10 ms·

Technology “Addiction”

44 points by nireyal 5y ago

skindoe 5y ago
Feel like this is all semantics. Sure the term "addiction" isn't fully applicable but the claim that because it's not addictive that there is nothing to the premise is spurious. I suggest everyone read the hacking of the American mind by Ronald lustig.
cheschire 5y ago
I say this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm reminded of Bob Saget's scene in the movie Half Baked. It's vulgar, be warned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q
- Tempest1981 5y ago
  And this, simple "Stop it!" therapy from Bob Newhart: https://vimeo.com/97370236 https://vimeo.com/97370236
Causality1 5y ago
"You can't be addicted to technology because people have historically panicked over other addictions like novels and hobbies" is such a vapid argument. Human beings have a strong propensity for addiction to stimulation, in whatever form they can get it. Novels, sports, hobbies, social media, whatever. We know this, we want this, and we're willing to give it to each other in increasingly convenient ways. Player pianos, novels, television, smartphone, the march of convenient stimulation goes ever on. That doesn't stop it from being an addiction. There is a dangerous threshold where the stimulation becomes so easy it threatens our everyday lives. My sister in law is a kindergarten teacher. She says kids ask her on a regular basis how to get their parents to talk to them instead of looking at their phones.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  That's horrifying. As a parent myself, I know I spend too much of my time with my kids on my phone, but I also don't use it at the dinner/lunch table, while I'm reading to them or tucking them in, while we're having an actual conversation or doing an activity like playing a board game or going for a bike ride. So there's room for improvement, but I hope that being intentional in carving out at least these handful of times every day is something.
caymanjim 5y ago
This is a horrible format for providing the transcript, and a long and boring conversation, so I didn't read much of it...but from what I can tell, they're just trying to redefine the word 'addiction' to a narrow, specific, and arbitrary meaning. I've consumed plenty of supposedly-addictive chemicals, and aside from nicotine, none of them have the kind of pyschological hold over me--or rewarding brain-chemical satisfaction--as video games. That's a more narrow focus than "technology", but these days everything is being gamified, so there's no clear delineation.
- Sigmoid 5y ago
  Agreed. I personally think one problem with this article is their cult following of science. I guess there isn't conclusive scientific evidence that social media or video games are addictive or detrimental to you. But should I wait possible decades for more conclusive research? I rather not. I know I have been addicted to video games and it has negativity impacted my life. The reason people are making these 'assumptions' about social media/video games being addictive is because they can see it in their own life and the life of others. The 'hard science' this guy is talking about just hasn't catched up.
  - visarga 5y ago
    Yet another call to trust personal experiences, stories and subjective opinions as more authoritative than science. It's a bad trend.
    - louis___ 5y ago
      Science should be a tool, not be a religion that you MUST trust. When the voice of the people does not matter anymore because some guy in a white coat said "Science, you know", this is another kind of bad trend.
      - visarga 5y ago
        There are opinions and personal experiences - valid for one or a few people, and then there are scientific concepts that are universal and generalize everywhere. The Mars helicopter flies OK even though it wasn't designed on Mars. Science works with or without people's approval. My main concern with stories is that they are prone to emotional appeal and cherry picking of facts. We live in the era of fake news and critical justice mobs after all, we need to be skeptic. What if the story proposes an agenda that is just supporting another group against your own, not including a balanced view of the situation? What if the underlying message is that of social war, non-inclusiveness and dehumanizing towards the "oppressor group"? The Bible itself is a story with many many victims during the last two millennia.
FriedrichN 5y ago
Disclaimer: I did not listen to the podcast, I merely skimmed the transcript. Is 'addiction' to social media the same as an addiction to heroin? No of course not. But it is evident that some people have great trouble to not have it control their life to a certain degree. If addiction is defined as "a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences" I think you could argue that some people are addicted to social media. Just because you're not injecting something into your bloodstream doesn't mean it can't be an addiction, many lives are destroyed by gambling addiction for example. Also from the blurb: >discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.) It's always you who has to break the addiction. I don't see how this makes it an "addiction" instead of just an addiction without the scare quotes.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  Very much so. All addictions even the chemical ones are happening in the brain. Whether the condition is present with or without the initial introduction of chemicals is moot. I'm glad the comments here are quoting addiction to social media rather than technology. If the tech wasn't connected to real people providing input I don't think these people would care. I'm probably an outlier (though maybe not so much on HN) that I'm more addicted to computers as an extension of myself and can easily go without touching my phone or social media for a day and much less so my PC/laptop.
- visarga 5y ago
  There are things which were considered addictions and then they became normal and even encouraged behavior, such as reading. Is it a real addiction if it depends on the historical period? Drug addiction doesn't.
re-al 5y ago
