3 ms·

I don't think the reasons are obvious. Where do you put gambling on the spectrum?

by anon84873628 7mo ago

tqi 7mo ago
Where would you put 24x7 political content?
- toyg 7mo ago
  That's more like perversion...
- anon84873628 7mo ago
  A little further down then social media apps, but mostly the same. After all, it's the main source of outrage bait for those apps. If we're talking about Fox News or CNN there's less specific user targeting and the delivery mechanism is more constrained.
twoodfin 7mo ago
If something compels behavior vs. behavior remaining a free choice, a liberal society can and should treat it like any other source of compulsion. Personally, I am leery of any technical definition of “addictive” that operates outside the traditional chemical influences on physiology. So I would not describe gambling in that sense. One might have a malady that causes gambling to take on the same physiological vibe for you, but that’s not what it means for gambling itself to be addictive.
- SoftTalker 7mo ago
  You seem to be differentiating between physical and psychological addiction, and saying that only physical addiction meets the technical definition of addiction?
  - twoodfin 7mo ago
    I’m saying society should tread extremely carefully in attempting to regulate citizens’ potentially psychologically addictive behaviors.
    - SoftTalker 7mo ago
      Ah OK. Yes I agree, there can be a blurry line between something a person does compulsively/addictively and something that he just enjoys doing. And it's different for different people.
      - card_zero 7mo ago
        To add to the confusion, sometimes I do stupid things just once. Even so, those things should be banned, for harming me.
    - danny_codes 7mo ago
      Good news, social media has been extensively studied and found to be addictive. So we have little need to tread carefully, we already know it’s addictive. Fortunately it also has minimal to no value to society, so even if we overreacted and banned it completely it’d be fine
      - Ferret7446 7mo ago
        Good news, the thing you like had been found to be addictive. Please relinquish your freedom, this is for your own good.
        danny_codes 7mo ago
        If by relinquish freedom we mean, respect other people and limit your vice to controlled settings where harm is minimized.. yes. You can still smoke, drink, get high, and gamble. We ask that you limit these to places that minimize the damage you do to other people.
- jwardbond 7mo ago
  I am not a neuroscientist, but I thought the actual physiological cause of addiction was similar in both nicotine and gambling: you crave the predictable release of dopamine. If that is the (heavily simplified) case, is there a distinction for you between a chemically-induced dopamine release from smoking and, say, and a button you can press that magically releases dopamine in your brain?
  - twoodfin 7mo ago
    I don’t gamble, but if I did, I am fairly certain it would release little to no dopamine for me, win or lose. I don’t smoke, but if I did, I’m also fairly certain I would find it hard to stop.
    - ses1984 7mo ago
      And yet, some people find themselves compelled to continue gambling long after they’re drowning in debt. If you don’t want to call that addiction, fine, but you can’t deny that it happens.
      - twoodfin 7mo ago
        Right: They’re gambling addicts. That’s a distinct fact from, “Gambling is a physiologically addictive behavior for typical humans.”
        kelnos 7mo ago
        Right, there's a difference between a chemical that will addict most people simply because of the changes the chemical makes to the brain (even if the person doesn't even really like doing the thing that causes them to consume it), vs. an activity that gives you dopamine hits and can be addictive, depending on the person. One is physical addiction and the other is psychological. But I'm also feeling a parallel here to people who think that mental health issues aren't real medical problems and that people can just "get better" whenever they want. And that's concerning. We shouldn't be more lenient on things that are "only" psychologically addictive.
- dylan604 7mo ago
  We already have a category called addictive personality disorder where someone is much more prone to being addicted to pretty much anything. In the US, regardless of what type of addiction you have, it is considered mental health. Open market insurance like ACA does not cover mental health, so there is no addiction treatment available. Sure, you can be addicted to a substance where your body needs a fix, but it is still treated as mental care. This seems to go directly against what your thoughts are on addiction, but that doesn't say much as you're just some rando on the interweb expressing their untrained opinions. So am I, but I'm not the spouting differing opinions with nothing more to back them up than how you feel.
- brailsafe 7mo ago
  > If something compels behavior vs. behavior remaining a free choice, a liberal society can and should treat it like any other source of compulsion. Indeed, and if we want those behaviours to remain as things considered to be choices rather than the nearly inescapable negative life-destroying feedback loops (activities with high addiction potential, for lack of a more concise term), they should be treated with special reverence and highly restricted from outside influence. Put another way, if we want liberal societies to be sustainable, I'd argue all forms of overtly addictive behaviour should—in many cases—be banned from public advertisement and restricted from surreptitious advertisement in entertainment, and we should have definitions for those. For ages we've not had cigarette ads on public broadcasts, and yet people still "choose" to smoke, meanwhile there's been a increasing presence of cigarettes among Oscar winning movies in the last 10 years. If you are addicted to smoking and trying to avoid being reminded of it, you'd realistically have to stop watching movies and participating in that aspect of culture in order to regain control of that part of your life. Likewise, with gambling, you don't only have to stop going to the casino, you have to stop engaging with sports entertainment wholesale.

