Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

> 89 percent of cellphone owners said they had used their phones during the last social gathering they attended.

Right there is where the author looses me. That online collaboration via the phone IS a social gathering unto itself. One is not fundamentally different than the other. Physical proximity is great, but it is a serious limitation. Not everyone has the time/money to physically meet their friends over coffee every twenty minutes. Not everyone lives in downtown Boston or NY.

> They say it’s a skill they mastered in middle school when they wanted to text in class without getting caught.

And why do kids text so much at school? Because they are bored to death by mind-numbing subjects and teaching that doesn't actually teach. Texting is the symptom, not the disease.

The ability to 'not get caught' while communicating with others is a valuable skill for nearly everyone these days. It should be encouraged.

View on HN

>That online collaboration via the phone IS a social gathering unto itself.

Still the fact is that it is inconsiderate, or plain rude, to be "somewhere else" when you are sitting with other people who all took the time to physically be with each other. If a few people get together and spend large amounts of their time on their phones, then why get together at all?

And doing it in a one-on-one conversation is not just rude, but puts you into the asshole category.

One could also make a comparison with someone in a F2F conversation who is indiscreetly paying attention to an "other" F2F person or group.

Not only is it rude, but it's not a social gathering in the same way. That's how I read this quote from the article,

>After five days without phones or tablets, these campers were able to read facial emotions and correctly identify the emotions of actors in videotaped scenes significantly better than a control group.

Staying away from most anything makes you worse at that thing. Staying away from phones/tablets for a week might also make them less able to understand emogies, slang, and current humor (all vitally important for the youth of today).

The OP places greater value on face-to-face conversation. I'm saying that the OP takes this too far, that electronic interactions should not be dismissed so readily.

I think you overestimate human flexibility. We're hardwired for all kinds of face-to-face interaction. It's almost certain that emogies or no, no matter the amount of training, you're never going to gain the level of social insight and empathy while texting that you could have had face-to-face.

You may have huge brain and trillions of times of the computing capacity of a simple calculator, but it's still going to beat you at arithmetic. Know your limitations and embrace your strengths. You're not some general purpose machine; what's the point in pretending otherwise?

> If a few people get together and spend large amounts of their time on their phones, then why get together at all?

Why do you care how other people enjoy themselves?

I don't. I just wonder what the purpose of getting people physically together is if they are going to be using their phones.

> And why do kids text so much at school? Because they are bored to death by mind-numbing subjects and teaching that doesn't actually teach. Texting is the symptom, not the disease.

Actually there is plenty of evidence that texting and social media offer a similar kick as several other addictions like smoking, etc. it's akin to blaming teenage smoking on boring classes. Further, the teenage mind is susceptible to getting easily bored and to addiction.

Can we please stop comparing any activity that our brain learns to enjoy to drug usage by saying that some neurotransmitter is involved?

I'm sure one could just as easily say that getting the mail is like other addictions, because I chronically get excited at the thought of my latest online order arriving.

It's only an ill-recepted drug usage if it starts remaking your behaviour as to increase consumption. Does the excitement and anticipation of getting mail significantly increase the frequency of your ordering? I assume not at all, but compulsive buying is a thing, and "some neurotransmitter" can totally make people addicted, so why can't I make a comparison when it is reasonable to do so?

Point taken; you are right to defend the drug comparison, so long as we're talking about compulsive behavior with negative effects.

I do feel the analogy is overused though, mostly because the notion that chemical reactions in the brain are involved seems to have an unduly strong impression on people, whereas I imagine that these phenomena in the brain turn up in all sorts of human activity (see sandworm101's comment).

There's also a negative connotation that exists with drug usage. I could be totally addicted to jogging, though ("runner's high"), with an almost totally net positive effect on my life.

> I'm sure one could just as easily say that getting the mail is like other addictions, because I chronically get excited at the thought of my latest online order arriving.

There actually are many people addicted to shopping. You can often see them on “Hoarders” or similar TV shows, their homes filled to the brim with products in boxes, unopened.

> Actually there is plenty of evidence that texting and social media offer a similar kick as several other addictions like smoking, etc.

Habitual behavior in general forms because of "a similar kick". The main difference between a habit and an addiction is whether the habit is seen as adaptive or maladaptive.

And there is plenty of evidence that face-to-face social interactions trigger various neurotransmitters. I was reading a little while ago about distinct effects in the brains of men of hearing young female voices. No doubt this is Darwinism in action, but I guess I should start wearing earplugs around women to prevent any effect listening to them might have on my brain.

I don't think the author is arguing that online collaboration via phones aren't social gatherings, just that there are appropriate venues for each.

By all means, communicate with your friends over the internet using all the means availed to you by technology. On the other hand, when you're sitting at a coffeeshop with your friend right next to you, that isn't the time to be chatting with someone half way across the country.

"And why do kids text so much at school? Because they are bored to death by mind-numbing subjects and teaching that doesn't actually teach. Texting is the symptom, not the disease."

You seem to have missed a main theme of the article, which was in first paragraph: "Now they use it when they want to be both with their friends and, as some put it, 'elsewhere.'"

>>Because they are bored to death by mind-numbing subjects and teaching that doesn't actually teach.

I would say an illusion of financial security does that too. If your life depended on getting a decent education, petty indulgences like this wouldn't even occur.

That would imply that education and school are in some way related. Perhaps they can be, but often as not, school has more in common with a minimum security prison where children are warehoused during working hours.

eh, kids have been passing notes in class since they had access to paper.

Personally, i've been following the maxim "Prefer a warm body over a cold screen." I turn off (most) notifications. Sure, sometimes i'll pull out my phone to look something up. I'll check from time to time if i'm coordinating with someone, but i try to let my interlocutor know what's going on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com