There is an interesting point there - that new things are compelling in a way that can't really justify the effort we put into it. That radio was compelling in its time. I don't have a problem with using the word 'addiction' though. But the tech we have now is coming through much faster - there is no way that we can play with it in our 'natural' way (over years) and overcome it. I think it is an overwhelming change.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  I think it's worth noting a difference between first & second hand perspective. It's generally other people (eg parents) who were critical of radio/tv/comic/etc use. They call it addiction. With technology "addiction," there is a lot of first hand experience. People consider themselves addicted, and can't stop doing X without external help or abstinence devices. If someone wants, tries and fails to abstain from anything, is that not an operative definition of addiction?
  - re-al 5y ago
    I think it is an 'operative definition of addiction'. Words are what we choose them to mean. When I spend hours in front of screens, I don't feel like I have made the best use of my time and I feel like I have been somewhat manipulated in those actions. It does feel like nothing. To me its a negative feeling. 'Addiction' encompasses that mixed feeling, where on reflection I seem to have acted against my own interests. I'm not even keen on trying to find another word for this - I actually want the negativity associated with a term like 'addiction'. I'm not a masochist, but I don't want to start justifying what seems like bad behaviour as if it was a good thing.
- caddemon 5y ago
  It seems to me this is the first era where the content is practically endless, which I think is a meaningful distinction that can make phone/social media worse than prior technologies. Growing up I spent a lot of time on AIM and then texting with one of those keyboard cellphones, but I only messaged with my immediate friend group - so it was limited for the most part to a specific after school window. My grandfather's day used to revolve around his favorite radio shows, but those had a set air time. When they were over, they were over. Getting invested in books or video games is a bit different, but even those were limited in the sense you would have to pay for each particular book or game, or at least make regular trips to the library. Now a days there is 0 cost or inconvenience to obtaining more content, with no real time restrictions. So it is all too easy to not realize how long you've just spent on social media or to stay up much too late scrolling on your phone. Filling time with your phone is the path of least resistance moreso than it is something to look forward to. I think the fact the content has no clear stopping points also contributes to that feeling that you haven't actually done anything after hours on social media. Obviously it is not productive time, but it somehow manages to feel like nothing.
dalbasal 5y ago
I haven't listened to the episode, so this may be off, but... our broad use of the word “addiction” can cause real harm. I would say that the opposite is (at least) as harmful. Quantifying and medically defining addiction narrowly has led to a lot of harm. Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction? Withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism are among the most dangerous, and deadly, much worse than cocaine. That doesn't quite capture what addiction is though. Withdrawal symptoms are short lived, and addicts of many substances are extremely likely to regress well after this part. Cannabis can be habit forming. There are no withdrawal symptoms, and motivated quitters seem to have good success rates... even returning to moderate use. OTOH, it is a very common experience that someone decides not to consume... but does, repeatedly, with impacts on other areas of life. We know that context and comorbidity is very important. I think there's no doubt that technology creates impulsive & compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to. It's all complex. There aren't real dividing lines between procrastination, self discipline issues addiction and such. People call it addiction because it walks and quacks like addiction. I'm more inclined to say that research definitions are incorrect that layman ones. If a researcher narrows the definition to observable neurochemistry or withdrawal symptoms, excluding other addictions with similar behavioural effects... who is wrong here? That said, I haven't listened. Adding depth and nuance to our understanding of different addiction (or addiction like) experiences may be useful.
- codeulike 5y ago
  Really interesting take. Is there a 'more' missing from second-last para?
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    yep, fixed.
- anotha1 5y ago
  > People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction? Because you can walk to an ashtray and pick out cigarette butts, which is about as dirty as the prostitution.
rubidium 5y ago
We’re reaching a tipping point in our society where some peoples lived experience is primarily digital, and the physical is an accessory. Our world, peoples health, and the things we need for a fulfilling life will suffer as a result.
rusk 5y ago
Whether you are “addicted” to something or not (and what defines “addiction”) is the wrong question, in my opinion. The correct one is whether your repeated, compulsive behaviour is affecting anyone else. If you knew it was, could you stop?
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  or if you like how it's affecting you, and if not, can stop.
  - rusk 5y ago
    Yes, thank you - I had a feeling I had missed some critical aspect!
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
Meh. Whatever. Some things are worth arguing over; some things, not so much. I classify this as "not so much." I'm fairly familiar with "addiction," in its classic sense, and this doesn't really bother me. There's no doubt that "gamification" (karma, scores, like/dislike, rate, etc.) is designed to increase users' reliance on a UX. It works. I'm as cynical as they come, and it works on me. It feels like addiction, and putting it aside is uncomfortable (otherwise known as "withdrawal"). Is it seizures, massive cramps, and shitting myself? No, but it is uncomfortable, all the same. It reminds me of Marie Nyswander's classic "broken brain" theory. That's the one where the doctor, in their lab coat, looks at you all serious, and tells you how your "brain is broken," because of your irresponsible behavior (gotta have the moral judgement there, dontcha know), you have destroyed your brain's capacity for creating endorphins/serotonin/brainjuice/whatever, and you are going to have a lifetime of agony and pain, unless you let them prescribe "Addiction-B-Gon™," the $500/month "nutritional supplement." Here's the trick. Get them to give it to you in writing, on their letterhead, with their signature at the bottom. Exactly what they told you, verbally; that it's a permanent condition (as opposed to the few months that research proves happens anyway). The "broken brain theory" has been applied to all sorts of deviant behavior. I've seen it used to explain drug addiction, alcoholism, kleptomania, pedophilia, sexual promiscuity, gambling, video game addiction, shopping addiction, eating disorders, political affiliations, reading too many pulp novels, heavy metal/hip-hop/swing music preferences, etc. It's like a pseudoscientific Swiss army knife. It's one of those things that pretty much personifies the H. L. Mencken quote: "There's always an easy solution to every human problem; Neat, plausible and wrong."
