One additional reason for reducing addiction is that addictions like video games can make your baseline of 'fun' too high, so doing productive things doesn't feel fun even though it would otherwise.
The author seems to suggest that orgasms are bad. That’s where I kind of checked out.
I think there is a lot of useful advice in here but it needs to be filtered against the cognitive biases of the author, who comes off as extremely obsessive and judgmental. These are useful traits to someone laser focused on controlling their own impulsive behavior but possibly not generally applicable to others in such an extreme sense.
I didn’t say not to listen. I’m actually quite fond of the points brought up here. I’m just saying it’s taken to an extreme, which is likely justified by the level of addiction that the author is guarding against.
Coffee and orgasming is arguably not bad (there are health benefits to both). No one would dispute that the author’s kleptomania _is_ deviant behavior though. So I disagree that the goal should be to purge _all_ addictions, the goal should be to live a good life and eliminate addictions that obstruct this. The article still has good advice when viewed through this lens.
Anything that meets the old diagnostic criteria for addiction or the current ones for even mild substance use disorder is bad, or at least on a very clear road to badness, yes.
Lots of people use the term “addiction” for any habitual pleasure seeking activity, which is both wrong and, yes, includes lots of things that are not bad.
One way I use figure out if addiction is harmful is to consider: if I could freely edit my brain to make this thing no longer pleasurable, would I do it? I think some of the activities that are generally labelled as addictive can still be genuinely meaningful or have some instrumental value for some people.
It's pretty important to split out addictions from habits/tendencies/routines. I'm not convinced checking HN several times a day develops the same physiological changes that say alcohol or nicotine do. We like to say we're "totally addicted to X" for things in which we over-indulge as a defense for the behaviour, but this is not the clinical definition of addiction. If I cut off your access to porn or video games or shop lifting it might be unpleasant but is very different than a meth-addict going cold turkey experiences.
But if we look at the physiology social media sites and the such are triggering your brain in the same way. And if you cold turkey stop all of those things you are addicted to, you will have an adjustment period. And it could significantly affect you.
Sure, it won't kill you like someone withdrawing from a physical addiction to alcohol might, to make you feel like you are dying like an opiate withdrawal, but lets not kid ourselves, the online systems OP and you refer to are designed to be addictive.
This is an ongoing debate that comes up from time-to-time, and I think it’s a nuance that both has merit but also potentially detracts from the efforts of people who want to change. Most commonly I’ve heard it come up in the context of “sex addiction” or “porn addiction”.
For me, I’m on the side of “compulsive behaviours that have a negative effect on your life, and yet you continue to do them consistently” is the definition of “practical addiction” for me, and the “negative effect” part is critical, not the distinction between “chemical/physiological” and “psychological”.
Does the person who spends 6 hours/day refreshing HN have an addiction? Maybe, maybe not! Are they underperforming at work because they can’t stop themselves? Maybe it is a problem they should get help addressing. Does someone who must take an anti-depressant every day, lest they go into withdrawal, have an addiction? Probably not, even though they’re chemically dependent on it, it likely makes their life better not worse.
For me, the mechanism of action matters significantly less than the effects and outcomes when you define addiction.
> The insidious thing about addictions is that all addictions weaken the prefrontal cortex, which is the part of your brain associated with self-discipline and willpower. The more addictions you have, the weaker your self-regulation abilities become
Is there any science to back that claim up? First time I've heard that and it very much sounds like pseudo-science made up by "war on drugs" people.
-------
EDIT: There seems to be a similar claim made in some review papers[0][1], though those primarily focus on hard drug abuse. Would be interesting to get the opinion of someone more qualified on the topic.
-------
Either way, interesting article and at least that interconnection of weak addictions is nothing I thought about like that before. I think I might even try out that advice, as I'm currently struggling with strong procrastination (hence me commenting here) while coincidentally my weak addictions recently all had a bit of an uptick.
What if you never consumed salt, oil, or sugar again? Within about 30 days, your taste buds would adapt and become more sensitive, and food would taste just as good as it did before, except that it would be less addictive, so you’d probably eat less of it. You’d also be less likely to develop heart disease.
