4 ms·

As much as I dislike TikTok, I dislike this dangerous mischaracterization even more. If you start propagating the meme that screens are like chemically addictiv

As much as I dislike TikTok, I dislike this dangerous mischaracterization even more. If you start propagating the meme that screens are like chemically addictive drugs the governments of the world will feel emboldened to use violence force to 'regulate' them. Screens are not drugs. They do not directly manipulate the biochemistry of incentive salience regardless of valence of perceived stimuli. They just provide enjoyable stimuli. It is VASTLY different. Conflating them is playing in to the hands of the authoritarians.

drcongo 9mo ago
I'm sorry, but "playing in to the hands of the authoritarians" is using shite like TikTok, generating revenue for the authoritarian billionaires who are currently destroying the world.
- superkuh 9mo ago
  We are not disagreeing. Definitely do not use TikTok for those and many other reasons. But calling an audio visual stimuli an addictive drug is just as wrong and dangerous. That will lead to those same authoritarians controlling screens with use of force justified by the false metaphor.
adi_kurian 9mo ago
Gambling doesn't directly manipulate biochemistry either. Neither does porn. Both are recognized as addictive. If you think reading Dostoevsky is in the same realm as doom scrolling algorithmically tailored Instagram reels because they're both "enjoyable stimuli," there's not much of a conversation to be had. This is a thread about government-aligned owners censoring content on a platform the government forced a sale of. The authoritarians already have the thing.
- superkuh 9mo ago
  False. Gambling disorder exists, but it is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be accepted today. Porn addiction has no entry in the DSMV or ICD10, it is purely a made up concept advanced by for-profit companies looking to exploit people (and authoritarian governments looking to control). The same kind of groups that used to run camps to "fix" gay people. If you think a chemical directly manipulating the biochemistry of incentive salience, making you want something regardless of it's valance, is the same as eventually liking something you watch and hear that's actually rewarding, yes, there's not much conversation to be had. Lay interpretations of this field are not very useful.
  - adi_kurian 9mo ago
    Fair enough, I don't have any formal credentials in this field. Could you clarify a few things: My understanding is gambling disorder was promoted in the DSM-5 in 2013. When was it grandfathered? The WHO recognized gaming disorder in 2019. Are they captured as well? Where should I look for a non-lay interpretation?
    - superkuh 9mo ago
      Gambling disorder was introduced in DSM 3 (1980) before much was known about human neurobiology under 'impulse control disorder not elsewhere classified'. Back then they even thought dopamine was a 'pleasure' chemical. And we now know it's about wanting, not liking. You may be mixing it up when it was reclassified as the DSM 4 (not 5!) did a big reorganization. Kent Berridges' lab review articles are a great place to start to understand addiction, wanting, and liking and how they are different. But mostly importantly, how addiction works so you can see how chemical addictive substances are vastly different. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/selected-review-articles-overviews/ https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/selected-review-art... Edit: and re: "porn disorder/gaming disorder/behavioral impulse disorders to 'screens' in general" and the behavior of the ICD re: china, see the widely cited Nichole Prause' work https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yySl87AAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yySl87AAAAAJ&hl=en
      - adi_kurian 9mo ago
        I don't follow. DSM-5 (2013) moved gambling into 'Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.' What specifically are you saying happened in DSM-4? Thanks for sharing. I'll read Berridge. The distinction you're drawing is mechanistic. I'm not submitting a paper to a journal. Kids are scrolling until 3am, teen mental health is cratering, boomers are getting radicalized by bot farms, and democracy is being sold for pennies on the dollar. If your response is 'technically not addiction,' we're not having the same conversation.
        superkuh 9mo ago

drcongo 9mo ago

I'm sorry, but "playing in to the hands of the authoritarians" is using shite like TikTok, generating revenue for the authoritarian billionaires who are currently destroying the world.

superkuh 9mo ago
We are not disagreeing. Definitely do not use TikTok for those and many other reasons. But calling an audio visual stimuli an addictive drug is just as wrong and dangerous. That will lead to those same authoritarians controlling screens with use of force justified by the false metaphor.

adi_kurian 9mo ago

Gambling doesn't directly manipulate biochemistry either. Neither does porn. Both are recognized as addictive. If you think reading Dostoevsky is in the same realm as doom scrolling algorithmically tailored Instagram reels because they're both "enjoyable stimuli," there's not much of a conversation to be had. This is a thread about government-aligned owners censoring content on a platform the government forced a sale of. The authoritarians already have the thing.

superkuh 9mo ago
False. Gambling disorder exists, but it is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be accepted today. Porn addiction has no entry in the DSMV or ICD10, it is purely a made up concept advanced by for-profit companies looking to exploit people (and authoritarian governments looking to control). The same kind of groups that used to run camps to "fix" gay people. If you think a chemical directly manipulating the biochemistry of incentive salience, making you want something regardless of it's valance, is the same as eventually liking something you watch and hear that's actually rewarding, yes, there's not much conversation to be had. Lay interpretations of this field are not very useful.
- adi_kurian 9mo ago
  Fair enough, I don't have any formal credentials in this field. Could you clarify a few things: My understanding is gambling disorder was promoted in the DSM-5 in 2013. When was it grandfathered? The WHO recognized gaming disorder in 2019. Are they captured as well? Where should I look for a non-lay interpretation?
  - superkuh 9mo ago
    Gambling disorder was introduced in DSM 3 (1980) before much was known about human neurobiology under 'impulse control disorder not elsewhere classified'. Back then they even thought dopamine was a 'pleasure' chemical. And we now know it's about wanting, not liking. You may be mixing it up when it was reclassified as the DSM 4 (not 5!) did a big reorganization. Kent Berridges' lab review articles are a great place to start to understand addiction, wanting, and liking and how they are different. But mostly importantly, how addiction works so you can see how chemical addictive substances are vastly different. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/selected-review-articles-overviews/ https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/selected-review-art... Edit: and re: "porn disorder/gaming disorder/behavioral impulse disorders to 'screens' in general" and the behavior of the ICD re: china, see the widely cited Nichole Prause' work https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yySl87AAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yySl87AAAAAJ&hl=en
    - adi_kurian 9mo ago
      I don't follow. DSM-5 (2013) moved gambling into 'Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.' What specifically are you saying happened in DSM-4? Thanks for sharing. I'll read Berridge. The distinction you're drawing is mechanistic. I'm not submitting a paper to a journal. Kids are scrolling until 3am, teen mental health is cratering, boomers are getting radicalized by bot farms, and democracy is being sold for pennies on the dollar. If your response is 'technically not addiction,' we're not having the same conversation.
      - superkuh 9mo ago