twodave 5y ago
I'm no scholar or researcher, just someone who's experienced impulsive behavior as a regular old human. I'd categorize any activity that attempts to short-circuit the usual reward center of the brain as potentially addictive. Using an addictive substance or technology isn't in itself an addiction, rather the point we start making unhealthy choices to support our use (e.g. choosing to stay home instead of hang out with friends, skipping meals, lying, etc.) is where the world of the addict begins. Video games short-circuit our reward center with achievements, making the effort involved in feeling a sense of accomplishment much less than it should be. Pornography and casual sex short-circuit the effort involved to consummate a fulfilling relationship with something much less than it should be. Drugs short-circuit the process of personal growth, removing pain and introducing happy feelings that don't align with our current situation. Food as a drug can combat feelings of loneliness, though the effects of the resulting obesity can drive us to isolation. None of the feelings or sensations brought on by these things are inherently bad or wrong. They all share in common the fact that chasing after pleasure or sensation puts the cart before the horse, as if one could actually be fulfilled by these things instead of them being effects caused by the real things, those things we're short-circuiting. Addiction fine-tunes the brain so that real, wholesome things start to seem unfulfilling, even boring. It's a real shame because those real, wholesome things are often the only way out.
- hacoo 5y ago
  I find this comment quite insightful. ‘Addiction’ is a complicated and loaded term, which may or may not be helpful. Sometimes, it’s more question of examining one’s life and making the very difficult choices necessary to be happy in the long run. It’s also an insightful point that, when ‘addicted’, normal or moderate behaviors can start to feel meaningless - as if they would lead to an intolerably dry life. Trusting this will not be the case is important when making a change.
jrochkind1 5y ago
I always agreed that "addiction" was the wrong word for most/all things that were not chemical substances. But then i quit smoking cigarettes, which was very challenging, and involved really paying attention to my relationship with smoking and how it made me feel and why I did it. Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes. The way I used them both as a procrastination, or distraction, device, or to avoid being alone with myself. The fear of what I'd find do if I weren't doing them, how I'd have to find something. The way I reached for both to calm me down, even though they didn't necessarily have that long-term effect. The generally compulsive feeling of them both, difficulty just "deciding" not to do them or even to take a break, and then following through. > For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression. Oh yeah, and that so much described my smoking too! (Not an ultimately long-term successful coping mechanism, but an attempt). And definitely a part of addictive relationship with say alcohol for other people I know. I think that is actually common to (substance) addiction for many people, that it's in part related to coping with anxiety or trauma or depression -- rather than this being a distinction from addiction? I mean, surely this is born out by research, it seems such a commonplace of recovery narratives, right? His protestations of the ways technology use is different from addiction just make me think "gee, that sounds a lot like my experience and what I've heard of others experiences of (substance) addiction!" This is in fact the real center of what made me realize social media use did feel like an addiction, that both it and smoking were related to coping with things like this for me. I am sure there are many ways they are different as well as similar, but I definitely now (and didn't use to) see why people reach for that term to describe "technology" and other non-substance "addictions". I still haven't managed to quit social media...
- travisjungroth 5y ago
  > Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes. My experience is that they're not just similar, they're the same. The tug of a vape pen and the tug of a phone are indistinguishable from another except for the object they point to. If I didn't have one on me, I'd reach for the other.
ultrastable 5y ago
agreed that the social media addiction studies are trash, but this is representative of how flawed the understanding of addiction in this discussion is: Joel Billieux: For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression. Jason Feifer: Let's say someone comes into a clinic, their gaming usage meets a certain definition of addiction, it is having a negative consequence on their social, family, or occupational life. But a trained clinician like Joel, must be able to look underneath those symptoms and find potential other issues. that doesn't mean something's not an addiction! substance misuse is almost always a coping method, and one that's masking other issues. I don't believe "gaming addiction" is a big problem or even necessarily real, but it's a little annoying to see these guys critiquing the scientific failures of a particular discourse then demonstrate how flawed their own understanding of addiction is
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ultrastable 5y ago
"Nir Eyal: The vast majority of people stop playing these video games. Do you think people are still going to be playing Fortnite and Candy Crush in 10 years or so? Of course not, they'll be doing something else once they get interested in other things that they decide to pursue. So, if it's really the behavior this technology is doing to us, that shouldn't make sense. They should be addicts for life, but that's clearly not what happens." pretty vapid. someone could have an unhealthy unrelationship w/ games w/o literally playing the same game for a decade lol. and in any case, saying "they shoudl be addicts for life" shows this guy isn't at all up to date on addiction science. most addictions resolve themselves after a period of time