This is 100% true in my experience. In 2013 I gave up obvious sources of refined sugar and artificial sweetener due to an elevated triglycerides report. After two weeks all sweet cravings ended. Fruit started to taste amazing. Now I have dessert of any kind at most once per week and I probably haven’t had a soda of any kind in over five years.
For sugar yes, that's well known (but when you eat fruit you are eating again just flavored sugar with fiber), but oil? The most distinct one for me is quality extra virgin olive oil and that's healthy as hell. And even that adds just a very mild flavor to ie salads.
I agree that oil is a poor choice of words. I would’ve used the word, “fat”.
To say fruit is flavored sugar with fiber when comparing it to candy is an oversimplification. Eating candy you can consume 1,000 calories with almost no effort. Good luck eating 15 cups of raspberries to get to that 1,000 calories. Who would do that? And the candy has no nutrition in it while raspberries have lots of vitamins, minerals and as you said fiber.
The bottom line is that our society eats too much sugar, fat and salt and we’d be better off eating less.
> Would you like to be addiction-free? If so, then a good place to start is to paint a picture of what your life could be like with no addictions.
That life would be very empty and boring.
> What if you never had another orgasm for the rest of your life?
I might as well be dead :)
> Of course we could live happy and fulfilling lives without these short-term pleasures. When we think otherwise, we’re confusing pleasure with happiness. It’s the nature of addiction to treat pleasure and happiness as one.
I'm addicted to a few things, but I don't consider them a source of happiness. You also can't really have happiness without short term pleasures, whatever they might be.
> You can’t have a relationship with the addiction. There is no moderation for an addict. The standard you aim to reach is being permanently alcohol-free.
Oh yes you can. The important question is that whether this relationship is disruptive, neutral or positive (like being addicted to training). Drinking isn't inherently bad, but the author thinks so. My impression is that there are equal number of studies on pro/contra moderate alcohol consumption.
> The important question is that whether this relationship is disruptive, neutral or positive (like being addicted to training). Drinking isn't inherently bad, but the author thinks so. My impression is that there are equal number of studies on pro/contra moderate alcohol consumption.
Not sure if it's part of the 'official' definition of addiction and forgot what the source of it was, but I always liked the explanation that if there's no negative (emotional) feedback loop, it's not really an addiction, but just a habit.
Being addiction-free doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the occasional cup of coffee or alcoholic drink. As long as you're not addicted, some amount of short-term pleasure is perfectly fine.
That's how I see it, but the article suggests to go all the way, eg. full abstinence on alcohol. As zambal said in the sibling comment, the definition of addiction matters a lot here.
Using alcohol as an example, any modern definition will differentiate between harmful drinking, high risk drinking, and alcohol dependence. Definitions of dependence will include statements like:
> Someone who is alcohol-dependent may persist in drinking, despite harmful consequences. They will also give alcohol a higher priority than other activities and obligations.
It's this element of continuing to do something even though it's causing harm that is one of the markers of addiction.
Wrong! Once you are addiction-free, you are much more sensitive to stimuli, making life much more interesting. But the problem with addictions is that the addict can't possibly imagine that this is true. If you are addicted, find a forum on the internet and read stories of people who have recovered. They will tell you without exception that their lives are much more interesting now.
Maybe we shoud distinguish and not conflate some things.
1. Addiction (self-reinforing habit with negative outcomes)
2. Addictive activity (self-reinforcing habit)
3. Engauging in an activity known to become addictive selectively. (Aka; adults drinking)
We use all 3 interchangably, when the dangers, and outcomes, are very different.
> Drinking isn't inherently bad, but the author thinks so.
I think the author just, somewhat, arbitrarily chose alcohol as the example for the all-or-nothing mindset for overcoming an addiction, and in that mindset "drinking is bad" is the thought in the addicts head using that approach, not the authors decree. Alcohol could be substituted for "internet" in the regulation example, in which you'd get moderate alcohol consumption. Though the tools available to pull that off with alcohol addiction might not be enough for some.
I like that this takes the subject seriously- at least in America, people are very resistant to the notion that coffee is an addiction. Even if they do agree, it’s felt as pedantic to point out. So I’m glad it’s included here.
My take on this revolves around the part where you’ll supposedly forge deeper connections etc. I just don’t see it. I suspect our connections are what they are. They’re all we have, but also in most cases not that strong really. And it’s just part of life.
