It doesn't deal in addiction but overwhelming stimuli, whether or not they're repeated. Animals can be fooled by unrealistically strong experiences - you can trick a goose into 'hatching' a volleyball - and it appears that humans have somewhat similar responses.
The insights in the two articles aren't vastly different, but there's one intriguing thought: there are actual selection pressures against this. When animals are fooled by superstimuli they're things that are rare (brood parasitism) or nonexistent (volleyballs) - if the extreme stimulus was common they would refine their processing. Some human cases may be hard to avoid (e.g. dopamine receptors) but some might be simpler. It's starting to look like overriding these responses is a major skill for everyday human functioning.
There does seem to be selection with respect to functioning in modern society, but I'm not sure there's a strong correlation with expected functionality and expected number of children. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a negative correlation.
In addition, because of how interconnected our society is a selection process individually would be enough. It would have to also be powerful enough to stop the memetic heritability of "superstimuli" memes.
I highly recommend Deirdre Barrett's book Supernormal Stimuli for a fascinating and detailed review of this phenomenon in its various manifestations in human societies.
I disagree with the second sentence in this assertion in the article you linked: "Perhaps less dramatically, anyone who lives in an urban center probably has friends or acquaintances who have chosen not have children, simply because they prefer an epicurean lifestyle. This is not a phenomenon that occurs in the poorest countries in the world, but rather one that is unique to the wealthiest."
Birth rates have been falling dramatically all over the world over the past 40 years, in rich and poor countries alike. It is true that the birth rate is still higher in poor countries than it is in rich countries. But even in poor countries, birth rates have dropped. You can go look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
and find your favorite poor country and see the changes. North Korea is just less than replacement rate, 2.0 children/woman. Cuba is 1.6 children per woman, well under replacement rate.
Haiti went from 5.8 children per woman in 1970 to 3.0 in 2013. That kind of drop has been experienced around the world, in rich countries as well as poor countries. Pakistan is another example I commonly cite, going from 6.6 children/woman in 1970 to 3.8 in 2013
However, almost every poor country has been getting richer, so it might be hard to untangle the effects.
I'm not clear on where the disagreement is here? I guess "unique to the wealthiest" is rather strong, but the claim made is pretty specific.
The general explanation for falling fertility rates like '5 -> 3' is that it's mostly about falling infant mortality and improved birth control. People have more control over pregnancies and more confidence in the survival of their children, so they can achieve a small family with fewer births.
That's a substantially different matter than being voluntarily childless. I admit I'm summoning up complexity here by claiming that 'N -> 2.1' has a different mechanism than '2.1 -> 1.46', and that there are some odd examples. North Korea I'd largely discount because famine warps birth rates, but Cuba is interesting. Presumably this is some of the same effects, but I'm not sure if there are very many people in Havana doing the "young and rich and childfree" thing with the same cultural markers. I'm actually not sure, I'd need someone more familiar with Cuban (or other) cultures to answer that.
Improved birth control implies "prevents unwanted births". Some places without 'modern' birth control have low rates of unwanted pregnancy, but some places are pretty high. They both lower birth rates, but better birth control will only drop rates to "as many kids as people want to have", which is >0 for a lot of people.
Voluntarily childless has a personal/psychological element - it's about not wanting a family in the first place - and can take personal birth rates down to 0.
> I guess "unique to the wealthiest" is rather strong, but the claim made is pretty specific.
That seemed to be the claim, and I still state this claim is false.
Forgive me for nitpicking more, but most places with famines tend to still tend have large families, and arguably North Korea is an exception to that. Compare North Korea to the countries affected by 2011 drought in east Africa and the countries affected by 2012 Sahel drought. I'm not going to list every country but north African countries in general have far larger birth rates than east Asian countries.
In terms of cultures, I've never been to Cuba, Haiti, or North Korea either, so I don't really know either. But my anecdotal experience of places I have been, there are a lot of people both who don't want children, but won't admit it, particularly not to their parents. And there are also a lot of people who do want children.
There are also plenty of examples that did not change as dramatically, for example Nigeria from 6.5 to 5.8 children per women. In fact, Nigeria is projected to have 400 million inhabitants by 2050, overtaking the US as well as Western Europe. Birth rates in Africa have declined a little, but not as fast as most models predicted.
> there are actual selection pressures against this.
Selection pressure is a feedback system, and in order for it to function there must be enough time for the feedback to catch up. If it can't, we get extinction instead of adaptation.
A great example against this are diseases: on the one hand, the more viral a disease is, the better it competes against other diseases. On the other, being too viral is bad for the health of the host, or even lethal, which is a selection pressure against it. However, if the disease can spread from host to host independent of their health, like diseases that spread through mosquitos or water, the selection pressure against lethal virality is gone, untill all possible hosts within range die. That is why safe drinking water has the unexpected side effect of making the diseases themselves less lethal[0]. And like safe drinking water, I do not think we should make this a responsibility of the individual. This is something to be solved at the societal level.
