Is a life engaging with rich virtual worlds ever going to be good as a real one, spent in the company of bitter old farts who just want to complain about things?
> Is a sunset through a lens ever as satisfying or heart wrenching as a real one?
Is a beautiful artist driven sunset scene more satisfying than your cloudy real life nothing over a boring looking town?
It's all relative. There are definitely cases where a technological interaction is better than a natural one.
I'm sorry but this entire thread is a collection of various complaints. In fact I would argue that HN is nothing but an endless feed of people complaining about things.
Of course complaint can also be a really dumb waste of time, or even harmful. But few things beat the utility of the right complaint to the right audience.
But that's not the question, at all. It's: how does it affect mental health? One way of looking at it is: are we so social we need contact with a physical human being for certain aspects of our well being?
> It's: how does it affect mental health? One way of looking at it is: are we so social we need contact with a physical human being for certain aspects of our well being?
No I don't think that's a good way to look at it. By that metric anything that is not socializing with other physical human beings is equally bad. Reading a book is bad. Eating is bad. Showering is bad. The way you've phrased this question, you've assumed that digital content is so pervasive that you don't get enough physically present socializing, which isn't necessarily true to evaluate the question "does it affect our mental health?". If we're open to extreme cases, everything affects mental health. The question you really want to be asking is "does it materially affect most peoples' mental heath?". Personally, I think the answer is no not really. Obviously it becomes a vice for some.
The real question is how would you know if it did?
Addiction thinking sounds a lot like self reflection too: “I’m not addicted, I just like it very much. I can stop at any time I want, I just don’t want to”.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting everyone who likes something is addicted. It is just the means of finding that out is pretty tricky, especially for hyper-normal stimulus like processed food, porn, cocaine or some bits of the internet.
We can’t infer our ways out of self-deception, if we could it wouldn’t be self-deception.
Hence the requirement of proper objective tooling to measure such effects on (mental) health.
Rigorous statistical studies?
The technology you seem to be talking about ("virtual worlds", "artist driven sunset") seem to obtainable only by top-tier gaming hardware & artful games that 99.9% people will never use (it actually doesn't even exist yet in the ideal form right now)
My intuition is often wrong, but it is undoubtably useful for me as an individual. But the intuition of crowds is bad. It is no substitute for randomised controlled trials, mendelian randomisation, or even cohort and observational studies. For public health policy I prefer to use evidence over intuition.
My intuition is that the connection between digital environment and mental health will prove similar to the connection between family environment or school environment and mental health: the quality of the environment is overwhelmingly what matters, not how much time is spent in different environments.
That said she also pushes back against the idea of using things like notifications and gamification to try and mold our behavior. I'm kind of inclined to agree; my instinct is to say that this is a spot where the ends don't justify the means; encouraging addictive behavior patterns is still encouraging addictive behavior patterns.
The companies using them know, and that's the goal. It's all intentional, and many companies have had many meetings over many years about it. For lack of a better term, they simply aren't good people safe for polite society, and their mission in life is to reduce the quality of your life. This they call "engagement."
People buy houses with these techniques. They like it when your kids have to yell "Mom!" 10 times because you want to finish that one level. Their bonuses depend on it.
A good, effective habit is one that is internalized like that. I really don't think you can effectively replace it with an external interruption.
I especially see gamification as problematic for learning things. It seems to me to be a 21st century version of teaching to the test. You end up learning what's easy to gamify instead of what you should be learning. If that's literally the only way you can motivate yourself, I suppose you've got to do what you've got to do. But, if you will take for the sake of argument that learning a language is a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself, my experience with Duolingo is that I got really good at using the language to earn achievements on Duolingo. My real goal, though, is using the language to read books and have conversations. So I've had much better results with (non-gamified) language learning methods where the reward for my work is getting to do the thing I actually want to do: reading books and having conversations.
There might remain a question of whether it's better than what's currently being done by the short-sighted. But if more humane approaches stand a chance of winning out, then it might be best to not give any support to the competition, and even discourage others from doing so. That type of conclusion one should hesitate to draw, but it might be right.
As for gamification, perhaps if you could gamify "reading books and having conversations"—but as you say, by default what you'll get is just what's easy to gamify.
Devices can offer escapes and distractions from bad situations and that might actually help your mental health.
However, if real life is good, escaping isn't what you want to do and probably isn't going to help your mental health.
At least in my experiences, the highs in the "real world" are much higher, but the lows are much lower. That doesnt mean you don't have highs or lows digitally, but they're not as extreme. Both my happiest and most depressing memories are from the real world.