Since that is so unsatisfying, it makes sense to find it unacceptable and fixate on removing some contaminant, something that’s in the way of the real thing.
I haven't read the article, but the title of the post stood out to me because of this thought that I've been having today, "do I struggle with substance abuse?"
The day/s after drinking alcohol tend to be down days for me. I'm more depressed, sad, and have lots of anxiety. I'm currently experiencing one of those days and it is starting to seriously concern me.
I know It would be better for me to stop drinking alcohol completely. I've done it before and was able to be around alcohol without letting myself consume any.
But at the moment I've been struggling with self-control and haven't been able to keep myself from drinking.
So back to my original thought, I think the answer is yes.
It's not as toxic as say alcohol, and you'll be hard-pressed to overdose on coffee itself, but caffeine toxicity is a thing:
> In 2016, 3702 caffeine related exposure were reported to Poison Control Centers in the United States, of which 846 required an hospitalization and 16 with a major outcome, and several caffeine-related deaths are reported in case studies. The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milligrams per kilogram (2.2 lb) of body mass (75–100 cups of coffee for a 70 kg (150 lb) adult). There are cases where doses as low as 57 milligrams per kilogram have been fatal. A number of fatalities have been caused by overdoses of readily available powdered caffeine supplements, for which the estimated lethal amount is less than a tablespoon. The lethal dose is lower in individuals whose ability to metabolize caffeine is impaired due to genetics or chronic liver disease. A death was reported in a man with liver cirrhosis who overdosed on caffeinated mints.
overall good write-up yet I get a strong sensation of black VS white and there is no gray.
either you're addicted or you're free, no middle ground, no gray areas, no better days in which is easy to overcome one's compulsions and no worse days in which it's much harder.
simplistic "all or nothing" ideas which diminish nunace are also dopamine inducing, this is why memes are so popular. they are the refined sugar of information and understanding.
> It’s the nature of addiction to treat pleasure and happiness as one. The less of an addict you become, the more you’ll realize how separate and distinct these are, and the more weight you’ll place on long-term happiness.
The means someone achieves pleasure or long term happiness can in fact be the same. And I see see no reason to believe why a video gaming community (what he refers to as a shallow connection) can't provide both. Are you enjoying yourself presently? Great, that's pleasure. Is this a sustainable way to enjoy yourself? Great, you are on your way to long term happiness.
> We also expose the shallowness of connections that don’t really serve us. What does it say about a connection that isn’t as good without gaming or coffee? What does it say about the quality of a relationship if going orgasm-free for a while leaves you feeling hollow and empty instead of deeply in love and grateful? Addictions so often mask substantial weaknesses that we don’t feel ready to face.
We have a wide variety of needs, and it is unreasonable to think there is a magic bullet. Different social groups (or activities, hobbies) meet different needs. If you remove whatever was meeting your need, then you will naturally feel a sense of loss, whether the relationship was a healthy one (what he calls intimate) or an addictive one. I would imagine the loss of my dog or a loved one would leave me grieving for some time and I would enjoy parts of my life less. This doesn't mean those less enjoyable things were bad.
Recently I came across a device that claims it can help you break addictions via voluntary electric shocks: https://pavlok.com
It seems plausible that it could work, but it's suspicious that the site doesn't address the most obvious question: Wouldn't I just stop shocking myself? Curious if any HNers have tried this thing.
Hey -- I'm the founder of Pavlok. When trying to quit a habit for good, you follow the aversion protocol -- You enable the Aversion mode. 5 minutes a day of intentionally doing the habit, while the device zaps.
This creates an aversion, similar to getting so sick from drinking a type of alcohol that you don't want to do it again.
If you decide to not use it, of course it can't work. However, the vast majority of users who complete the 5 day protocol register no desire or craving for the old habit, even a year later. You can read some more studies on our device specifically, and aversion in general, at pavlok.com/science.
Wow, people are still taking Steve Pavlina seriously all those years later. OK....
P.S. To be clear, I am not a hater. I've learned about Steve when he was a game developer, having developed one marginally successful shareware game. That was more than ten years ago. He then decided to teach others how to become successful game developers and launched game publishing business. Which went nowhere. He blogged all along. Then Steve got interested in personal development, polyamory, polyphase sleep, etc. becoming 'an expert' in these topics, just like he has in successful game development and game publishing.