His point about hiking is spot on for me. And it's not just a means to get away from the internet, it's also great for removing all social noise and enabling a long stretch of contiguous thinking. Running also works well but it needs to be at least an hour or more before my brain switches into "thoughtful mode".
Even though I make an effort, it's amazing to think how little time I actually spend alone with my thoughts compared to even a decade ago when this was written.
I'm using the technique called "Productive Meditation" described in the "Deep Work" book.
In its core, you choose to walk outside for one Pomodoro, while using focused meditation, where the focus is not on the breath (or any other part of the body), but rather on a specific question that you need to find an answer for.
Also, I use the same technique when I'm commuting by the public transport from work to home and home to work.
For the technique to work, it is important to be proficient with focused meditation. So one needs to train first to be able to consistently focus on something simpler than a question (breath, or feet, or your surroundings, or food you eat).
My Dad was a smartphone holdout until last year. I deeply regret getting him one. He is now nose deep in it whenever I see him and much less interesting to be around since his conversations are now about what's popular online and not the original thoughts he once used to have.
This has made me more reflective of my tech absorption and how hard it is to see until you see it happen to someone else.
Yeah I used to be a huge Redditor trying to constantly keep up with the memes and funny content of the day. After quitting it made me realize how much a slave I was to the platform and how much I needed my hit of random funny crap.
I used HN as a replacement for the industry news and to remove all the other extra junk. Which seems to be working since I only visit about once a day for 15-20 minutes and don't feel a compulsive need to check it constantly for fear of missing something since there's a lack of memes and in-jokes.
I installed LeechBlock to limit me to 15 minutes of Reddit every day. At first, I was hitting it with my morning coffee. These days, I rarely use the entire 15 minute allotment (although I did today).
I thought I was weird in noticing "walking=less internet". Another thing is meditation, but it's no silver bullet. I was supposed to not be on the internet right now.
For sugar, we've started the phase of awareness of its harmfulness, and no doubt our children or grandchildren will have social norms not to abuse it.
But for the internet it's much more difficult: I don't think the habit of avoidance can be born without first general awareness of its danger. And the danger in all other substances Paul mentions is a physical one: you get terminally ill, or visibly unhealthy. But internet addiction is invisible; it masks itself as the person being just slower than their peers, or lazier.
Moreover, not buying a pack of cigarettes is trivially easy for someone that's not addicted yet. As is not getting drunk every day. But distinguishing the addictive internet from the non-addictive is hard, and avoiding the former while still using the latter is even harder. What shape can a social habit of avoidance take here?
A solution might be to identify what you need it for and build a process around it which pushes you to do what you are here for in the first place.
You wouldnt start to bake a cake by buying meat, right?
Theres currently no process in place for anything, but only lots of information and people trying to get you addicted to spend money and time(depending on you product or customer) on things you do not require.
Yup, the problem is our markets are wildly broken because of advertising. If you had to actually pay for the content you consume you wouldn't have any of this.
But corporations are allowed to pay a third party to build honey pots in order to poison your mind against you. The worst part of it is that it makes finding actually useful information almost impossible because there is such huge incentives to make superficially attractive information that's actually dross.
And people wonder why the foolish poor took on too much housing debt or why you had Trump running against Clinton.
"This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
But I'm sure sucking all our brightest minds into Google and Wall Street we'll innovate our way past global warming no bother.
> But I'm sure sucking all our brightest minds into Google and Wall Street we'll innovate our way past global warming no bother.
No, we're only sucking the brightest of the "path of least resistance" minds into Google and Wall Street. Plenty bright minds to go about, and many have ideas of their own.
Correct, but let me quote a surprisingly on-topic verse: "wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." This seems to be quite fitting - most people are on the path of least resistance, brightness notwithstanding.
>people trying to get you addicted to spend money and time(depending on you product or customer) on things you do not require. //
Almost as if the fundamental conflicts built in to capitalism are harmful to us as a species -- who'd have thought treating life as a competition would lead to so many of us losing.
> Almost as if the fundamental conflicts built in to capitalism are harmful to us as a species -- who'd have thought treating life as a competition would lead to so many of us losing.
I think competition was always there. My point is people selling things get smarter.
So it may be a good idea to improve my arsenal too to withstand the forces that be and use what is out there.
> Even if you personally make good decisions if the market for good products is not big enough the addictive products will be all that's available.
Nothing is all good and nothing is all bad, but rather allˋs a shade of grey.
My way of solving the addiction Problem is to get rid of the dark stuff by putting a box on all shady and only letting it through in a controlled manner so only light comes out at the end.
The box is like a teacher, assisting and guiding. Not limiting but supporting with anything I want done.
Existence itself is a competition. "Survival of the fittest" implies that some level of fitness is required to survive. Few macroscopic organisms can go more than a few days without consuming some other thing that was living not long ago, whether plant or animal.
Capitalism creates a realistic incentive structure within the constraints of the real world, including the constraints of the biological systems that undergird human and animal life. It has problems, but by this point, it's well-proven that living under dictatorial fiat disguised as utopian mythology is far worse.
I also think that internet addiction is visible. When you submerse yourself into the digital world, you don't take care of your health, your physical appearance. I guess internet addiction varies in its severance.