- twodave 5y ago
  True--still, with many things (I'd say anything besides actual hard drugs) it's easy to confuse casual use with addiction. "Spending a lot of time" playing a video game is NOT the same as skipping meals, lying, self-isolating and losing sleep to keep playing.
  - ultrastable 5y ago
    yeah, I don't disagree w/ the fact that the word "addiction" shouldn't be thrown around too casually, but I don't like the way they're scolding others for being insufficiently scientific while they demonstrate their own ignorance
  - ultrastable 5y ago
    and re: hard drugs, casual use of those that doesn't meet addiction thresholds is way more common than most people think
  - ultrastable 5y ago
    not to mention - it's a little convenient that the author of a book called "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" is telling us that actually, we shouldn't be worried about those products
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nojito 5y ago
This is a very dangerous premise and seems to be structured to pushing the linked website's "training" Smartphone addiction, for example, is a very real thing and causes similar effects to drug addiction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460319313802#b0080 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...
Inhibit 5y ago
One can be an addict. To my mind the condition of addiction is, at least somewhat, divorced from the object of the addiction. Addiction certainly seems to survive its initial objects absence. I would probably put the quotes around Technology above, rather than Addicted. Could be it's the pathology expressing itself and whatever the technology is is only tangentially related to what's going on. To my mind this can all be in a similar silo to gambling or love addiction. How different is a slot machine from many games? Just my 2 cents and not a professional analysis.
MattRix 5y ago
Was a bit annoying to see that Nir’s main counter examples were “Do you want Netflix to make less engaging shows? Do you want to make less engaging podcasts?”. I don’t know if anyone says they’re addicted to podcasts, but either way those clearly aren’t the most addictive things out there… and on top of that, services like Netflix could easily add in simple screens like “hey, youve watched 5 episodes in a row, would you like to take a break”. The thing this podcast didn’t seem to address is the fact that moder social media is A/B tested for maximum engagement. Similarly, modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. This makes a huge difference to how hard it is to stop engaging with this stuff!
- twodave 5y ago
  >modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. I may be in the minority, but as a 36-year-old I think the opposite is true. As a teenager I was very loyal to just a handful (3-5) video games, with one in particular (Subspace, later known as Continuum) taking up most of my playtime. In those days it was actually the community that made games sticky. I would feel as if I were letting real people down by not logging in. Today's games just feel like another job. For me, this started with games like WoW but the feeling has matured since. There's just nothing satisfying to me about a grind. I still like the odd casual game and even the occasional complex game, as long as it doesn't feel too much like work. Of course, that was also 20 years ago, so I've also changed a lot in that time.
  - MattRix 5y ago
    Ha I’m also 36! To be clear I don’t mean modern games are “better” games, that’s obviously subjective. I mean that the design techniques are more advanced. Games have evolved as designers learn which mechanics and systems are more compelling. There are less rough edges, less places to get stuck… more enticing rewards, more carefully designed progression paths, etc. This is especially true in most modern “service based” games. Fortnite is an obvious example where there are certain rewards and upgrades that can only be earned by playing every day, and playing at least X hours per season, etc.
dahart 5y ago
Took some time to read the transcript before jumping to conclusions, but the whole episode never gets passed the sticking point that “addiction” has a clinical meaning, and many people are using the word in the popular more common and less strict meaning of the word, simply compulsive behavior. The problem here is that the non-clinical “addiction” is a valid definition. It appears in the dictionary (see #2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction). People actually understand what it means accurately as well, nobody is getting confused and hearing the clinical definition. I’d agree that researchers into social media problems should avoid it, but the misuse is not by and large confusing or misleading most people. Instead of discussing the validity of the popular meaning, it’s framed and titled as “not addiction”, which just plays on the confusion of the term rather than clarifying or offering alternatives! “Caffeine addiction” is routinely thrown around, and everyone knows what it means. People who know the clinical term say that there is “caffeine dependence”, not addiction. This episode didn’t offer any alternative words for what social media is doing, it just stayed stuck on “not addiction”. They could have suggested talking about dependence or habit forming or compulsions or a weakness for social media. The author could have guided the discussion towards establishing the right terminology for what social media does, but instead chooses to re-emphasize the idea that “addiction” is the wrong word over and over again. > The hallmark of addiction is that it interferes with social or family or occupational life. But when you use social media or the internet, you are generally participating in your social or family or occupational life. This is an unfortunately dismissive and pretty misleading framing IMO. We all know that the harmful sides of social media are exactly the parts that don’t involve family and occupation life, and that those parts of the internet are enormous. The article discussed Netflix, which doesn’t involve social interaction. YouTube is mostly not friends talking to friends. Qanon didn’t happen because people were talking with their family and co-workers.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

