Technology “Addiction”

44 点作者 nireyal将近 4 年前

17 条评论

caymanjim将近 4 年前

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.

评论 #27343844 未加载

评论 #27343866 未加载

FriedrichN将近 4 年前

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.

评论 #27344550 未加载

评论 #27351971 未加载

twodave将近 4 年前

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.

评论 #27344702 未加载

dalbasal将近 4 年前

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.

评论 #27343793 未加载

评论 #27343825 未加载

评论 #27344052 未加载

评论 #27343815 未加载

评论 #27343829 未加载

评论 #27343800 未加载

评论 #27345128 未加载

评论 #27343737 未加载

评论 #27344134 未加载

评论 #27343745 未加载

ultrastable将近 4 年前

"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

评论 #27344027 未加载

jrochkind1将近 4 年前

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...

评论 #27344046 未加载

Causality1将近 4 年前

"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.

评论 #27343786 未加载

rusk将近 4 年前

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?

评论 #27345180 未加载

ultrastable将近 4 年前

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

MattRix将近 4 年前

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!

评论 #27344902 未加载

cheschire将近 4 年前

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.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXHHevvr6Q</a>

评论 #27344148 未加载

rubidium将近 4 年前

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.

Inhibit将近 4 年前

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.

re-al将近 4 年前

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.

评论 #27343828 未加载

评论 #27343918 未加载

nojito将近 4 年前

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.<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460319313802#b0080" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...</a>

ChrisMarshallNY将近 4 年前

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."

dahart将近 4 年前

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 <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction" rel="nofollow">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction</a>). 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.