Can you elaborate? Don't know the guy, but just what I read here seems mostly backed up by science - that is to say, I haven't read a lot on addiction so am definitely not an expert, but none of what I read here seems to contradict with what I think I know about it.
Yeah, I've updated the post after realizing that not everybody is as old as me. Steve was big in early 2000s (think 2008-2010) in the indie gamedev world that I was a part of too. I actually remember his (then) wife Erin. Erin is a psychic - https://www.erinpavlina.com/ There's also a person by the name of Christina Pavlina, who is a psychic and supposedly she's Steve's sister - https://theoneabsolute.com/about/
Might have to do more with interests etc in this case, because 2008 is over a decade later than my first steps on the internet :)
Anyway: I completely get your point now. Yet, and this is a typical problem especially in psychic and other circles: despite the insane stuff which has come out of his pen, this article isn't all that insane. Not that I comletely endorse it, some of his solutions are too simplistic and/or might work for him but not for others, but there's also not a whole lot of nonsense in it. Point being: even though people might be completely wrong on one topic, doesn't necessarily mean they are on another topic. Just requires extra skeptisicm when reading them as precaution perhaps.
I found his articles years ago about lucid dreaming, and also subsequently found lots of his 30-90 day experiments very interesting.
What makes him stand out in my mind is that he actually does the challenges as opposed to so many other people writing blogspam articles or whole books without the work. It got me into self-experimentation - not with any dogmas in particular, but seeing people actually doing rather crazy long experiments gave me some courage. Also he introduced me to a lot of interesting concepts.
I haven't really seen other people actually do this. The biphasic sleep experiment, and the water fast experiment were especially tough, and no one without serious discipline could do that in my mind. This was years before "fasting" became a thing.
He was also an early adopter of both the diet and sleep experimentation (that didn't really take of), lucid dreaming and all kinds of other fads i have seen become mainstream later on. So i don't think he has "no authority" or whatever, even though he maybe a freak, but i generally like freaks who are on the fringes if they do the work and can write about it.
So i thank him for for introducing me to these concepts that i have been practicing for years now, ie. fasting, having an interest in dreams and general worldview, and experimenting seriously with diet (though i eat completely differently than him).
So all in all he is very much a self-hacker - he tries stuff even though it's weird, very tough and obscure - that's a lot of points in my book. (never bought anything from him though or read any of his books).
Small off-topic rant about "science":
Also yeah when people really take a deep dive into meditation / lucid dreaming stuff just "gets weird" - so he is not that different from a lot of highly educated meditation teachers i have run across, you just gotta say "whatever" if it's not your cup of tea. Another example is Daniel Ingram who i respect but is also doing weird psychedelic stuff or have "crazy" worldviews (many more than most people think in my experience especially in the math/physics sphere).
After diving into this stuff myself i would say to my old self: reality is way, way weirder than i thought when i was young - especially when you begin to really go deep (no drugs here). I personally went from a "science is some isolated emergent property of history", to science is an extremely vague subset or evolution of certain historical developments that are all still completely traceable to weird esoteric, fuzzy, diffuse lineages or worldviews that are much more philosophical/religious in nature.
A good starting point is "The Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast" - for a very academic and rigorous introduction to why the current science-history historiographical paradigm is very wrong. Then afterwards go to a few retreats, meditate 1+ hours a day, practice Koans on science, math and philosophy and slowly see your reductionistic perspective vanish, while you actually get better at doing science and "normal everyday work".
I read of bunch of his blog posts ten years ago and while there was some interesting content, there was also really weird and dangerous shit. For instance the series his one (or 3?) month experiment on polyphasic sleep[1] or his month eating only vegetable smoothies, which can have serious health consequences. Then he shifted to the edgy polyamory stuff and I quit.
Note that I tried the polyphasic sleep for a week or so and I suspect SP romanticized the things a bit in his blog posts. Like down putting the bad aspects, hyping the good ones in order to market the thing (thus himself). It was an interesting series, but this kind of material should be contextualized and display along with warnings.
Finally, once you get a few key ideas (mainly that you need to do things to get results), spending time reading personal development stuff is wasting time. Every blog, post, book just retold a few identical ideas.