44 points by nireyal 5y ago

Feel like this is all semantics. Sure the term "addiction" isn't fully applicable but the claim that because it's not addictive that there is nothing to the premise is spurious. I suggest everyone read the hacking of the American mind by Ronald lustig.

cheschire 5y ago

I say this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm reminded of Bob Saget's scene in the movie Half Baked. It's vulgar, be warned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q

Tempest1981 5y ago
And this, simple "Stop it!" therapy from Bob Newhart: https://vimeo.com/97370236 https://vimeo.com/97370236

Causality1 5y ago

"You can't be addicted to technology because people have historically panicked over other addictions like novels and hobbies" is such a vapid argument. Human beings have a strong propensity for addiction to stimulation, in whatever form they can get it. Novels, sports, hobbies, social media, whatever. We know this, we want this, and we're willing to give it to each other in increasingly convenient ways. Player pianos, novels, television, smartphone, the march of convenient stimulation goes ever on. That doesn't stop it from being an addiction. There is a dangerous threshold where the stimulation becomes so easy it threatens our everyday lives. My sister in law is a kindergarten teacher. She says kids ask her on a regular basis how to get their parents to talk to them instead of looking at their phones.

mikepurvis 5y ago
That's horrifying. As a parent myself, I know I spend too much of my time with my kids on my phone, but I also don't use it at the dinner/lunch table, while I'm reading to them or tucking them in, while we're having an actual conversation or doing an activity like playing a board game or going for a bike ride. So there's room for improvement, but I hope that being intentional in carving out at least these handful of times every day is something.

caymanjim 5y ago

This is a horrible format for providing the transcript, and a long and boring conversation, so I didn't read much of it...but from what I can tell, they're just trying to redefine the word 'addiction' to a narrow, specific, and arbitrary meaning. I've consumed plenty of supposedly-addictive chemicals, and aside from nicotine, none of them have the kind of pyschological hold over me--or rewarding brain-chemical satisfaction--as video games. That's a more narrow focus than "technology", but these days everything is being gamified, so there's no clear delineation.

Sigmoid 5y ago
Agreed. I personally think one problem with this article is their cult following of science. I guess there isn't conclusive scientific evidence that social media or video games are addictive or detrimental to you. But should I wait possible decades for more conclusive research? I rather not. I know I have been addicted to video games and it has negativity impacted my life. The reason people are making these 'assumptions' about social media/video games being addictive is because they can see it in their own life and the life of others. The 'hard science' this guy is talking about just hasn't catched up.
- visarga 5y ago
  Yet another call to trust personal experiences, stories and subjective opinions as more authoritative than science. It's a bad trend.
  - louis___ 5y ago
    Science should be a tool, not be a religion that you MUST trust. When the voice of the people does not matter anymore because some guy in a white coat said "Science, you know", this is another kind of bad trend.
    - visarga 5y ago
      There are opinions and personal experiences - valid for one or a few people, and then there are scientific concepts that are universal and generalize everywhere. The Mars helicopter flies OK even though it wasn't designed on Mars. Science works with or without people's approval. My main concern with stories is that they are prone to emotional appeal and cherry picking of facts. We live in the era of fake news and critical justice mobs after all, we need to be skeptic. What if the story proposes an agenda that is just supporting another group against your own, not including a balanced view of the situation? What if the underlying message is that of social war, non-inclusiveness and dehumanizing towards the "oppressor group"? The Bible itself is a story with many many victims during the last two millennia.

FriedrichN 5y ago

Disclaimer: I did not listen to the podcast, I merely skimmed the transcript. Is 'addiction' to social media the same as an addiction to heroin? No of course not. But it is evident that some people have great trouble to not have it control their life to a certain degree. If addiction is defined as "a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences" I think you could argue that some people are addicted to social media. Just because you're not injecting something into your bloodstream doesn't mean it can't be an addiction, many lives are destroyed by gambling addiction for example. Also from the blurb: >discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.) It's always you who has to break the addiction. I don't see how this makes it an "addiction" instead of just an addiction without the scare quotes.

karmakaze 5y ago
Very much so. All addictions even the chemical ones are happening in the brain. Whether the condition is present with or without the initial introduction of chemicals is moot. I'm glad the comments here are quoting addiction to social media rather than technology. If the tech wasn't connected to real people providing input I don't think these people would care. I'm probably an outlier (though maybe not so much on HN) that I'm more addicted to computers as an extension of myself and can easily go without touching my phone or social media for a day and much less so my PC/laptop.
visarga 5y ago
There are things which were considered addictions and then they became normal and even encouraged behavior, such as reading. Is it a real addiction if it depends on the historical period? Drug addiction doesn't.

re-al 5y ago

There is an interesting point there - that new things are compelling in a way that can't really justify the effort we put into it. That radio was compelling in its time. I don't have a problem with using the word 'addiction' though. But the tech we have now is coming through much faster - there is no way that we can play with it in our 'natural' way (over years) and overcome it. I think it is an overwhelming change.

