Hacker News Reader

I agree except some things are actually addicting. Phones are dopamine slot machines that fit in your pocket so that you can't escape.

I think it's both. People seek an escape and phone apps are extremely addicting.

Is it bad to feel rewarded for legitimately engaging your brain?

Is it bad for something to be a "dopamine slot machine" if it's only because it actually allows you to consume knowledge more rapidly/efficiently?

I don't think so--if the activity fits your life and not the other way around. But that's just my opinion.

Books and pen pals can be similarly problematic for some.

I don't think I've ever acquired deep knowledge or insight via my phone. It's all shallow junk food.

Is that because of the nature of the technology or because of what users choose to seek out with it?

Also consider that a big insight might come from many small insights

Addiction is sometimes described as something that is done repeatedly and is harmful. I can't get by without breathing, so I need to do that pretty often, but as it's not harmful, it's not an addiction.

The answer to your question is it depends... I don't think there is anything wrong with playing a dopamine hitting game on a 10 minute bus ride home from work (it's no different than the buzz from a shot of espresso), but if you are spending so much time that you are harming yourself (physically or emotionally) then that's an addiction.

There was a talk posted a few days ago here by Dr Gabor Mate about addiction:

https://youtu.be/vMstO3U4sVw

(Skip the 10 min intro, then watch at least the first hour)

His views are very different from the mainstream US view of addiction being substance abuse that can be fixed by restricting access to the drugs.

Listening to music is essentially a drug in that it releases pleasurable neurotransmitters. I think we need to understand the positive and negative impacts to ourselves like you suggested.

Escapism is intensely popular, it’s behind the boom in video games, watching people stream themselves playing video games, super hero movies, scripted tv. OnlyFans let’s you have a quasi-partner who takes your money and gives you intimacy. Instant gratification, and if you don’t have what you want, just blame society for not giving it to you.

What’s great is that if you are a hard worker and have a long time horizon, it’s never been easier to extract huge compensation. Wealthy people want to invest to make money without any effort, and learning hard stuff like computer science, mechanical engineering, biochemistry and pharma development, etc. takes a tough decade of study and practice to get skilled enough to really kill it. But once you are an expert you can produce actual stuff that matters and investors can’t find enough smart and talented people willing to actually do stuff, so the premium paid to those that can make entertainment, life saving drugs, productivity-increasing tech, and so on gets ever higher.

Bet on making stuff for the Netflix box and drugs that keep fat people alive longer, and fun games that distract people from reality.

I don't disagree with your take that escapism is popular, but this can partially be attributed to the capable people you reference building technology that exploits our psychology to encourage further escapism.

I don't understand the desire to bet on things that would personally enrich you and your investments/companies but decrease overall wellbeing. The capable should build that which guides society towards connection and elevates collective goals, not exploit the exploitable.

The market demands this stuff. If human nature is to be lazy, fat, desiring instant gratification, and blaming everyone else for their problems, then someone will fulfill it.

I wrote a “hot take” above and am exaggerating, but I truly feel like the world we live in now makes it so easy to avoid discipline and hard choices. So those that accept that getting nice stuff takes effort and discipline will earn great dividends.

> Phone addiction or internet addiction is a symptom not a cause

Correlation does not imply causation, but that doesn't mean that it can't be causation.

well ok, but while we are on the subject, we have no proof of any causation anywhere in the universe, all we have is the correlation that we've never seen (for example) gravity repel, only attract.

Not really true. If two things are strictly correlative, that means there is an additional factor causing both.

If you eliminate all reasonable additional factors (by controlling variables), you can demonstrate causation. Arguing that there can be unknowable external factors behind everything is not very scientific.

Identifying causal relationships involving humans is difficult due to the excessively multivariate nature of all our interactions, and by extension how difficult it is to "control" humans (as opposed to water, or a wheel). That does not mean it is impossible to ever demonstrate causation.

Leibniz denies the existence of causation in his Monadology[1]. In short, everything acts solely according to its own nature without any interaction with anything else, but in a harmonious way that creates the illusion of causation. That strikes me as a bit far fetched, but it does show that accepting the existence of causation is a metaphysical choice and not necessary.

