraction of your life is ruined by the addiction.) I ask because your comment skates close to what we might call "essentialism", in which you argue that it is useless for you and I try to help the addict because what is wrong is something essential to the addict, so of course only the addict himself can help.

hollerith 8y ago

>My wife and I recently bought a house and I've been finding that I'd rather spend time fixing it up than [engaging in things that many people get addicted to] I propose that most of the hours lost to tech addiction will be lost by people with a severe life problem (e.g., they're paralyzed and in a wheelchair; e.g., they have an incurable disabling illness; e.g., they cannot get a job because they're ugly and have an IQ of 70) in addition to the addiction. Most of them will not be able to find anyone trustworthy and sane to marry them. Most of them will not be able to buy a house. It is natural for a person to respond to the assertion that X is dangerous (or pernicious) by focusing on how dangerous X is to people sufficiently like themselves without considering the danger (or perniciousness) to people in different life circumstances.