dalbasal 5y ago
I think it's worth noting a difference between first & second hand perspective. It's generally other people (eg parents) who were critical of radio/tv/comic/etc use. They call it addiction. With technology "addiction," there is a lot of first hand experience. People consider themselves addicted, and can't stop doing X without external help or abstinence devices. If someone wants, tries and fails to abstain from anything, is that not an operative definition of addiction?
- re-al 5y ago
  I think it is an 'operative definition of addiction'. Words are what we choose them to mean. When I spend hours in front of screens, I don't feel like I have made the best use of my time and I feel like I have been somewhat manipulated in those actions. It does feel like nothing. To me its a negative feeling. 'Addiction' encompasses that mixed feeling, where on reflection I seem to have acted against my own interests. I'm not even keen on trying to find another word for this - I actually want the negativity associated with a term like 'addiction'. I'm not a masochist, but I don't want to start justifying what seems like bad behaviour as if it was a good thing.
caddemon 5y ago
It seems to me this is the first era where the content is practically endless, which I think is a meaningful distinction that can make phone/social media worse than prior technologies. Growing up I spent a lot of time on AIM and then texting with one of those keyboard cellphones, but I only messaged with my immediate friend group - so it was limited for the most part to a specific after school window. My grandfather's day used to revolve around his favorite radio shows, but those had a set air time. When they were over, they were over. Getting invested in books or video games is a bit different, but even those were limited in the sense you would have to pay for each particular book or game, or at least make regular trips to the library. Now a days there is 0 cost or inconvenience to obtaining more content, with no real time restrictions. So it is all too easy to not realize how long you've just spent on social media or to stay up much too late scrolling on your phone. Filling time with your phone is the path of least resistance moreso than it is something to look forward to. I think the fact the content has no clear stopping points also contributes to that feeling that you haven't actually done anything after hours on social media. Obviously it is not productive time, but it somehow manages to feel like nothing.

dalbasal 5y ago

I haven't listened to the episode, so this may be off, but... our broad use of the word “addiction” can cause real harm. I would say that the opposite is (at least) as harmful. Quantifying and medically defining addiction narrowly has led to a lot of harm. Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction? Withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism are among the most dangerous, and deadly, much worse than cocaine. That doesn't quite capture what addiction is though. Withdrawal symptoms are short lived, and addicts of many substances are extremely likely to regress well after this part. Cannabis can be habit forming. There are no withdrawal symptoms, and motivated quitters seem to have good success rates... even returning to moderate use. OTOH, it is a very common experience that someone decides not to consume... but does, repeatedly, with impacts on other areas of life. We know that context and comorbidity is very important. I think there's no doubt that technology creates impulsive & compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to. It's all complex. There aren't real dividing lines between procrastination, self discipline issues addiction and such. People call it addiction because it walks and quacks like addiction. I'm more inclined to say that research definitions are incorrect that layman ones. If a researcher narrows the definition to observable neurochemistry or withdrawal symptoms, excluding other addictions with similar behavioural effects... who is wrong here? That said, I haven't listened. Adding depth and nuance to our understanding of different addiction (or addiction like) experiences may be useful.

codeulike 5y ago
Really interesting take. Is there a 'more' missing from second-last para?
- dalbasal 5y ago
  yep, fixed.
anotha1 5y ago
> People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction? Because you can walk to an ashtray and pick out cigarette butts, which is about as dirty as the prostitution.

rubidium 5y ago

We’re reaching a tipping point in our society where some peoples lived experience is primarily digital, and the physical is an accessory. Our world, peoples health, and the things we need for a fulfilling life will suffer as a result.

rusk 5y ago

Whether you are “addicted” to something or not (and what defines “addiction”) is the wrong question, in my opinion. The correct one is whether your repeated, compulsive behaviour is affecting anyone else. If you knew it was, could you stop?

jrochkind1 5y ago
or if you like how it's affecting you, and if not, can stop.
- rusk 5y ago
  Yes, thank you - I had a feeling I had missed some critical aspect!

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

Meh. Whatever. Some things are worth arguing over; some things, not so much. I classify this as "not so much." I'm fairly familiar with "addiction," in its classic sense, and this doesn't really bother me. There's no doubt that "gamification" (karma, scores, like/dislike, rate, etc.) is designed to increase users' reliance on a UX. It works. I'm as cynical as they come, and it works on me. It feels like addiction, and putting it aside is uncomfortable (otherwise known as "withdrawal"). Is it seizures, massive cramps, and shitting myself? No, but it is uncomfortable, all the same. It reminds me of Marie Nyswander's classic "broken brain" theory. That's the one where the doctor, in their lab coat, looks at you all serious, and tells you how your "brain is broken," because of your irresponsible behavior (gotta have the moral judgement there, dontcha know), you have destroyed your brain's capacity for creating endorphins/serotonin/brainjuice/whatever, and you are going to have a lifetime of agony and pain, unless you let them prescribe "Addiction-B-Gon™," the $500/month "nutritional supplement." Here's the trick. Get them to give it to you in writing, on their letterhead, with their signature at the bottom. Exactly what they told you, verbally; that it's a permanent condition (as opposed to the few months that research proves happens anyway). The "broken brain theory" has been applied to all sorts of deviant behavior. I've seen it used to explain drug addiction, alcoholism, kleptomania, pedophilia, sexual promiscuity, gambling, video game addiction, shopping addiction, eating disorders, political affiliations, reading too many pulp novels, heavy metal/hip-hop/swing music preferences, etc. It's like a pseudoscientific Swiss army knife. It's one of those things that pretty much personifies the H. L. Mencken quote: "There's always an easy solution to every human problem; Neat, plausible and wrong."