[1] https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-...

> Leibniz denies the existence of causation in his Monadology

This sentence is incoherent unless one assumes the denial of causation is bunk, since it makes no sense to attribute either Monadology in general or the specific claims from it being discussed to Leibniz unless he caused the existence of the work, which clearly he cannot have if there is no causation.

Causation means something more specific than that, and we have plenty of good examples. Any randomized controlled trial can show causation.

It's not even that they're asserting that there's no causation in that quote, they're rather asserting that the causation is backwards, which is also undemonstrated.

>Marines do have an answer, although with a great cost.

Do you mean an individual cost or societal cost?

I think one of the ironies about the human condition is that we value things that we’ve sacrificed toward much more than the things we have not. E.g., Marines have esprit de corps in part because of their sacrifices not despite them.

The strongest connections are often made through hardship. To think we can have that connection without a cost doesn’t seem congruent with how we’re wired

The marines come with an individual cost that is frequently less valued than service in the army or airforce.

What do you mean less valued? My impression is that the Marines are the most respected of the services. (I am not serving nor a veteran of any armed service).

I don't want to tell tales out of school or anything. I've met an ex-marine who suffered damage in training and stories from internet videos all corroborate the general story. The marines are the offensive branch, and the individuals get treated poorly. You get a lot of respect for your title, but other branches have a better quality of life and better jobs available.

https://youtu.be/UMoLKLM8SMg Fun story time by an ex-air force guy who was going to join up to the marines (4:30).

Counter to this anecdote, I’ve met a reasonable number of Air Force, Navy, and Army who retrospectively wished they joined the Marines. I’ve never met a Marine who wished they joined another branch (with the exception of when other branches offered even more difficult opportunities Marines didn’t, like before MARSOC was established)

Marines certainly are closer to harms way generally was the impression I got.

As the child of an enlisted Air Force solidier who served for 20 years, I always thought the Air Force got the worst rap of the branches. The "chair force" moniker didn't help.

I'd say individual. You are letting people to condition you into becoming obedient killer and believing it's a virtue and worthwhile skill.

The society they are a part of does consider it a worthwhile skill, which is why they’ve created a niche for it.

There may be disagreements on the individual level, but society creates institutions (like the military) and the policies they execute based on their aggregate values. Or in cliched terms, people get the government they deserve

> The society they are a part of does consider it a worthwhile skill, [...]

It only mitgologizes it. That's not the same thing. When they rejoin economy nobody says "let me offer you a job or money or food or a place to live because now you can kill people on miltary command".

The only places where people might find your "skill" worthwhile outside the place that conditioned you are criminal or borderline criminal.

It’s odd to me that you have a concept that the military is somehow not part of society as a whole. For better or worse, the military is interwoven throughout society. It is an institutional construct of society. It is a part of society like other institutions like Congress or the courts. I don’t know that your point of “rejoining they economy” holds up well in that context. People have felt the military is the strong arm of the economy for a long, long time. (If you disagree, look up War is a Racket, coincidently written by a Marine).

The point I was trying to make is that if society did not value that role it wouldn’t exist. Society as a whole has decided there is a need for a standing army, and funds the continuation of it. Again, individuals may disagree but society at large has decided its of enough value to keep in existence. We don’t do this because of it’s “mythology”, especially not to the tune of $700B a year. We can argue about whether society has a misguided value system, but I think it’s very hard to make a case that society doesn’t value the purpose of the military. That’s a high price tag for mythological storytelling.

The veterans I know would likely argue that the skills they were taught in the military go far beyond the ability to kill. I don’t disagree that (in Rumsfeld’s words) the base intent of the military is to “kill people and break their things” but this is similar to the oversimplification that the only purpose of a company is to make money, full stop. The Marines I know spent more time on humanitarian missions than combat missions.

> Again, individuals may disagree but society at large has decided its of enough value to keep in existence.

I firmly believe that's the other way around. Society has ybo say about whether military should exist.

There are always people who prefer to focus on arming themselves and extorting others. Either by threatening or offering protection from threat, which blend together.

People argue whether goverment rules the people, or if the people are actually stronger then goverment and goverment rules just because people will it.