I don't think the reasons are obvious. Where do you put gambling on the spectrum?

tqi 7mo ago

Where would you put 24x7 political content?

toyg 7mo ago
That's more like perversion...
anon84873628 7mo ago
A little further down then social media apps, but mostly the same. After all, it's the main source of outrage bait for those apps. If we're talking about Fox News or CNN there's less specific user targeting and the delivery mechanism is more constrained.

twoodfin 7mo ago

If something compels behavior vs. behavior remaining a free choice, a liberal society can and should treat it like any other source of compulsion. Personally, I am leery of any technical definition of “addictive” that operates outside the traditional chemical influences on physiology. So I would not describe gambling in that sense. One might have a malady that causes gambling to take on the same physiological vibe for you, but that’s not what it means for gambling itself to be addictive.

SoftTalker 7mo ago
You seem to be differentiating between physical and psychological addiction, and saying that only physical addiction meets the technical definition of addiction?
- twoodfin 7mo ago
  I’m saying society should tread extremely carefully in attempting to regulate citizens’ potentially psychologically addictive behaviors.
  - SoftTalker 7mo ago
    Ah OK. Yes I agree, there can be a blurry line between something a person does compulsively/addictively and something that he just enjoys doing. And it's different for different people.
    - card_zero 7mo ago
      To add to the confusion, sometimes I do stupid things just once. Even so, those things should be banned, for harming me.
  - danny_codes 7mo ago
    Good news, social media has been extensively studied and found to be addictive. So we have little need to tread carefully, we already know it’s addictive. Fortunately it also has minimal to no value to society, so even if we overreacted and banned it completely it’d be fine
    - Ferret7446 7mo ago
      Good news, the thing you like had been found to be addictive. Please relinquish your freedom, this is for your own good.
      - danny_codes 7mo ago
        If by relinquish freedom we mean, respect other people and limit your vice to controlled settings where harm is minimized.. yes. You can still smoke, drink, get high, and gamble. We ask that you limit these to places that minimize the damage you do to other people.
jwardbond 7mo ago
I am not a neuroscientist, but I thought the actual physiological cause of addiction was similar in both nicotine and gambling: you crave the predictable release of dopamine. If that is the (heavily simplified) case, is there a distinction for you between a chemically-induced dopamine release from smoking and, say, and a button you can press that magically releases dopamine in your brain?
- twoodfin 7mo ago
  I don’t gamble, but if I did, I am fairly certain it would release little to no dopamine for me, win or lose. I don’t smoke, but if I did, I’m also fairly certain I would find it hard to stop.
  - ses1984 7mo ago
    And yet, some people find themselves compelled to continue gambling long after they’re drowning in debt. If you don’t want to call that addiction, fine, but you can’t deny that it happens.
    - twoodfin 7mo ago
      Right: They’re gambling addicts. That’s a distinct fact from, “Gambling is a physiologically addictive behavior for typical humans.”
      - kelnos 7mo ago
        Right, there's a difference between a chemical that will addict most people simply because of the changes the chemical makes to the brain (even if the person doesn't even really like doing the thing that causes them to consume it), vs. an activity that gives you dopamine hits and can be addictive, depending on the person. One is physical addiction and the other is psychological. But I'm also feeling a parallel here to people who think that mental health issues aren't real medical problems and that people can just "get better" whenever they want. And that's concerning. We shouldn't be more lenient on things that are "only" psychologically addictive.
dylan604 7mo ago
We already have a category called addictive personality disorder where someone is much more prone to being addicted to pretty much anything. In the US, regardless of what type of addiction you have, it is considered mental health. Open market insurance like ACA does not cover mental health, so there is no addiction treatment available. Sure, you can be addicted to a substance where your body needs a fix, but it is still treated as mental care. This seems to go directly against what your thoughts are on addiction, but that doesn't say much as you're just some rando on the interweb expressing their untrained opinions. So am I, but I'm not the spouting differing opinions with nothing more to back them up than how you feel.
brailsafe 7mo ago
> If something compels behavior vs. behavior remaining a free choice, a liberal society can and should treat it like any other source of compulsion. Indeed, and if we want those behaviours to remain as things considered to be choices rather than the nearly inescapable negative life-destroying feedback loops (activities with high addiction potential, for lack of a more concise term), they should be treated with special reverence and highly restricted from outside influence. Put another way, if we want liberal societies to be sustainable, I'd argue all forms of overtly addictive behaviour should—in many cases—be banned from public advertisement and restricted from surreptitious advertisement in entertainment, and we should have definitions for those. For ages we've not had cigarette ads on public broadcasts, and yet people still "choose" to smoke, meanwhile there's been a increasing presence of cigarettes among Oscar winning movies in the last 10 years. If you are addicted to smoking and trying to avoid being reminded of it, you'd realistically have to stop watching movies and participating in that aspect of culture in order to regain control of that part of your life. Likewise, with gambling, you don't only have to stop going to the casino, you have to stop engaging with sports entertainment wholesale.