twodave 5y ago

I'm no scholar or researcher, just someone who's experienced impulsive behavior as a regular old human. I'd categorize any activity that attempts to short-circuit the usual reward center of the brain as potentially addictive. Using an addictive substance or technology isn't in itself an addiction, rather the point we start making unhealthy choices to support our use (e.g. choosing to stay home instead of hang out with friends, skipping meals, lying, etc.) is where the world of the addict begins. Video games short-circuit our reward center with achievements, making the effort involved in feeling a sense of accomplishment much less than it should be. Pornography and casual sex short-circuit the effort involved to consummate a fulfilling relationship with something much less than it should be. Drugs short-circuit the process of personal growth, removing pain and introducing happy feelings that don't align with our current situation. Food as a drug can combat feelings of loneliness, though the effects of the resulting obesity can drive us to isolation. None of the feelings or sensations brought on by these things are inherently bad or wrong. They all share in common the fact that chasing after pleasure or sensation puts the cart before the horse, as if one could actually be fulfilled by these things instead of them being effects caused by the real things, those things we're short-circuiting. Addiction fine-tunes the brain so that real, wholesome things start to seem unfulfilling, even boring. It's a real shame because those real, wholesome things are often the only way out.

hacoo 5y ago
I find this comment quite insightful. ‘Addiction’ is a complicated and loaded term, which may or may not be helpful. Sometimes, it’s more question of examining one’s life and making the very difficult choices necessary to be happy in the long run. It’s also an insightful point that, when ‘addicted’, normal or moderate behaviors can start to feel meaningless - as if they would lead to an intolerably dry life. Trusting this will not be the case is important when making a change.

jrochkind1 5y ago

I always agreed that "addiction" was the wrong word for most/all things that were not chemical substances. But then i quit smoking cigarettes, which was very challenging, and involved really paying attention to my relationship with smoking and how it made me feel and why I did it. Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes. The way I used them both as a procrastination, or distraction, device, or to avoid being alone with myself. The fear of what I'd find do if I weren't doing them, how I'd have to find something. The way I reached for both to calm me down, even though they didn't necessarily have that long-term effect. The generally compulsive feeling of them both, difficulty just "deciding" not to do them or even to take a break, and then following through. > For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression. Oh yeah, and that so much described my smoking too! (Not an ultimately long-term successful coping mechanism, but an attempt). And definitely a part of addictive relationship with say alcohol for other people I know. I think that is actually common to (substance) addiction for many people, that it's in part related to coping with anxiety or trauma or depression -- rather than this being a distinction from addiction? I mean, surely this is born out by research, it seems such a commonplace of recovery narratives, right? His protestations of the ways technology use is different from addiction just make me think "gee, that sounds a lot like my experience and what I've heard of others experiences of (substance) addiction!" This is in fact the real center of what made me realize social media use did feel like an addiction, that both it and smoking were related to coping with things like this for me. I am sure there are many ways they are different as well as similar, but I definitely now (and didn't use to) see why people reach for that term to describe "technology" and other non-substance "addictions". I still haven't managed to quit social media...

travisjungroth 5y ago
> Through that process, I started to see a lot of similarities between my use of social media and my use of cigarettes. My experience is that they're not just similar, they're the same. The tug of a vape pen and the tug of a phone are indistinguishable from another except for the object they point to. If I didn't have one on me, I'd reach for the other.

ultrastable 5y ago

agreed that the social media addiction studies are trash, but this is representative of how flawed the understanding of addiction in this discussion is: Joel Billieux: For a lot of people, you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping that is displayed to face with social anxiety or trauma or depression. Jason Feifer: Let's say someone comes into a clinic, their gaming usage meets a certain definition of addiction, it is having a negative consequence on their social, family, or occupational life. But a trained clinician like Joel, must be able to look underneath those symptoms and find potential other issues. that doesn't mean something's not an addiction! substance misuse is almost always a coping method, and one that's masking other issues. I don't believe "gaming addiction" is a big problem or even necessarily real, but it's a little annoying to see these guys critiquing the scientific failures of a particular discourse then demonstrate how flawed their own understanding of addiction is