Yeah, so you might be as old as I am. I remember when he was breaking up with Erin and leaving two kids behind, which clearly was a painful process. And we would be like 'OK, Steve, you are into sex, BDSM, and fucking other people. That's cool.' And he'd be like 'No, it's not that. It's personal development, freedom, next stage, bla-bla-bla'. I never got why polyamory couldn't just be polyamory (a personal choice), it had to be a proof that you as individual have graduated to progress to something that's more advanced. He used to have a ton of blog post about a girl who agreed to be his slave (in BDSM). That's where he lost me. I actually like kink, but I prefer to get mine from Pornhub, because it's personal development-free and I can just enjoy if for what it is. Plus he used to sell the shit out of his $400 per person 'personal growth' workshops. That was annoying as hell too.
P.S. I am glad I stopped reading Steve ten years ago, I've just browsed through his website and I think he became more woo-woo. At least that's my impression after reading his recent article about how you are supposed to 'energetically clean money' that you received as payment for your work - https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2020/05/how-to-clean-your-...
I'm glad he stopped shoplifting or whatever, but that he did it himself (and just by moving...) means it wasn't even a serious problem, much less an addiction. If someone with a serious problem tried to view this as guidance, they'd get nowhere.
No. Just no. Addiction is a serious matter which is well studied by actual scientists and mental health professionals. You can't just give advices about addiction unless you have been properly trained. Your affirmations on such subjects have to be backed by scientific evidence and having a big audience does not qualify for scientific evidence. Please, if you are interested about addiction or think you have a problematic relationship with a substance or a behavior, go and see the work of Dr. Andrew Tatarsky at https://www.centerforoptimalliving.com/ for instance. Or ask a mental health professional which have an actual Ph.D. in psychology or medicine. You could also read actual scientific evidence if you know how to, just not that. This is just wrong.
I've wondered if one of the problems with quitting an addictive substance is a loss of memory. Memory is often tied to setting, and being under the influence is part of setting. Remove the setting and the memories associated with it won't surface as often. (There is a common memory hack used to remember facts which is to envision a room or place you know well and "place" objects in it that correspond to what you want to remember. When you want to recall the facts you visit your memory room and the objects you've placed in it trigger recall.) So it seems like removing the "setting" of an addictive substance might also reduce the memories associated with it. In essence you would lose a part of your life, a piece of the person you were. That could be a net good thing for some people, but a net bad thing for others. If I remember correctly science has also shown that people who drink alcohol are more forgiving of others, which implies that people who quit drinking become meaner. There has been some theorizing that some addictive substances can (at least temporarily until physical side effects become detrimental) improve the creative output of artists.
This is all just conjecture on my part, but it does seem possible that there are ramifications to quitting addiction that medical science has not considered yet and which may have an important influence on peoples ability to quit.
For what it may be worth, our Church also has a very good, free 12-step program for overcoming addictions, with a bunch of online materials: https://addictionrecovery.churchofjesuschrist.org/steps?lang....
I think even just reading it, watching some videos, is worthwhile, but the complete program can be effective.
54 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 87.2 ms ] threadI think there is a lot of useful advice in here but it needs to be filtered against the cognitive biases of the author, who comes off as extremely obsessive and judgmental. These are useful traits to someone laser focused on controlling their own impulsive behavior but possibly not generally applicable to others in such an extreme sense.
I think him even hinting at it being bad triggered the rationalization behavior in you that he talked about in the article.
Hence why you just rationalized why you didn't need to listen to certain advice given in the article...
Coffee and orgasming is arguably not bad (there are health benefits to both). No one would dispute that the author’s kleptomania _is_ deviant behavior though. So I disagree that the goal should be to purge _all_ addictions, the goal should be to live a good life and eliminate addictions that obstruct this. The article still has good advice when viewed through this lens.
Anything that meets the old diagnostic criteria for addiction or the current ones for even mild substance use disorder is bad, or at least on a very clear road to badness, yes.
Lots of people use the term “addiction” for any habitual pleasure seeking activity, which is both wrong and, yes, includes lots of things that are not bad.
I drink coffee non-compulsively once or twice a week, without bad effects.
do you pass up on opportunities because of it? e.g. would you pass up a chance to engage in some activity because you know there won't be any coffee?
