4 ms·

These techniques gain use because for the vast majority of people, they're subtle and play into unconscious biases and subconscious parts of the brain's reward

These techniques gain use because for the vast majority of people, they're subtle and play into unconscious biases and subconscious parts of the brain's reward circuitry. You may be a more evolved and educated human who is aware of all their biases and conscientious of all the different dark and grey patterns apps can use, but the techniques are effective because most people aren't. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

sneak 5y ago
I think it's a logical error to think the "vast majority of people" to be entirely unaware of the nudges of the market. It's not like I'm some superman to notice this stuff. People know they shouldn't scroll IG all day or eat McDonald's for every meal. It might play into subconscious biases but ultimately people are consciously aware of their behaviors in the macro. What's disingenuous is to think that only smart/savvy people know that the app equivalent of junk food is bad. Personally, I grow really tired of this (seemingly pervasive) viewpoint that the everyman is clueless and helpless and will be totally fucked if we, the learned/savvy, do not intervene. (Apologies in advance if this is not your view - I am complaining about a wider problem more so than replying to your specific comment.) It's a seductive viewpoint, and one that seems to tickle the "but it's obvious" common sense. I don't think it's true, though, despite being very plausible. Casinos exist, with way more extensive and battle-tested addiction-response features than the Facebook app, and the vast majority of people in the cities in which they operate don't go broke pouring their life savings into the machines. Give the everyman some credit.
- Hnaomyiph 5y ago
  Casinos also exist with way more extensive laws and regulations.
  - sneak 5y ago
    The regulation is mostly around making sure the games are fair and that children can't use them, not that people can't dump their life savings into them if they want to.
- dantondwa 5y ago
  I agree with this. Moreover, people who do fall into addicted behaviors are often very aware of the risks and dangers involved with their choices. However, the present desire or satisfaction that the impulse provides them overrides such awareness. As an ex smoker, this is apparent to me. I knew it was bad, I knew the details of what I was doing to myself, but I couldn’t help myself. It is not about stupidity or awareness. It is about finding satisfaction or motivation elsewhere. Educated people, rich people, poor people, ignorant people: all classes have their addictions.
  - sneak 5y ago
    I've had addictions before, myself. It's better to have the option.
dasyatidprime 5y ago
The techniques are often effective at manipulating you even if you are ‘aware’, unless you are also so very well-aligned internally that the consciously aware part of you can and does counter-affect the subconsciously affected parts strongly and consistently enough. Intelligence and knowledge won't save you. Combining them with ‘enlightenment’ and/or strong detachment might, but that's a much taller order. In the case of central/popular social/communication software, this is much, much worse, because it can be set up so that taking up the mindset for resistance directly conflicts with taking up a mindset that will be (or be read as) adequately engaged for relationship maintenance and continued connection; the persuasion can use your friends as an attack reflector, getting mixed up in the signal. And no amount of purely individual willpower will help you not get steamrolled by that so long as you remain dependent on the society around you. (I want to find an analogy to use for the latter—I'm almost tempted to say it compares to historical examples of ideological spirals the same way nuclear explosives compare to conventional ones, but that feels not-quite-right. History pointers appreciated if anyone has 'em.)
0des 5y ago
How did we come so far in a society where people assume no personal agency and responsibility- an entire population led by the nose on their whims and desires for social 'petting'. This trend is deeply saddening, and it seems like the more 'coddling' we build into the web, the more people retreat into these agony/dopamine factories called apps when they need stimulus, whether it be positive or negative. How many times have you seen people engaged in the heat of a flamewar or some pointless ideological argument only for them to repeatedly distract themselves and re-engage? I look forward to the studies that may come in the next generation that examine the outcomes of these apps, app networks, and the mechanisms employed to elicit more user fellowship, and at what cost, both emotionally and physically but also socially. No clue where we go from here, but what's happening now isn't good, and it's hard to see how people actively engaged in it will ever realize the negative effect it is having on our future enough to put a stop to it or at least engage in a discussion around curtailing some of these patterns.

sneak 5y ago

I think it's a logical error to think the "vast majority of people" to be entirely unaware of the nudges of the market. It's not like I'm some superman to notice this stuff. People know they shouldn't scroll IG all day or eat McDonald's for every meal. It might play into subconscious biases but ultimately people are consciously aware of their behaviors in the macro. What's disingenuous is to think that only smart/savvy people know that the app equivalent of junk food is bad. Personally, I grow really tired of this (seemingly pervasive) viewpoint that the everyman is clueless and helpless and will be totally fucked if we, the learned/savvy, do not intervene. (Apologies in advance if this is not your view - I am complaining about a wider problem more so than replying to your specific comment.) It's a seductive viewpoint, and one that seems to tickle the "but it's obvious" common sense. I don't think it's true, though, despite being very plausible. Casinos exist, with way more extensive and battle-tested addiction-response features than the Facebook app, and the vast majority of people in the cities in which they operate don't go broke pouring their life savings into the machines. Give the everyman some credit.

Hnaomyiph 5y ago
Casinos also exist with way more extensive laws and regulations.
- sneak 5y ago
  The regulation is mostly around making sure the games are fair and that children can't use them, not that people can't dump their life savings into them if they want to.
dantondwa 5y ago
I agree with this. Moreover, people who do fall into addicted behaviors are often very aware of the risks and dangers involved with their choices. However, the present desire or satisfaction that the impulse provides them overrides such awareness. As an ex smoker, this is apparent to me. I knew it was bad, I knew the details of what I was doing to myself, but I couldn’t help myself. It is not about stupidity or awareness. It is about finding satisfaction or motivation elsewhere. Educated people, rich people, poor people, ignorant people: all classes have their addictions.
- sneak 5y ago
  I've had addictions before, myself. It's better to have the option.

dasyatidprime 5y ago

The techniques are often effective at manipulating you even if you are ‘aware’, unless you are also so very well-aligned internally that the consciously aware part of you can and does counter-affect the subconsciously affected parts strongly and consistently enough. Intelligence and knowledge won't save you. Combining them with ‘enlightenment’ and/or strong detachment might, but that's a much taller order. In the case of central/popular social/communication software, this is much, much worse, because it can be set up so that taking up the mindset for resistance directly conflicts with taking up a mindset that will be (or be read as) adequately engaged for relationship maintenance and continued connection; the persuasion can use your friends as an attack reflector, getting mixed up in the signal. And no amount of purely individual willpower will help you not get steamrolled by that so long as you remain dependent on the society around you. (I want to find an analogy to use for the latter—I'm almost tempted to say it compares to historical examples of ideological spirals the same way nuclear explosives compare to conventional ones, but that feels not-quite-right. History pointers appreciated if anyone has 'em.)

0des 5y ago

How did we come so far in a society where people assume no personal agency and responsibility- an entire population led by the nose on their whims and desires for social 'petting'. This trend is deeply saddening, and it seems like the more 'coddling' we build into the web, the more people retreat into these agony/dopamine factories called apps when they need stimulus, whether it be positive or negative. How many times have you seen people engaged in the heat of a flamewar or some pointless ideological argument only for them to repeatedly distract themselves and re-engage? I look forward to the studies that may come in the next generation that examine the outcomes of these apps, app networks, and the mechanisms employed to elicit more user fellowship, and at what cost, both emotionally and physically but also socially. No clue where we go from here, but what's happening now isn't good, and it's hard to see how people actively engaged in it will ever realize the negative effect it is having on our future enough to put a stop to it or at least engage in a discussion around curtailing some of these patterns.