The truth becomes apparent when government and people can't keep stable relationship between themselves and ability to collect tax is threatened. Then the military steps in and supports either government or the people.

That's because the only reason military allows goverments and people do what they do is that it results in steady stream of taxation that military can feed on.

Of course people also benefit from tax being collected in stable and predictable manner instead of military just roaming their country and taking whatever it desires randomly.

Nations, armies and goverments are most advanced mechanisms of keeping human violent extortionists and most dangerous technologies from interfering with the economy.

It's of tremendous benefit to our civilisation, except for two world wars which I hope were enough for militaries to learn that they can't efficiently steal economies to extort from neighbouring militaries.

But nontheless if you join the army you join the organisation that's freeloading on everybody else while sharpening teeth that will be used against them if they misbehave. Until you stay there you are golden. But if you plan to rejoin the rest of the world at some point, time spent in the military will be at best wasted years for you and cause of much damage to your life and psyche at worst due to conditioning and abuse you underwent.

Can you get something good out of it? Sure. But how many ex-military end up in dangerous jobs or without purpose in life outside, treating damage done to them by military with opioids? You probably don't have them in your social circle but I'd say there are at least a few for each one of your ex-Marine friends doing charity.

This belief of mine is mostly based on concept of "monopoly for violence" if you want to read more about it.

But once they leave, veterans don't do that great statistically. And you can't be marine forever.

That’s a good point and probably why there is an increased focus on the transition to civilian life. I suspect the distinctions between civilian and military life are what makes the transition difficult. The #1 thing they miss is the camaraderie, not the ability to blow shit up (although the adrenaline of the job is probably high on the list).

To the overall point of this thread, that lack of connection in society is part of what draws many back to rejoining

Yes, difference make it hard. They also acquire both physical and mental health issues. Mental health issues in particular makes them more likely to end up homeless or in prison, more likely to be violent.

It is not just camaraderie and connection, it is whole different expectations on what you should do. It is difficulty to find and keep job for example. Not having required skills, having trouble to communicate.

> The strongest connections are often made through hardship. To think we can have that connection without a cost doesn’t seem congruent with how we’re wired

This is the irony for me, my closest friends are people I crunched with at work. Going to breakfast together at 5am was a bonding experience. Staying overnight the day before shipping, etc... I'm not saying I want to force that on anyone but they are actually good memories for me and I made good friends. It helps that they were creative products so we were putting ourselves in them. I don't know how I'd fell crunching on someone else's goal/deadline/project.

A good read is Sebastian Junger’s Tribe. To your point, the UK civilians he interviewed who lived through the WW2 bombings referred to them as “the good ol’ days”

The US Marines recruiting commercial mentioned:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bCjEV75F2tM

> And that a Maga hat and Antifa supporter might be neighbors but want to kill eachother.

That Maga hat and antifa might not be as opposed in views if they talked to each other. The problem is that we've reduced friction for finding like minded people so far that it's not worth it to go through the unpleasantness of talking with strangers.

The platform also magnifies shallow thought from a minority of contributors. One of the signals we use to mediate our thoughts is how we think our cohorts feel about something, this is even more true for people without much critical thinking skill.

An individual can have extreme views and end up inside an echochamber that makes them think they're in the company of millions when in reality it's just a handful of others (and probably some bot accounts).

>And that a Maga hat and Antifa supporter might be neighbors but want to kill eachother.

You seem to be ignoring the possibility that these people come to these ideologies because of the Internet, which leads to the hollowing-out of community coherence that you mention.

> That still wouldnt fix the problem that you might feel closer to someone across the world than someone right next to you.

Wait, is it a problem that some have remote friendships that are closer than those physically near them? If so why?

Which isn't too say proximity is bad. It can be a relationship enhancer, and so can distance.

I think it was just an example of how little we can be connected to our local community. It's not bad in itself, and you can likely have both strong remote relationships and strong community ties at the same time.

You say that correlation doesn't equal causation, then throw out theories with no research to back it up.

Could you be a bit more scientific with your argument?