I have a friend from high school, he was the smartest kid in class, was a math-genius. Somehow he lost interest in school. He has a Youtube channel, where he posts game videos, earns a bit money from there (i guess 500 dollars per month). He is "trying" to study economics, but he is still in the same semester after three years. He does lead a life, but not in the physical world. He was a handsome kid, now he doesn't eat and doesn't care about appearances. He only drinks iced tea (no water) and eats limited food he likes (like pasta or chocolate). Although his life may seem weird, I respect him. That's his choice to live in the digital world.
The question is, is it really an addiction? Can we specify it as a lifestyle choice? The individual in question thinks, has goals, becomes sad, happy and most importantly his intelligence is intact. He is not like an advanced heroine addict playing the same tape over and over again.
Coffee and tobacco are addictions that let your intelligence intact. It's a choice only as long as he's able to chose not to; otherwise it's an addiction.
Not so. Addiction has a medical definition; it is the experience of craving.
Thus, if the gamer in GP stops playing games, then experiences intense overwhelming craving for the game, he is addicted, and his thought processes are compromised as a result.
Yes but I think the fine distinction is being lost. "having no choice" (such as social collapse) is not the same as "having a craving." But, psychotic obsession on the same outcome (to execute the addictive behavior), endlessly and for days, is effectively no choice. The suffering is real, and the suffering is temporarily relieved by satisfying the addiction. This is not the same as having no choice, but I don't want to marginalize the experience of addiction as merely "having a craving".
It is if deep down he knows the Internet has fucked him. Maybe he looks back and thinks about all of that colossal waste of time he wanted to use for something else. And then he gets into the games and on Reddit and forgets everything. It's exactly like heroin (not the Wonder Woman type), the cycles are just longer.
What choices are any of us free to make? How long are we going to continue the probable charade of the existence of some ethereal "free will"?
Ordinary choices we make are different from addictions not because we lack choice only in the narrow realm of addictions, but because addictions are harmful to normative human goals like self-sufficiency (job), relationships, and such. But relationships and self-sufficiency are both a matter of degree, and there's fuzziness about where something is harmful enough to justify psychological/pharma intervention.
(Not that that's the only characteristic of addictions; they also seem to be very strong single-inputs (will this make me happy or be pleasurable now?) that are able to drive decision-making... short-circuiting all the other more normal evaluations, from a more balanced network of inputs: economic constraints, past experience, outcome prediction, social judgment... with immediate happiness normally only one factor, and often not even a very strong one.)
There are other behaviors besides addictions that are harmful to self-sufficiency and relationships. Many of them are treated as mental health problems, especially when they're severe enough. Some aren't, though, and are considered just someone being quirky or eccentric.
We (should) want to encourage diversity, while reducing the misery of people on the fringes who are engaged in truly self-destructive behaviors. But plenty of people we all know are only functioning in modern life because of medication—whether it's opiates, amphetamines, neurotransmitter modulators, marijuana, or whatever. Trying to improve people who are self-destructive is a noble goal, but when self-destruction seems closer and closer to the norm every day, intervention may make those people happier but it begins to reek of Brave New World.
If the world is so fucked up that most people are either too addictable or too depressed (or too something) to function without assistance, what does it say about personal happiness or a functioning society if that can only exist with enough drugs to coerce people into doing "standard" things: maintain a job, a home, some relationships, etc? It seems to me that either we have to accept BNW's dystopia as more of a judgment-neutral prophecy than a cautionary tale, or we have to start politically outlawing things that are causing people to be so addicted or so distressed that they can't maintain reasonable productivity and happiness without medication. Unfortunately, the second option would involve wreaking havoc on the conservative and libertarian ideal of free markets (and maybe parts of the 1st amendment too), so we as a society seem hellbent on sleepwalking our way down the rabbit hole to the BNW "drug-everyone" scenario.
> What choices are any of us free to make? How long are we going to continue the probable charade of the existence of some ethereal "free will"?
I'm free not to smoke tobacco and not to get drunk. Some people aren't. No matter how philosophical you want to get about predestination, the difference between being addicted and not is real and obvious to everyone.
Granted, the addiction is only pathological if it's harmful to the individual. The fact that internet addiction isn't physically visible as harmful was my very point.
A while back I did a bit of lurking around 4chan, particularly /r9k/. That board is a poster child for people who have given up entirely on the physical world and embraced the digital to the fullest extent.
Once that happens, you become programmed by the addiction, in the same way that opiate addicts end up having their entire lives revolve around their addiction.
Worse I'd say is a place like /r9k/. Any semblance of normality is to be instantly branded a "Normie" and howled at to leave the board immediately. Absolute detachment from the physical world is lauded as the highest achievement. Imagine a board of drug users harassing each other to inject the highest dose, every time.
These people sit around in their own filth and both hate and take pride in their filthiness.
Internet addiction is real, and it can be very, very damaging.
