5 ms·

All of us with seldom exception use our glowing rectangles as addictive dopamine drips that exploit our innate desire to scavenge for information that ends up d

All of us with seldom exception use our glowing rectangles as addictive dopamine drips that exploit our innate desire to scavenge for information that ends up disconnecting us from the world and, likely, things we actually find fulfilling. And we watch our own children suffer the exact same way and wonder what can actually be done about it. There was a submission this morning or yesterday about "if we could live our lives over" where many HNers were lamenting how they felt like they were wasting their precious hours. How many of those people would say that their screen time wasn't contributing? Or that it was actually fulfilling? Not sure who here relates to the idea of spending the bulk of their screen time organizing transport and planning dinner parties or whatever. Or the idea of "no, I actually do like how much time I spend on <vice> and I'm trying to get those numbers up even higher." For some reason whenever this topic comes up, we have people playing coy with what "screen time" could possibly be referring to. "What, you're saying it's bad to use my iPhone to Facetime my dying father?"

superkuh 6y ago
It's not essential to your argument, but the whole "dopamine drip" thing is not helping. Using ancient disproven 1970s neuroscience tropes here in such a broadly incorrect way just makes me dismiss your potentially legit reasoning.
- cosmojg 6y ago
  I took it as a metaphor. The argument makes perfect sense in that light. Engage with the argument rather than its presentation, and you might just move the conversation forward.
  - superkuh 6y ago
    People who try to call things addictive without evidence do real damage. Governments then take up this "addictive" label and make things illegal. Screens are not addictive. That word has a real meaning. Op in this context tried to justify the use of addiction by some folktale neuroscience from ages past. I agreed with him that maybe there's something to not always looking at screens. But I strongly disgree with you. I was attacking a dangerous part of the argument.
cle 6y ago
I’m not sure why I should think that any of that is unique to screens.
- zests 6y ago
  Everything is bad in excess but not everything is equally bad.

superkuh 6y ago

It's not essential to your argument, but the whole "dopamine drip" thing is not helping. Using ancient disproven 1970s neuroscience tropes here in such a broadly incorrect way just makes me dismiss your potentially legit reasoning.

cosmojg 6y ago
I took it as a metaphor. The argument makes perfect sense in that light. Engage with the argument rather than its presentation, and you might just move the conversation forward.
- superkuh 6y ago
  People who try to call things addictive without evidence do real damage. Governments then take up this "addictive" label and make things illegal. Screens are not addictive. That word has a real meaning. Op in this context tried to justify the use of addiction by some folktale neuroscience from ages past. I agreed with him that maybe there's something to not always looking at screens. But I strongly disgree with you. I was attacking a dangerous part of the argument.

cle 6y ago

I’m not sure why I should think that any of that is unique to screens.

zests 6y ago
Everything is bad in excess but not everything is equally bad.