> Its a good commercial because its actually something that is a problem and that the Marines do have an answer

Perhaps we should bring back a year of mandatory military service. Or some other kind of mandatory community service.

Peace Corp or something like that. I can't remember the name of the gorup that was started during the depression that put people to work doing things like building the national parks and other type of things. These groups provided jobs, life experience outside what ever town you grew up in, and could be a good solve for today's situation.

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps

We never HAD a year of mandatory military service to bring back

I would quit my job and drop everything in my life to join a program like that. The Intercept did an episode on it over the summer and I got chills listening to it.

You can join the Peace Corps right now.

Perhaps GP lives somewhere that did. It's definitely not an uncommon thing around the world.

Just slightly older guys then I am had mandatory service. I never heard someone say anything positive about the experience. Mostly learned how to avoid effort in highly controlled environment. Many stories about bullying is various kind.

But purpose was never mentioned, they seen it more of as waste of time.

> "Brave New World predicted this. We are removed from community and it is scary so we find one on the internet and we go all in."

That isn't how I remember Brave New World; it was about amusing ourselves to death with trivia instead of dealing with "important" things, but the sense of community in it was pretty strong - people grew up with and lived with the same local group of people, worked together, played Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy together, orgied together, and took soma to keep them all content. The main complaint they all had was why Bernard couldn't just be happy and join in the community.

Brave New World celebrated the twist-reveal where Bernard learns that exile to Iceland isn't a gulag but is really joining a distant group of people who don't like the society and want to live their own way like he does. I'm never sure if that should be taken at face value, or if it was a lie and the place was really a prison camp, but let's assume it was an honest and accurate reveal - that would be the opposite of your complaint, Bernard was lost and scared at having no community, was pushed toward a remote one he might fit in, and the book is all about how great that is that he doesn't have to waste his life doing just what the people around him are doing and that he can feel closer aligned with a group across the world than someone right next to him, and should take advantage of that.

> "An escape from forever war all around us"

The forever war was 1984, and that's not about Winston joining the Marines to find meaning in his life, it's about using the two minutes' hate to reinforce tribe membership by uniting everyone against a hate figure/group, and the strong (IngSoc) beating down the weak (objectors) until everyone is stamped into the same shape (boot on human face / industrial machine moulding stamp), the reveal at the end of 1984 isn't that Winston joined the Marines and escaped the forever war like Bernard escaped the trivia, it's that Winston came to love Big Brother and agree with everything good that Big Brother is and was and always would be, it's the equivalent of Bernard taking the soma and blending into the society and agreeing it was right all along, it's one or other of your Maga hat and Antifa supporter becoming overwhelmingly dominant, the state enforcing it, and the other being subsumed by it and liking it until there isn't anything else.

> "internet/phone addiction is not a problem its a solution. I guess war is inescapable."

Hence the Yin-Yang forever circling each other. There's no solution to whether white or black is better, or whether matter or energy is better, or whether hot is better than cold, both books posit an end - one that is either agreeable or disagreeable to the reader, but an end nonetheless - real life doesn't have ends it has circles, loops, repeats, back and forths, changing fortunes, ups and downs, births and deaths.

Maga hat and Antifa supporter both love their America, and their America doesn't include murdering thy neighbor. They might "want to kill each other" but each would like the other one realising how dumb they are and changing sides.

> their America doesn't include murdering thy neighbor. They might "want to kill each other"

Well, you can find a lot of message boards in which they fantasize about doing this. And it sells a lot of weapons. But the energy barrier is high; people like Kyle Rittenhouse cross it only rarely enough that they can be dismissed as isolated incidents. It's not every day that someone blows up a telephone exchange. Just another isolated incident.

> people like Kyle Rittenhouse

Don't forget the people that shot at him and tried to stomp his head in.

He went looking for a fight. A fight he had no business being anywhere near. I have no sympathy for Rittenhouse.

> Que

[Helpfully] I believe you meant "cue."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cue

> a Maga hat and Antifa supporter might be neighbors but want to kill each other

There's even a dedicated reddit for this fallacy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM

> My phone is that internet/phone addiction is not a problem its a solution

Funny that you've mistyped "phone" instead of "theory".

Must be a Freudian phone.