Instead of a drug poisoning your mind and body, it's ideas. Information. Snow Crash
Of course, those are the consequences, but the cause isn't physically visible. If you meet a person with those difficulties but he looks like a crack head, it's obvious he's got a problem. If he looks perfectly normal, addiction to the internet is one of a hundred possible causes.
I don't think the problem is internet addiction, it's two fold:
1. The economy is so much worse than the numbers suggest.
2. Mental illness must be at an all time high, with treatments proving slightly better than placebo in terribly designed clinical trials.(I am so disappointed in their statistical/methodology, I hate even using the word clinical these days. Clinical what? Clinical lying? They do get the symptoms right, it's the Treatment that's lacking.
4. I don't want to argue. I'm a nobody, so my views hold no weight.
Overeaters Anonymous and Sex Addicts Anonymous are two organizations that have been grappling with this, successfully, for some time. Especially in the Overeaters Anonymous case, it's obvious that you can't stop eating, and must therefore must define some boundary between healthy eating and compulsive gluttony. I suspect many "Internet Addicts" likely already have an idea of what level of use is unhealthy, so that's a reasonable basis for an individual to begin with. Defining a metric for society at large will be much harder.
For the internet, there are some tools for this. I find it very helpful to decide ahead of time how many minutes a day it's acceptable to waste on "addictive" internet sites, and then use extensions (StayFocused for Chrome is very good) to block them after that amount of accumulated time has passed. Helps by taking away some of the need to exercise pure willpower, without completely excluding entire parts of the internet from you.
This goes for basically all muscle relaxants. Don't plan on being very productive.
What should I avoid while taking baclofen?
Do not use baclofen at a time when you need muscle tone for safe balance and movement during certain activities. In some situations, it may be dangerous for you to have reduced muscle tone.
Drinking alcohol with this medicine can cause side effects.
This medication may impair your thinking or reactions. Be careful if you drive or do anything that requires you to be alert.
Well, they don't have anything different in them than regular marijuana and marijuana is the sort of thing that becomes unpleasant when you have too much. And you can already smoke too much pot without concentrates. I suppose the concentrated forms can make the onset more sudden, but it's hardly notably that he didn't mention it.
Given that a significant chunk of design/product nowadays is centered around 'engagement', the inevitability of this can't be understated.
Imagine if our medication, food, etc were designed around engagement. We already have a term for that, and it's addiction.
I don't understand why we guard our physical intake from 'addiction', but don't show anywhere as much concern re: our cognitive intake despite our mind not mattering any less than our body.
I know the practical solution here is being a more conscientious user, but I feel like there's ethical culpability on our profession.
There's more than enough responsibility to go around. If we want industries to create things that counteract the problem, they'll need new processes to replace the old ones with.
I believe the first step is the development of new design theories.
I think bringing neuroscience and mindfulness into the mix is the way to go.
How it'll supplant is simple: tack it on to human-centric design, get companies applying HCD already to adopt it, and they can show the addiction-addicted companies how to make money in a more sustainable way.
Sell it to the capitalists by showing people can live longer if their well-being is higher.
That's fine. Others will develop it and the big ones will adopt it. Or not and they'll continue to be platforms for addicting others.
Once one person succeeds in figuring out a service for marketing in a way people will welcome into their home (as opposed to begrudgingly being forced to allow them), others will follow.
Ads suck, so I'm betting people can get behind a platform explicitly designed for experimenting with ad tech to find things that don't.
I'd think it's more about economic theories. If all economic incentives point to making a product more addictive, of course products will be designed that way.
That reminds me of an amazing book "Thinking in Systems: A Primer." It is probably on my list of must-read books for software developers and other roles around them.
If we incompletely define addiction as a cycle of compulsions with negative consequences, it's already an unsustainable process at the individual level. We can predict (and statistics confirm this) lifespans of addicts to be lower than those of comparable non-addicts.
If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected.
> If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others.
That assumes that all addictions are deadly and that the company would mind.
A company is not interested in a customer's life span but the span of time they are their customer. if someone dies with 30 after having been a "loyal" customer for 20 years, that's better for them than if they die with 90 but are a customer for 5 years.
> They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility.
Not really if the incentive is strong enough that everyone does it. As seems to be the case with the internet.
> At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts.
That's an assumption. Like the previous point, that won't happen if it's considered "normal".
> The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level.
Yes. So what?
> Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected.
How does that fit the GP's observation that more and more design is focused on "engagement" - which, from the techniques involved, is really not much different than designing for addictiveness?
Also - without knowing the theories - only because a configuration is unsustainable doesn't mean that such a configuration won't appear.
There have been many "self-corrections" of unsustainable configurations in history which I am glad to not have witnessed personally...
Not all engagement is created equal. Engagement for engagement's sake promotes addiction because addiction is a coping mechanism to other problems. Without explicitly targeting those problems at a societal level (which includes organizations), they'll remain unchecked and allowed to grow. More specifically, based on my research & recovery experiences, addiction's a learning disorder resulting from things that can be overcome (in part) through emotionally supportive social connections, paying attention to one's needs (which requires being able to pay attention to oneself, courage to face one's own issues, knowing what one's basic humans needs are, learning how to meet those needs alone, and how to meet them with the help of other people), and developing skills for emotional regulation. Any design theory seeking to minimize its contribution to addiction will need to promote human connection (which is based on the quality of interactions and not simply having the ability to interact), respect attention, promote mindfulness, and responsibly use human emotions as inputs.