But if we look at the physiology social media sites and the such are triggering your brain in the same way. And if you cold turkey stop all of those things you are addicted to, you will have an adjustment period. And it could significantly affect you.
Sure, it won't kill you like someone withdrawing from a physical addiction to alcohol might, to make you feel like you are dying like an opiate withdrawal, but lets not kid ourselves, the online systems OP and you refer to are designed to be addictive.
For me, I’m on the side of “compulsive behaviours that have a negative effect on your life, and yet you continue to do them consistently” is the definition of “practical addiction” for me, and the “negative effect” part is critical, not the distinction between “chemical/physiological” and “psychological”.
Does the person who spends 6 hours/day refreshing HN have an addiction? Maybe, maybe not! Are they underperforming at work because they can’t stop themselves? Maybe it is a problem they should get help addressing. Does someone who must take an anti-depressant every day, lest they go into withdrawal, have an addiction? Probably not, even though they’re chemically dependent on it, it likely makes their life better not worse.
For me, the mechanism of action matters significantly less than the effects and outcomes when you define addiction.
Is there any science to back that claim up? First time I've heard that and it very much sounds like pseudo-science made up by "war on drugs" people.
-------
EDIT: There seems to be a similar claim made in some review papers[0][1], though those primarily focus on hard drug abuse. Would be interesting to get the opinion of someone more qualified on the topic.
-------
Either way, interesting article and at least that interconnection of weak addictions is nothing I thought about like that before. I think I might even try out that advice, as I'm currently struggling with strong procrastination (hence me commenting here) while coincidentally my weak addictions recently all had a bit of an uptick.
[0]: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnrn3119
[1]: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.brainresrev.2010.09.001
That said, the overriding does make it harder to self-regulate. But only wrt each addiction rather than in general.
This is 100% true in my experience. In 2013 I gave up obvious sources of refined sugar and artificial sweetener due to an elevated triglycerides report. After two weeks all sweet cravings ended. Fruit started to taste amazing. Now I have dessert of any kind at most once per week and I probably haven’t had a soda of any kind in over five years.
Oh and my triglycerides went from 232 to 113.
To say fruit is flavored sugar with fiber when comparing it to candy is an oversimplification. Eating candy you can consume 1,000 calories with almost no effort. Good luck eating 15 cups of raspberries to get to that 1,000 calories. Who would do that? And the candy has no nutrition in it while raspberries have lots of vitamins, minerals and as you said fiber.
The bottom line is that our society eats too much sugar, fat and salt and we’d be better off eating less.
That life would be very empty and boring.
> What if you never had another orgasm for the rest of your life?
I might as well be dead :)
> Of course we could live happy and fulfilling lives without these short-term pleasures. When we think otherwise, we’re confusing pleasure with happiness. It’s the nature of addiction to treat pleasure and happiness as one.
I'm addicted to a few things, but I don't consider them a source of happiness. You also can't really have happiness without short term pleasures, whatever they might be.
> You can’t have a relationship with the addiction. There is no moderation for an addict. The standard you aim to reach is being permanently alcohol-free.
Oh yes you can. The important question is that whether this relationship is disruptive, neutral or positive (like being addicted to training). Drinking isn't inherently bad, but the author thinks so. My impression is that there are equal number of studies on pro/contra moderate alcohol consumption.
Not sure if it's part of the 'official' definition of addiction and forgot what the source of it was, but I always liked the explanation that if there's no negative (emotional) feedback loop, it's not really an addiction, but just a habit.
Being addiction-free doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the occasional cup of coffee or alcoholic drink. As long as you're not addicted, some amount of short-term pleasure is perfectly fine.
> Someone who is alcohol-dependent may persist in drinking, despite harmful consequences. They will also give alcohol a higher priority than other activities and obligations.
It's this element of continuing to do something even though it's causing harm that is one of the markers of addiction.
Wrong! Once you are addiction-free, you are much more sensitive to stimuli, making life much more interesting. But the problem with addictions is that the addict can't possibly imagine that this is true. If you are addicted, find a forum on the internet and read stories of people who have recovered. They will tell you without exception that their lives are much more interesting now.
Maybe we shoud distinguish and not conflate some things.