That being said, I have disconnected from technology for up to a year at a time and overall it's not better. Technology introduces a lot of convenience and can reduce the time we spend on a lot of mundane chores, clearing up more time to spend in the real world ultimately. In the end it's all about balance.
At the end of the day, I guess the two are not mutually exclusive in the current context.
This 100%.
Some things you just know are bad news. No one feels good after several hours of late night doom scrolling. You don't need mountains of research to understand that spending ours on your device instead of in the world is bad for your well being.
A typical case is what to do when it's cold. Most people prefer to close all the windows and turn on the heating to prevent getting cold and catching the flu or a common cold. (That is a very confusing name.) But we know they are caused by virus, so it's better to keep the windows as open as possible and use warm cloth. (Unless there is a blizzard outside.)
As time passes, I have less and less confidence in other's intuitions. Why should other people trust mine?
I do spend a great part of my time on "devices" yet I am happy, see a lot of people, and I don't let devices interrupt me when I'm with people most of the time. I usually do not wander mindlessly on the web. The connection between time spent on devices and mental health is far from obvious, there's a lot more to this.
Maybe not but is that really the alternative? If we're allowed to use intuition then my intuition is that people haven't replaced this wholesome cliche of friendship with mindless clicking; they have replaced mindless TV with mindless clicking.
I didn’t start that way but just noticed patterns over a decade of meeting such folks. Some of the reasons include:
1. Many are often trying really hard to find meaning in travel, as if a forest or a mountain trek would suddenly change their outlook in life. Correlated, many of the most depressed folks and people who struggle to find their place in life I know almost all universally “like the outdoors” and would rate a trek in a beautiful path as their ideal past-time.
2. They look down at least subconsciously at the “urban” way of life as if they’ve somehow disconnected themselves from that hypocrisy. Like you realize you burned down a few trees personally (the equivalent) by flying to Hawaii right?
The general wisdom seems to be that travel will open your mind to new perspectives and tolerance but I’ve not experienced that personally. The folks who travel seem to do it mostly for pleasure, and rarely Appear to have gained any real insight into any worldly process. In this connected age if you want to understand the ramifications of capital punishment in China you don’t need to travel there to know it. In fact you might get a more unbiased picture if you don’t.
An analogy here would be like learning science by making a vinegar volcano or that “heavy pendulum to the face” trick - in principle it’s science I guess? And everyone’s happy to do it, but the kids don’t learn much at all, and clearly given the scientific acumen of the American public which grew up with this stuff they haven’t learned much about what science even stands for. Probably the same with travel.
In modern connected society, nature is a great refuge. I think you are conflating a few namely “time in nature”, people who enjoy solitude, and broadening horizons with travel to new places. IDK, I guess I feel, even in my tech and urban circle of friends, there is a great appreciation of nature and that it is pretty healthy. I’m sure some people patch up issues in their life with it. Most of the folks I know aren’t Doing the Instagram, travel, my life is awesome thing. They just go to nature for a nice scene, chill, peace and quiet, read some books, contemplate life. Do it with friends who enjoy it.
My take, I love getting deep into nature for solitude and quiet. It’s a forcing function to disconnect. The travel is just a means to new vistas, but we usually drive to places. The point isn’t really to broaden horizons so much as to see new places. I don’t really broadcast my lifestyle. I don’t promote it to others. I just do it. I also enjoy many things only urban and suburban life really offers (martial arts, etc). Anyway, you touch on some good points, but I also think the views are narrow and don’t capture the spirit of why many people are drawn to nature :)
Balance in most things tends to lead to a deeper and healthier relationship with those things (nature, travel, etc) over time.
I do definitely judge quickly and summarily. But my thought process is I’m ready to change my opinion on anyone at a moments notice as I learn about them, and I don’t avoid people due to preconceived prejudices, so why not go wild with my judgement? It’s fun, it makes me look for underlying motives, and I’m happy to be wrong more often than not!
The moment I say this out loud, I typically don’t keep too many people around, for sure, but I’m not bothered by it that much. The ones that stick around are in the end much more fun for me to hang out with anyways.
I've seen many sunsets that people like to call "the best" sunset (sunsets at sea on a boat, on mountaintops, in deserts) and some of my favorite sunsets I've seen have actually been in urban areas. The reflections of glass and the sharp angles of the buildings can combine in beautiful ways. Obviously there are popular things like "Manhattanhenge" but if you just walk around and look for a nice angle, you can find something special in many cities. The haze and rough angles of poorer, industrial areas can play with the setting sun in beautiful ways.