As for unsustainable configurations, they're inevitable. With the advent of global connectivity & new research, humanity is now primed to take more responsibility for its unsustainable configs & devise strategies for intentional corrections, as opposed to passively waiting for inevitable self-corrections.
Through solving addiction (or any other unsustainable config), the law of unintended consequences will be invoked at some point and a new unsustainability will emerge because no system is perfect. All we can do is accept this fact and do our best to address things as they come.
I agree with your point but also want to point out that a very large percentage of the food industry is very focused on increasing 'engagement'. Most process foods/snacks push our addiction button to get us coming back and eating more.
This. And I wonder how PG's philosophy about addictions factors into his advice to YC companies. On the one hand, you have to make products engaging in order for your startup to survive. On the other hand, if the only companies that thrive are the "stickiest", then our lives will be filled with products and services that have been specifically designed to make them psychologically addictive.
Yeah, at the end of the day this is very unlikely to change unless people start to think about the ethical implications of what they are doing and whether or not they are really bringing any value to people.
I see one alternative: design things around "value."
On the other hand, as users are already trained to choose products based on "engagement," it would be important to have a certain level of "engagement" with these products no matter how "valuable" they are. Otherwise, users just won't notice the product and its "value."
I think engagement is better off being a byproduct of value/utility, as opposed to the first-order driver of product decisions (even if that runs contrary to the $$$ in the short-term)
A lot of people roll their eyes at the idea of addictions to something other than drugs -- gambling, sex, video games, etc. Having done some in-depth research on gambling addiction, I am firmly convinced it is every bit as addictive and problematic as drugs -- affects the same people, by the same physiology, and leads to all the same destructive behaviors.
If we don't turn around our concept of addiction to something that extends beyond chemicals, we're in for some major societal problems very soon.
I'm a recovering information addict & I'm intimately familiar with the effects of these processes. PG refers here to internet addiction, which is similar to info addiction because the former's a subset of the latter.
As it was with cigarettes, all of society is responsible at all levels for its own diseases. Individuals are responsible for learning about addiction-related/-promoting processes in order to make informed decisions about what systems they choose to interact with. Companies are responsible for learning how to design systems that are anti-addictive & still sustainable. Governments are responsible for passing legislation to promote "antibodies."
And all are responsible for developing compassionate paths for recovery. It starts with listening to addicts in order to help them identify their needs/wants & help them learn how to meet them in sustainable ways.
Somebody once told me a certain definition of addiction - they attributed it to Nietzsche I think, but I'm not sure whether to believe that. Anyway it was this: An addiction is something that promises to cure that of which it is the cause.
This compact definition covers surprisingly many addictions. Pick one, I dunno... heroin. Promises to eliminate all the pain, while bringing tons of pain into your life.
Even things like gambling - promises excitement & riches, makes you poor and predictable.
Or even, things like religion - the thing it causes/cures is "awareness of being a weak sinner."
Or even, social media - the thing it causes/cures is disconnection.
I've wanted something to completely, uncompromisingly block all Internet and software time wasters for a long time. I.e. quit cold turkey, once and for all.
Short of an UEFI-implemented solution (which itself would create problems like total control over your hardware), there's nothing out there that can't be bypassed. And no company is going to do that when the Internet addictions are bringing in billions.
Best way is to treat it at the core, of course, but that's not going to happen, either.
When it comes to illegal drugs, one reason modern drugs are more addictive than before is that they are simply stronger. Heroin is 3 times stronger than morphine, which is 10 times stronger than opium. Fentanyl goes through the roof. They are all addictive, and they all have similar effects, but at different doses.
Having a more potent substance has many benefits : smaller quantities are easier to transport or hide and are often cheaper to produce per dose.
114 comments
[ 0.16 ms ] story [ 248 ms ] threadIt doesn't deal in addiction but overwhelming stimuli, whether or not they're repeated. Animals can be fooled by unrealistically strong experiences - you can trick a goose into 'hatching' a volleyball - and it appears that humans have somewhat similar responses.
The insights in the two articles aren't vastly different, but there's one intriguing thought: there are actual selection pressures against this. When animals are fooled by superstimuli they're things that are rare (brood parasitism) or nonexistent (volleyballs) - if the extreme stimulus was common they would refine their processing. Some human cases may be hard to avoid (e.g. dopamine receptors) but some might be simpler. It's starting to look like overriding these responses is a major skill for everyday human functioning.
In addition, because of how interconnected our society is a selection process individually would be enough. It would have to also be powerful enough to stop the memetic heritability of "superstimuli" memes.
Birth rates have been falling dramatically all over the world over the past 40 years, in rich and poor countries alike. It is true that the birth rate is still higher in poor countries than it is in rich countries. But even in poor countries, birth rates have dropped. You can go look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... and find your favorite poor country and see the changes. North Korea is just less than replacement rate, 2.0 children/woman. Cuba is 1.6 children per woman, well under replacement rate.