1. Addiction (self-reinforing habit with negative outcomes) 2. Addictive activity (self-reinforcing habit) 3. Engauging in an activity known to become addictive selectively. (Aka; adults drinking)
We use all 3 interchangably, when the dangers, and outcomes, are very different.
I think the author just, somewhat, arbitrarily chose alcohol as the example for the all-or-nothing mindset for overcoming an addiction, and in that mindset "drinking is bad" is the thought in the addicts head using that approach, not the authors decree. Alcohol could be substituted for "internet" in the regulation example, in which you'd get moderate alcohol consumption. Though the tools available to pull that off with alcohol addiction might not be enough for some.
My take on this revolves around the part where you’ll supposedly forge deeper connections etc. I just don’t see it. I suspect our connections are what they are. They’re all we have, but also in most cases not that strong really. And it’s just part of life.
Since that is so unsatisfying, it makes sense to find it unacceptable and fixate on removing some contaminant, something that’s in the way of the real thing.
The day/s after drinking alcohol tend to be down days for me. I'm more depressed, sad, and have lots of anxiety. I'm currently experiencing one of those days and it is starting to seriously concern me.
I know It would be better for me to stop drinking alcohol completely. I've done it before and was able to be around alcohol without letting myself consume any.
But at the moment I've been struggling with self-control and haven't been able to keep myself from drinking.
So back to my original thought, I think the answer is yes.
[citation needed]
> In 2016, 3702 caffeine related exposure were reported to Poison Control Centers in the United States, of which 846 required an hospitalization and 16 with a major outcome, and several caffeine-related deaths are reported in case studies. The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milligrams per kilogram (2.2 lb) of body mass (75–100 cups of coffee for a 70 kg (150 lb) adult). There are cases where doses as low as 57 milligrams per kilogram have been fatal. A number of fatalities have been caused by overdoses of readily available powdered caffeine supplements, for which the estimated lethal amount is less than a tablespoon. The lethal dose is lower in individuals whose ability to metabolize caffeine is impaired due to genetics or chronic liver disease. A death was reported in a man with liver cirrhosis who overdosed on caffeinated mints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine
either you're addicted or you're free, no middle ground, no gray areas, no better days in which is easy to overcome one's compulsions and no worse days in which it's much harder.
simplistic "all or nothing" ideas which diminish nunace are also dopamine inducing, this is why memes are so popular. they are the refined sugar of information and understanding.
The means someone achieves pleasure or long term happiness can in fact be the same. And I see see no reason to believe why a video gaming community (what he refers to as a shallow connection) can't provide both. Are you enjoying yourself presently? Great, that's pleasure. Is this a sustainable way to enjoy yourself? Great, you are on your way to long term happiness.
> We also expose the shallowness of connections that don’t really serve us. What does it say about a connection that isn’t as good without gaming or coffee? What does it say about the quality of a relationship if going orgasm-free for a while leaves you feeling hollow and empty instead of deeply in love and grateful? Addictions so often mask substantial weaknesses that we don’t feel ready to face.
We have a wide variety of needs, and it is unreasonable to think there is a magic bullet. Different social groups (or activities, hobbies) meet different needs. If you remove whatever was meeting your need, then you will naturally feel a sense of loss, whether the relationship was a healthy one (what he calls intimate) or an addictive one. I would imagine the loss of my dog or a loved one would leave me grieving for some time and I would enjoy parts of my life less. This doesn't mean those less enjoyable things were bad.
It seems plausible that it could work, but it's suspicious that the site doesn't address the most obvious question: Wouldn't I just stop shocking myself? Curious if any HNers have tried this thing.
This creates an aversion, similar to getting so sick from drinking a type of alcohol that you don't want to do it again.
If you decide to not use it, of course it can't work. However, the vast majority of users who complete the 5 day protocol register no desire or craving for the old habit, even a year later. You can read some more studies on our device specifically, and aversion in general, at pavlok.com/science.
P.S. To be clear, I am not a hater. I've learned about Steve when he was a game developer, having developed one marginally successful shareware game. That was more than ten years ago. He then decided to teach others how to become successful game developers and launched game publishing business. Which went nowhere. He blogged all along. Then Steve got interested in personal development, polyamory, polyphase sleep, etc. becoming 'an expert' in these topics, just like he has in successful game development and game publishing.