>Not everyone Can afford to camp or trek or take a break year
I've hosted travelers on Couchsurfing and many of my guests had an income, when they were working, of a few dollars per day. They'd budget a pittance for food and plan to couchsurf and hitchhike their way through Europe - and they seem to have a great time doing it. Now, sure, I was in the Netherlands, so not everyone could visit if poor (visa issues keep out many poor countries, but not all - Ukranine, Venezuela, etc can visit visa free.) Even if a visa or a plane ticket is beyond prohibitive, you can travel in your local region. If you're Russian you have access to all the CIS countries, if you're Chinese you have access to most of Asia. Visit those areas and you'll see people traveling en masse on tiny budgets. In Russia especially I've seen many people travel with only money for food - couchsurfing and hitchhiking to get around otherwise. Sure, there are people living hand to mouth and people with dependents that can't do this, but billions can.
...Except you seem to have completely ignored the actual words in my comment. I was explicitly not talking about my experience (as you’ve astutely deduced, I’m a privileged guy from a first world country.) I was talking about the direct words of countless people I’ve hosted through Couchsurfing, the majority (!) of which were from countries that my guests themselves would describe as third world and impoverished. I’m simply repeating the words spoken to me by many a traveler down to their last pennies: their almost religious creed, which they will repeat happily, that anyone can travel no matter how broke. Whenever I would ask if I could tell their story, they insisted I should, proud of it as a giant middle finger to the cynics of the world. So when you respond with “check your privilege”, you’re really telling an impoverished Ukrainian guy whose house was bombed to pieces to check his privilege - I'm simply the storyteller for him and his compatriots, because HN rarely intersects with their world.
I would implore you to talk to the same people you claim cannot exist - the millions of impoverished travelers of the world. I don’t think I do their stories justice. But the ridiculous claim that they cannot exist, that they must live their lives without so much as a sunset (!) as you said - that to me is disgusting and strips them from their agency as humans. But hey, take it up with them, I suppose. Feel free to pick up a hitchhiker and lecture him how he doesn’t and shouldn’t exist - but don’t forget to tell him to check his privilege before you let him out.
That's true, my bad.
That said: It's not just a few people that have exited the rat race. In many impoverished countries there is no rat race even available to join if one wanted. True youth unemployment is higher than the official numbers in pretty much every country on the planet, and even by those official numbers there are several large countries with the majority of the youth unemployed.
>the billions of folks who can’t travel (according to you because they are too weak to decide to)
I never said that. In fact, I respect people who would never want to travel regardless of the opportunity - it's an unusual preference to have. Amusingly enough I believe people like this are partially necessary to preserve the magic of travel; many of the most authentic characters I meet, rich or poor, are people who are 100% their village, they were born there and will die there. Those people are often the fabric of their local community.
Worth noting, I don't disagree with your initial assertion, which I'll summarize as "if your life sucks, a screen can be a good escape." What I disagreed with is that the urban poor can't watch sunsets, or that money is a prerequisite for travel.
Anyway, to articulate my point clearer, what I dislike is stripping agency from the poor. Yes, obviously, living in poverty is devastating to your health and happiness and stress and so many other things. But it doesn't mean you can't watch a sunset, or that it's impossible to travel. So, hey, if you can and you want to, stick out your thumb and see where it takes you.
Absolutely drive your own life in accordance with your own intuition. Without accurate and compelling research it's all you have. If you're a scientist though, intuition is the starting point of new research.
Possibly more, I'd argue: that work of fiction may have a much more emotional arc than your own life.
Not everybody's direct immediate "real world" life is great, or has the ingredients available to be great "in person." This goes back as long as we've been telling stories.
we also love rational argument, and this is an emotional appeal/argumentum ad populum/"appeal to taste" fallacy. Also, "mindless clicking" is disparaging, I wouldn't call what I'm literally doing right now "mindless clicking"
> Is a sunset through a lens ever as satisfying or heart wrenching as a real one?
Depends on the fidelity of the reproduction ;) I've certainly seen some quite impressive skyboxes in games. And somehow, people seem to survive without ever having seen a sunset over a body of water...
> I’m happier, my wife is happier, my two teen kids are happier
what's good for the goose is not always what's good for the gander
cigarette and oil companies paid off researchers for decades to drown out negative research results. Facebook and other major tech companies have literally trillions of dollars incentivizing them to try and discredit all these research results
That's our legal and court systems being influenced by junk science funded by shitty corporate actors.
Actual science is what they're trying to drown-out. And yes, big-money can influence academic review and publishing, and it's a real problem. (actually a HUGE problem). But that's not what you're describing. There are good scientists doing real and valid work in both establishing the cancer-tobacco link, and climate research with regard to carbon from fossil/petroleum fuel burning. That's not being drowned out in academia. It's being drowned out in the profit-driven political and newsmedia spheres.