Haiti went from 5.8 children per woman in 1970 to 3.0 in 2013. That kind of drop has been experienced around the world, in rich countries as well as poor countries. Pakistan is another example I commonly cite, going from 6.6 children/woman in 1970 to 3.8 in 2013
However, almost every poor country has been getting richer, so it might be hard to untangle the effects.
The general explanation for falling fertility rates like '5 -> 3' is that it's mostly about falling infant mortality and improved birth control. People have more control over pregnancies and more confidence in the survival of their children, so they can achieve a small family with fewer births.
That's a substantially different matter than being voluntarily childless. I admit I'm summoning up complexity here by claiming that 'N -> 2.1' has a different mechanism than '2.1 -> 1.46', and that there are some odd examples. North Korea I'd largely discount because famine warps birth rates, but Cuba is interesting. Presumably this is some of the same effects, but I'm not sure if there are very many people in Havana doing the "young and rich and childfree" thing with the same cultural markers. I'm actually not sure, I'd need someone more familiar with Cuban (or other) cultures to answer that.
Voluntarily childless has a personal/psychological element - it's about not wanting a family in the first place - and can take personal birth rates down to 0.
That seemed to be the claim, and I still state this claim is false.
Forgive me for nitpicking more, but most places with famines tend to still tend have large families, and arguably North Korea is an exception to that. Compare North Korea to the countries affected by 2011 drought in east Africa and the countries affected by 2012 Sahel drought. I'm not going to list every country but north African countries in general have far larger birth rates than east Asian countries.
In terms of cultures, I've never been to Cuba, Haiti, or North Korea either, so I don't really know either. But my anecdotal experience of places I have been, there are a lot of people both who don't want children, but won't admit it, particularly not to their parents. And there are also a lot of people who do want children.
Selection pressure is a feedback system, and in order for it to function there must be enough time for the feedback to catch up. If it can't, we get extinction instead of adaptation.
A great example against this are diseases: on the one hand, the more viral a disease is, the better it competes against other diseases. On the other, being too viral is bad for the health of the host, or even lethal, which is a selection pressure against it. However, if the disease can spread from host to host independent of their health, like diseases that spread through mosquitos or water, the selection pressure against lethal virality is gone, untill all possible hosts within range die. That is why safe drinking water has the unexpected side effect of making the diseases themselves less lethal[0]. And like safe drinking water, I do not think we should make this a responsibility of the individual. This is something to be solved at the societal level.
[0] https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_ewald_asks_can_we_domesticate...
Even though I make an effort, it's amazing to think how little time I actually spend alone with my thoughts compared to even a decade ago when this was written.
But after a couple of months I realized that I had lost something, the meditative effects. I've ditched the bluetooth phones and I like it better.
In its core, you choose to walk outside for one Pomodoro, while using focused meditation, where the focus is not on the breath (or any other part of the body), but rather on a specific question that you need to find an answer for.
Also, I use the same technique when I'm commuting by the public transport from work to home and home to work.
For the technique to work, it is important to be proficient with focused meditation. So one needs to train first to be able to consistently focus on something simpler than a question (breath, or feet, or your surroundings, or food you eat).
source: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/575490964527034368
This has made me more reflective of my tech absorption and how hard it is to see until you see it happen to someone else.
I used HN as a replacement for the industry news and to remove all the other extra junk. Which seems to be working since I only visit about once a day for 15-20 minutes and don't feel a compulsive need to check it constantly for fear of missing something since there's a lack of memes and in-jokes.
But for the internet it's much more difficult: I don't think the habit of avoidance can be born without first general awareness of its danger. And the danger in all other substances Paul mentions is a physical one: you get terminally ill, or visibly unhealthy. But internet addiction is invisible; it masks itself as the person being just slower than their peers, or lazier.
Moreover, not buying a pack of cigarettes is trivially easy for someone that's not addicted yet. As is not getting drunk every day. But distinguishing the addictive internet from the non-addictive is hard, and avoiding the former while still using the latter is even harder. What shape can a social habit of avoidance take here?
You wouldnt start to bake a cake by buying meat, right?
Theres currently no process in place for anything, but only lots of information and people trying to get you addicted to spend money and time(depending on you product or customer) on things you do not require.
But corporations are allowed to pay a third party to build honey pots in order to poison your mind against you. The worst part of it is that it makes finding actually useful information almost impossible because there is such huge incentives to make superficially attractive information that's actually dross.
And people wonder why the foolish poor took on too much housing debt or why you had Trump running against Clinton.
"This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
But I'm sure sucking all our brightest minds into Google and Wall Street we'll innovate our way past global warming no bother.
> But I'm sure sucking all our brightest minds into Google and Wall Street we'll innovate our way past global warming no bother.
However lamenting about this does not help anyone. Everyone has his own incentives.
No, we're only sucking the brightest of the "path of least resistance" minds into Google and Wall Street. Plenty bright minds to go about, and many have ideas of their own.