This is a guy who believes in spirit guides (yes, really) - https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2020/05/better-than-spirit... and for a low price of $299 can teach you that your reality is subjective - https://www.stevepavlina.com/submersion/
Steve used to get a lot of 'hate blogging', there were a bunch of blogs devoted specifically to his personality (ex. https://www.sitepoint.com/community/t/seriously-sick-of-stev... or http://bigwig-bigwig.blogspot.com/2011/03/8-top-reasons-why-... or https://stevepavlinalies.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/exposing-s...). I would have never imagined that I'd find Steve's post on HN.
Might have to do more with interests etc in this case, because 2008 is over a decade later than my first steps on the internet :)
Anyway: I completely get your point now. Yet, and this is a typical problem especially in psychic and other circles: despite the insane stuff which has come out of his pen, this article isn't all that insane. Not that I comletely endorse it, some of his solutions are too simplistic and/or might work for him but not for others, but there's also not a whole lot of nonsense in it. Point being: even though people might be completely wrong on one topic, doesn't necessarily mean they are on another topic. Just requires extra skeptisicm when reading them as precaution perhaps.
What makes him stand out in my mind is that he actually does the challenges as opposed to so many other people writing blogspam articles or whole books without the work. It got me into self-experimentation - not with any dogmas in particular, but seeing people actually doing rather crazy long experiments gave me some courage. Also he introduced me to a lot of interesting concepts.
I haven't really seen other people actually do this. The biphasic sleep experiment, and the water fast experiment were especially tough, and no one without serious discipline could do that in my mind. This was years before "fasting" became a thing.
He was also an early adopter of both the diet and sleep experimentation (that didn't really take of), lucid dreaming and all kinds of other fads i have seen become mainstream later on. So i don't think he has "no authority" or whatever, even though he maybe a freak, but i generally like freaks who are on the fringes if they do the work and can write about it.
So i thank him for for introducing me to these concepts that i have been practicing for years now, ie. fasting, having an interest in dreams and general worldview, and experimenting seriously with diet (though i eat completely differently than him).
So all in all he is very much a self-hacker - he tries stuff even though it's weird, very tough and obscure - that's a lot of points in my book. (never bought anything from him though or read any of his books).
Small off-topic rant about "science":
Also yeah when people really take a deep dive into meditation / lucid dreaming stuff just "gets weird" - so he is not that different from a lot of highly educated meditation teachers i have run across, you just gotta say "whatever" if it's not your cup of tea. Another example is Daniel Ingram who i respect but is also doing weird psychedelic stuff or have "crazy" worldviews (many more than most people think in my experience especially in the math/physics sphere).
After diving into this stuff myself i would say to my old self: reality is way, way weirder than i thought when i was young - especially when you begin to really go deep (no drugs here). I personally went from a "science is some isolated emergent property of history", to science is an extremely vague subset or evolution of certain historical developments that are all still completely traceable to weird esoteric, fuzzy, diffuse lineages or worldviews that are much more philosophical/religious in nature.
A good starting point is "The Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast" - for a very academic and rigorous introduction to why the current science-history historiographical paradigm is very wrong. Then afterwards go to a few retreats, meditate 1+ hours a day, practice Koans on science, math and philosophy and slowly see your reductionistic perspective vanish, while you actually get better at doing science and "normal everyday work".
Note that I tried the polyphasic sleep for a week or so and I suspect SP romanticized the things a bit in his blog posts. Like down putting the bad aspects, hyping the good ones in order to market the thing (thus himself). It was an interesting series, but this kind of material should be contextualized and display along with warnings.
Finally, once you get a few key ideas (mainly that you need to do things to get results), spending time reading personal development stuff is wasting time. Every blog, post, book just retold a few identical ideas.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_slee...
P.S. I am glad I stopped reading Steve ten years ago, I've just browsed through his website and I think he became more woo-woo. At least that's my impression after reading his recent article about how you are supposed to 'energetically clean money' that you received as payment for your work - https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2020/05/how-to-clean-your-...
This is all just conjecture on my part, but it does seem possible that there are ramifications to quitting addiction that medical science has not considered yet and which may have an important influence on peoples ability to quit.