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ultrastable 5y ago

"Nir Eyal: The vast majority of people stop playing these video games. Do you think people are still going to be playing Fortnite and Candy Crush in 10 years or so? Of course not, they'll be doing something else once they get interested in other things that they decide to pursue. So, if it's really the behavior this technology is doing to us, that shouldn't make sense. They should be addicts for life, but that's clearly not what happens." pretty vapid. someone could have an unhealthy unrelationship w/ games w/o literally playing the same game for a decade lol. and in any case, saying "they shoudl be addicts for life" shows this guy isn't at all up to date on addiction science. most addictions resolve themselves after a period of time

twodave 5y ago
True--still, with many things (I'd say anything besides actual hard drugs) it's easy to confuse casual use with addiction. "Spending a lot of time" playing a video game is NOT the same as skipping meals, lying, self-isolating and losing sleep to keep playing.
- ultrastable 5y ago
  yeah, I don't disagree w/ the fact that the word "addiction" shouldn't be thrown around too casually, but I don't like the way they're scolding others for being insufficiently scientific while they demonstrate their own ignorance
- ultrastable 5y ago
  and re: hard drugs, casual use of those that doesn't meet addiction thresholds is way more common than most people think
- ultrastable 5y ago
  not to mention - it's a little convenient that the author of a book called "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" is telling us that actually, we shouldn't be worried about those products

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nojito 5y ago

This is a very dangerous premise and seems to be structured to pushing the linked website's "training" Smartphone addiction, for example, is a very real thing and causes similar effects to drug addiction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460319313802#b0080 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...

Inhibit 5y ago

One can be an addict. To my mind the condition of addiction is, at least somewhat, divorced from the object of the addiction. Addiction certainly seems to survive its initial objects absence. I would probably put the quotes around Technology above, rather than Addicted. Could be it's the pathology expressing itself and whatever the technology is is only tangentially related to what's going on. To my mind this can all be in a similar silo to gambling or love addiction. How different is a slot machine from many games? Just my 2 cents and not a professional analysis.

MattRix 5y ago

Was a bit annoying to see that Nir’s main counter examples were “Do you want Netflix to make less engaging shows? Do you want to make less engaging podcasts?”. I don’t know if anyone says they’re addicted to podcasts, but either way those clearly aren’t the most addictive things out there… and on top of that, services like Netflix could easily add in simple screens like “hey, youve watched 5 episodes in a row, would you like to take a break”. The thing this podcast didn’t seem to address is the fact that moder social media is A/B tested for maximum engagement. Similarly, modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. This makes a huge difference to how hard it is to stop engaging with this stuff!

twodave 5y ago
>modern videogames are way better designed and more compelling than those 20 years ago. I may be in the minority, but as a 36-year-old I think the opposite is true. As a teenager I was very loyal to just a handful (3-5) video games, with one in particular (Subspace, later known as Continuum) taking up most of my playtime. In those days it was actually the community that made games sticky. I would feel as if I were letting real people down by not logging in. Today's games just feel like another job. For me, this started with games like WoW but the feeling has matured since. There's just nothing satisfying to me about a grind. I still like the odd casual game and even the occasional complex game, as long as it doesn't feel too much like work. Of course, that was also 20 years ago, so I've also changed a lot in that time.
- MattRix 5y ago
  Ha I’m also 36! To be clear I don’t mean modern games are “better” games, that’s obviously subjective. I mean that the design techniques are more advanced. Games have evolved as designers learn which mechanics and systems are more compelling. There are less rough edges, less places to get stuck… more enticing rewards, more carefully designed progression paths, etc. This is especially true in most modern “service based” games. Fortnite is an obvious example where there are certain rewards and upgrades that can only be earned by playing every day, and playing at least X hours per season, etc.

dahart 5y ago

Took some time to read the transcript before jumping to conclusions, but the whole episode never gets passed the sticking point that “addiction” has a clinical meaning, and many people are using the word in the popular more common and less strict meaning of the word, simply compulsive behavior. The problem here is that the non-clinical “addiction” is a valid definition. It appears in the dictionary (see #2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction). People actually understand what it means accurately as well, nobody is getting confused and hearing the clinical definition. I’d agree that researchers into social media problems should avoid it, but the misuse is not by and large confusing or misleading most people. Instead of discussing the validity of the popular meaning, it’s framed and titled as “not addiction”, which just plays on the confusion of the term rather than clarifying or offering alternatives! “Caffeine addiction” is routinely thrown around, and everyone knows what it means. People who know the clinical term say that there is “caffeine dependence”, not addiction. This episode didn’t offer any alternative words for what social media is doing, it just stayed stuck on “not addiction”. They could have suggested talking about dependence or habit forming or compulsions or a weakness for social media. The author could have guided the discussion towards establishing the right terminology for what social media does, but instead chooses to re-emphasize the idea that “addiction” is the wrong word over and over again. > The hallmark of addiction is that it interferes with social or family or occupational life. But when you use social media or the internet, you are generally participating in your social or family or occupational life. This is an unfortunately dismissive and pretty misleading framing IMO. We all know that the harmful sides of social media are exactly the parts that don’t involve family and occupation life, and that those parts of the internet are enormous. The article discussed Netflix, which doesn’t involve social interaction. YouTube is mostly not friends talking to friends. Qanon didn’t happen because people were talking with their family and co-workers.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]