Almost as if the fundamental conflicts built in to capitalism are harmful to us as a species -- who'd have thought treating life as a competition would lead to so many of us losing.
I think competition was always there. My point is people selling things get smarter.
So it may be a good idea to improve my arsenal too to withstand the forces that be and use what is out there.
Even if you personally make good decisions if the market for good products is not big enough the addictive products will be all that's available.
Nothing is all good and nothing is all bad, but rather allˋs a shade of grey.
My way of solving the addiction Problem is to get rid of the dark stuff by putting a box on all shady and only letting it through in a controlled manner so only light comes out at the end.
The box is like a teacher, assisting and guiding. Not limiting but supporting with anything I want done.
I am unable to find a better metaphore.
Capitalism creates a realistic incentive structure within the constraints of the real world, including the constraints of the biological systems that undergird human and animal life. It has problems, but by this point, it's well-proven that living under dictatorial fiat disguised as utopian mythology is far worse.
Socially isolated, failure to obtain/hold jobs, failure to reach traditional milestones (marriage, own house, children, etc.).
I have a friend from high school, he was the smartest kid in class, was a math-genius. Somehow he lost interest in school. He has a Youtube channel, where he posts game videos, earns a bit money from there (i guess 500 dollars per month). He is "trying" to study economics, but he is still in the same semester after three years. He does lead a life, but not in the physical world. He was a handsome kid, now he doesn't eat and doesn't care about appearances. He only drinks iced tea (no water) and eats limited food he likes (like pasta or chocolate). Although his life may seem weird, I respect him. That's his choice to live in the digital world.
Thus, if the gamer in GP stops playing games, then experiences intense overwhelming craving for the game, he is addicted, and his thought processes are compromised as a result.
Ordinary choices we make are different from addictions not because we lack choice only in the narrow realm of addictions, but because addictions are harmful to normative human goals like self-sufficiency (job), relationships, and such. But relationships and self-sufficiency are both a matter of degree, and there's fuzziness about where something is harmful enough to justify psychological/pharma intervention.
(Not that that's the only characteristic of addictions; they also seem to be very strong single-inputs (will this make me happy or be pleasurable now?) that are able to drive decision-making... short-circuiting all the other more normal evaluations, from a more balanced network of inputs: economic constraints, past experience, outcome prediction, social judgment... with immediate happiness normally only one factor, and often not even a very strong one.)
There are other behaviors besides addictions that are harmful to self-sufficiency and relationships. Many of them are treated as mental health problems, especially when they're severe enough. Some aren't, though, and are considered just someone being quirky or eccentric.
We (should) want to encourage diversity, while reducing the misery of people on the fringes who are engaged in truly self-destructive behaviors. But plenty of people we all know are only functioning in modern life because of medication—whether it's opiates, amphetamines, neurotransmitter modulators, marijuana, or whatever. Trying to improve people who are self-destructive is a noble goal, but when self-destruction seems closer and closer to the norm every day, intervention may make those people happier but it begins to reek of Brave New World.
If the world is so fucked up that most people are either too addictable or too depressed (or too something) to function without assistance, what does it say about personal happiness or a functioning society if that can only exist with enough drugs to coerce people into doing "standard" things: maintain a job, a home, some relationships, etc? It seems to me that either we have to accept BNW's dystopia as more of a judgment-neutral prophecy than a cautionary tale, or we have to start politically outlawing things that are causing people to be so addicted or so distressed that they can't maintain reasonable productivity and happiness without medication. Unfortunately, the second option would involve wreaking havoc on the conservative and libertarian ideal of free markets (and maybe parts of the 1st amendment too), so we as a society seem hellbent on sleepwalking our way down the rabbit hole to the BNW "drug-everyone" scenario.
I'm free not to smoke tobacco and not to get drunk. Some people aren't. No matter how philosophical you want to get about predestination, the difference between being addicted and not is real and obvious to everyone.
Granted, the addiction is only pathological if it's harmful to the individual. The fact that internet addiction isn't physically visible as harmful was my very point.
Once that happens, you become programmed by the addiction, in the same way that opiate addicts end up having their entire lives revolve around their addiction.
Worse I'd say is a place like /r9k/. Any semblance of normality is to be instantly branded a "Normie" and howled at to leave the board immediately. Absolute detachment from the physical world is lauded as the highest achievement. Imagine a board of drug users harassing each other to inject the highest dose, every time.
These people sit around in their own filth and both hate and take pride in their filthiness.
Internet addiction is real, and it can be very, very damaging.
Instead of a drug poisoning your mind and body, it's ideas. Information. Snow Crash
I don't think the problem is internet addiction, it's two fold:
1. The economy is so much worse than the numbers suggest.
2. Mental illness must be at an all time high, with treatments proving slightly better than placebo in terribly designed clinical trials.(I am so disappointed in their statistical/methodology, I hate even using the word clinical these days. Clinical what? Clinical lying? They do get the symptoms right, it's the Treatment that's lacking.
