4 ms·

There are entire subreddits dedicated to mocking this point, like /r/PhonesAreBad, and /r/InsaneParents. I doubt half the screenshots they post of text message

There are entire subreddits dedicated to mocking this point, like /r/PhonesAreBad, and /r/InsaneParents. I doubt half the screenshots they post of text message conversations are even real -- but the point gets across. Phones are the most wonderful thing that keep us connected to each other, and only crude luddites living in the dark ages who don't understand the benefit they provide would take them away from a kid down spiraling into depression. It's almost like there's this gravitational well of depressed anxious people, and they don't want anyone to escape.

tgv 6y ago
It's an addiction. People leaving the circle are directly taking away the addict's stimulus.
- superkuh 6y ago
  Please don't use words that have a real medical meaning in such an inaccurate and casual way. Calling things addictive has real consequences in terms of legislators taking these confused public sentiments as fact and then trying to use force against the groups that are "addicted". Addiction has never been proven in this context. Addiction is a a real, serious problem with drugs that effect the brains reward system (opioids) or prediction of reward (amphetamines). It is not a real problem associated with using online forums using a computer.
  - tgv 6y ago
    If it was just opioids or ampthetamines, alcohol or nocotine wouldn't be addictive, would it? Please don't use incomplete or irrelevant factoids when you contradict. But prediction of reward might very well be a concise description of the drive behind social media use.
    - superkuh 6y ago
      >If it was just opioids or ampthetamines, Obviously it's not. I gave examples of two drugs and their direct mechanisms of action. >But prediction of reward might very well be a concise description of the drive behind social media use. No, that's a description of a living mammal brain. Addiction is when that system is hijacked directly, not when it is doing it's normal thing in response to stimuli.
      - tgv 6y ago
        Then why did you write up that precise phrase? You're upset about what I wrote, that much is obvious.
        superkuh 6y ago
        I get you're concentrating on me not listing every mechanism of directly effecting the biochemistry of the reward and reward prediction substrates in the brain. But that doesn't matter. The distinction I'm trying to get across here is that normal stimuli that are just perceptions are not intrinsically addictive and when you claim one is there is a need for evidence of the claim.
pmiller2 6y ago
There’s a subreddit about how phones are bad that most people probably access on their phones? I think my head just exploded.
- tgv 6y ago
  The name of the subreddit should be read as "look at all these idiots saying that phones are bad". Or perhaps r/PhonesAreBadMKay
itronitron 6y ago
I recall reading a book review on Amazon recently in which the reviewer referenced CDC fatality information to show that middle-aged adults were more likely to die in stupid ways than teenagers despite the popular pseudo-science wisdom that 'the teenage brain' is more prone to risk-taking because it hasn't 'fully developed.'

tgv 6y ago

It's an addiction. People leaving the circle are directly taking away the addict's stimulus.

superkuh 6y ago
Please don't use words that have a real medical meaning in such an inaccurate and casual way. Calling things addictive has real consequences in terms of legislators taking these confused public sentiments as fact and then trying to use force against the groups that are "addicted". Addiction has never been proven in this context. Addiction is a a real, serious problem with drugs that effect the brains reward system (opioids) or prediction of reward (amphetamines). It is not a real problem associated with using online forums using a computer.
- tgv 6y ago
  If it was just opioids or ampthetamines, alcohol or nocotine wouldn't be addictive, would it? Please don't use incomplete or irrelevant factoids when you contradict. But prediction of reward might very well be a concise description of the drive behind social media use.
  - superkuh 6y ago
    >If it was just opioids or ampthetamines, Obviously it's not. I gave examples of two drugs and their direct mechanisms of action. >But prediction of reward might very well be a concise description of the drive behind social media use. No, that's a description of a living mammal brain. Addiction is when that system is hijacked directly, not when it is doing it's normal thing in response to stimuli.
    - tgv 6y ago
      Then why did you write up that precise phrase? You're upset about what I wrote, that much is obvious.
      - superkuh 6y ago
        I get you're concentrating on me not listing every mechanism of directly effecting the biochemistry of the reward and reward prediction substrates in the brain. But that doesn't matter. The distinction I'm trying to get across here is that normal stimuli that are just perceptions are not intrinsically addictive and when you claim one is there is a need for evidence of the claim.

pmiller2 6y ago

There’s a subreddit about how phones are bad that most people probably access on their phones? I think my head just exploded.

tgv 6y ago
The name of the subreddit should be read as "look at all these idiots saying that phones are bad". Or perhaps r/PhonesAreBadMKay

itronitron 6y ago

I recall reading a book review on Amazon recently in which the reviewer referenced CDC fatality information to show that middle-aged adults were more likely to die in stupid ways than teenagers despite the popular pseudo-science wisdom that 'the teenage brain' is more prone to risk-taking because it hasn't 'fully developed.'