4. I don't want to argue. I'm a nobody, so my views hold no weight.
Vice? Enchantress or siren? To be put under a spell?
The pill they mention is called "Baclofen", and the podcast goes into how effective it is and why, if it's so good, it isn't used broadly yet.
What should I avoid while taking baclofen?
Do not use baclofen at a time when you need muscle tone for safe balance and movement during certain activities. In some situations, it may be dangerous for you to have reduced muscle tone.
Drinking alcohol with this medicine can cause side effects.
This medication may impair your thinking or reactions. Be careful if you drive or do anything that requires you to be alert.
Interesting that he left out marijuana concentrates, the most recent example (in terms of widespread availability).
Carrots are not addictive though. I won't do anything for a carrot, no matter how many I've eaten in the past.
Imagine if our medication, food, etc were designed around engagement. We already have a term for that, and it's addiction.
I don't understand why we guard our physical intake from 'addiction', but don't show anywhere as much concern re: our cognitive intake despite our mind not mattering any less than our body.
I know the practical solution here is being a more conscientious user, but I feel like there's ethical culpability on our profession.
I believe the first step is the development of new design theories.
I tend to agree, at least in the abstract. But what would this look like, and how would it successfully supplant the old design theories?
How it'll supplant is simple: tack it on to human-centric design, get companies applying HCD already to adopt it, and they can show the addiction-addicted companies how to make money in a more sustainable way.
Sell it to the capitalists by showing people can live longer if their well-being is higher.
Apple could lead here and build some tools directly into the OS that let people easily set some custom boundaries around addictive use.
Once one person succeeds in figuring out a service for marketing in a way people will welcome into their home (as opposed to begrudgingly being forced to allow them), others will follow.
Ads suck, so I'm betting people can get behind a platform explicitly designed for experimenting with ad tech to find things that don't.
If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected.
Is that clearer?
That assumes that all addictions are deadly and that the company would mind.
A company is not interested in a customer's life span but the span of time they are their customer. if someone dies with 30 after having been a "loyal" customer for 20 years, that's better for them than if they die with 90 but are a customer for 5 years.
> They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility.
Not really if the incentive is strong enough that everyone does it. As seems to be the case with the internet.
> At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts.
That's an assumption. Like the previous point, that won't happen if it's considered "normal".
> The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level.
Yes. So what?
> Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected.
I don't see any evidence of that happening.
Anyway, what are the sources for that theory?
Also - without knowing the theories - only because a configuration is unsustainable doesn't mean that such a configuration won't appear.
There have been many "self-corrections" of unsustainable configurations in history which I am glad to not have witnessed personally...
As for unsustainable configurations, they're inevitable. With the advent of global connectivity & new research, humanity is now primed to take more responsibility for its unsustainable configs & devise strategies for intentional corrections, as opposed to passively waiting for inevitable self-corrections.
Through solving addiction (or any other unsustainable config), the law of unintended consequences will be invoked at some point and a new unsustainability will emerge because no system is perfect. All we can do is accept this fact and do our best to address things as they come.
Of course, that may not have been the case a few decades ago, but I think there's a lot to be learned from there.
On the other hand, as users are already trained to choose products based on "engagement," it would be important to have a certain level of "engagement" with these products no matter how "valuable" they are. Otherwise, users just won't notice the product and its "value."
Supernormal stimulus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus
Romance books
Social media, yes.
If we don't turn around our concept of addiction to something that extends beyond chemicals, we're in for some major societal problems very soon.
If only I had thought of this rebuttal in middle school...
As it was with cigarettes, all of society is responsible at all levels for its own diseases. Individuals are responsible for learning about addiction-related/-promoting processes in order to make informed decisions about what systems they choose to interact with. Companies are responsible for learning how to design systems that are anti-addictive & still sustainable. Governments are responsible for passing legislation to promote "antibodies."
And all are responsible for developing compassionate paths for recovery. It starts with listening to addicts in order to help them identify their needs/wants & help them learn how to meet them in sustainable ways.
http://i.imgur.com/uJ3vyxs.png
"How much worse would your life be if [various drugs] ceased to exist?" (Youtube, TV, internet, smartphones, porn, sugar)
Key: http://i.imgur.com/c0LDy8b.png
Full results: http://imgur.com/a/ElbJh
But it looks like now, its time to update this article with a different strategy. (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/575490964527034368)
This compact definition covers surprisingly many addictions. Pick one, I dunno... heroin. Promises to eliminate all the pain, while bringing tons of pain into your life.
Even things like gambling - promises excitement & riches, makes you poor and predictable.
Or even, things like religion - the thing it causes/cures is "awareness of being a weak sinner."
Or even, social media - the thing it causes/cures is disconnection.
EDIT: This popped up on HN just now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851057
Short of an UEFI-implemented solution (which itself would create problems like total control over your hardware), there's nothing out there that can't be bypassed. And no company is going to do that when the Internet addictions are bringing in billions.
Best way is to treat it at the core, of course, but that's not going to happen, either.
Having a more potent substance has many benefits : smaller quantities are easier to transport or hide and are often cheaper to produce per dose.