Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books Cellphones Social Networks

Consumer Expert Argues Tech Addiction Is The User's Responsibility (nytimes.com) 133

Posted by EditorDavid from the hooking-you-up dept.
In 2014 consumer expert and Silicon Valley startup founder Nir Eyal wrote Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. But five years later, the New York Times reports he's offering consumers a new book about how to resist those habits -- even while arguing that "addiction" is the wrong way to describe technology's hold on people: There was a problem, yes, but the thinking was all wrong, he decided. Using the language of addiction gave tech users a pass. It was too easy. The issue was not screens but people's own minds, and to solve the problem they had to look within. "If I call technology something that people get addicted to, there needs to be a pusher, a dealer doing it to you," Mr. Eyal said. "But if I say technology is something that people overuse, then it's, 'Oh, crap, now I need to do something about it myself....'" The solution he proposes in Indistractable is slow. It involves self-reflection. He argues that many times we look at phones because we are anxious and bad at being alone -- and that's not the phone's fault...

Mr. Eyal has written a guide to free people from an addiction he argues they never had in the first place. It was all just sloughing off personal responsibility, he figures. So the solution is to reclaim responsibility in myriad small ways. For instance: Have your phone on silent so there will be fewer external triggers. Email less and faster. Don't hang out on Slack. Have only one laptop out during meetings. Introduce social pressure like sitting next to someone who can see your screen. Set "price pacts" with people so you pay them if you get distracted -- though be sure to "learn self-compassion before making a price pact....."

"I got myself a feature phone that had no apps. I got on eBay a word processor, and all it does is let you type. I made my phone grayscale, which only ruined my pictures," he said. "I tried a digital detox, but I missed audiobooks and GPS...."
He also argues that getting hooked on social media isn't necessarily a bad thing. "For many people, social media is a very good thing and gaming is a very good thing. It's how you use it...." But he's also predicting a "post-digital" movement will emerge in 2020.

"We will start to realize that being chained to your mobile phone is a low-status behavior, similar to smoking."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Consumer Expert Argues Tech Addiction Is The User's Responsibility More

Consumer Expert Argues Tech Addiction Is The User's Responsibility

Comments Filter:

  • Sadly, we live in a litigious society and it's always somebody else's fault.

  • Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday October 06, 2019 @04:50PM (#59276602) Homepage Journal

    "If I call technology something that people get addicted to, there needs to be a pusher, a dealer doing it to you," Mr. Eyal said. "But if I say technology is something that people overuse, then it's, 'Oh, crap, now I need to do something about it myself....'"

    That is NOT how it works. There doesn't need to be a pusher or dealer for someone to get an addiction. What a spectacular victim-blaming piece of shit.

    • Re:Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Sunday October 06, 2019 @05:15PM (#59276656)
      And in this case, there IS a "pusher"
      Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/Etc/Etc actively coding/tweaking their algorithms to keep you on their site as much as possible. Keep you engaged and clicking.
    • Of course he's a piece of shit. Still trying to profit from addiction, same as tobacco companies getting into vaping. Social pressure gets people to take up smoking, drugs, alcohol, and -wait for it - social media.

    • I think it's fair to say that many victims blame others at least somewhat for their addiction. Doctors, parents, pharmacies, schools, the police, social services, and advertising are all strongly regulated to manage addiction. If they weren't, then Phillip Morris would still be advertising cigarettes to children.

    • What spectacular victim mentality. Even drugs are personal choice.. i.e. You did it to yourself. Yes there is addiction after the fact, but addiction is no more a disease than me hitting myself with a hammer.

      • What spectacular victim mentality. Even drugs are personal choice.. i.e. You did it to yourself.

        The opiate epidemic was caused by overprescription with insufficient followup. And the military got my dad (and many others) hooked on speed in Korea. If only you knew what you were talking about, you'd have something useful to say.

        Yes there is addiction after the fact, but addiction is no more a disease than me hitting myself with a hammer.

        Try doing it harder.

        • The opiate epidemic was caused by a multitude of things, including a failing regulatory environment where research and studies are not properly peer reviewed before the results are accepted as the basis for prescribing - the entire tier from drugs company down to the pharmacist, and yes the patient (my wife sees drug seeking behaviour in patients daily), bears some blame.

          • The opiate epidemic was caused by overprescription with insufficient followup.

            The opiate epidemic was caused by a multitude of things,

            Okay

            including a failing regulatory environment where research and studies are not properly peer reviewed before the results are accepted as the basis for prescribing

            Which led to overprescription

            the entire tier from drugs company

            Who promoted overprescription so they could profit

            down to the pharmacist

            Who profits from selling drugs, regardless of what they are, and who thus profited from overprescription

            and yes the patient (my wife sees drug seeking behaviour in patients daily)

            Your wife is a doctor? Nice how you glossed over the doctors, who actually did the over-prescribing. It's literally her job to stop the patients from being prescribed something they shouldn't have.

            • Your wife is a doctor? Nice how you glossed over the doctors, who actually did the over-prescribing. It's literally her job to stop the patients from being prescribed something they shouldn't have.

              And then there is chronic pain. How about those folks?

              Opioids are a piss-poor pain killer. Some of us are allergic to them, and heir tolerance issue is pretty nasty. But they are often the sort of thing that keeps a person from the Smith and Wesson one-shot pain cure.

              Sometimes I thinik the Puritans and Calvinists believe that pain is something a person deserves.

              • The doctor wants to write the scrip, wash their hands, and move on. That's how they get paid. But that's also how we get an addiction epidemic.

                Sometimes I thinik the Puritans and Calvinists believe that pain is something a person deserves.

                Lots of people do. Lots of them are in this thread. I'm not one of them. But I also don't think you can help all people by simply going through the motions. It works sometimes, and that's convenient, but it doesn't work all the time.

            • Wow, you really strived to find an issue with my comment there, you must be bored....

              Your wife is a doctor? Nice how you glossed over the doctors, who actually did the over-prescribing. It's literally her job to stop the patients from being prescribed something they shouldn't have.

              I didn't gloss over anything, I just didn't specifically mention every single step in the chain from production to consumption because I thought that was obvious.

              My wife is a doctor, not in the US but in the UK and even in a more

          • The opiate epidemic was caused by a multitude of things, including a failing regulatory environment where research and studies are not properly peer reviewed before the results are accepted as the basis for prescribing - the entire tier from drugs company down to the pharmacist, and yes the patient (my wife sees drug seeking behaviour in patients daily), bears some blame.

            But what do we do about chronic pain? The entire public presence is now that people taking opioids are ravenous weak willed people who will gleefully kill others to get their fix of vicodin. Guess where many of these folks go once they are self righteously cut off of prescription meds for pain.......https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/26/patients-cut-off-from-painkillers-are-turning-to-heroin-in-droves-in-utah/

            Heroin. What a better option! Now we can bust them and take all of their property in the war on dru

            • Part of the problem is that "chronic pain" as a category has gotten progressively larger and larger the less people are willing to do something else about it other than take pills. And in our society today, people would rather take pills than change their lifestyle.

              For a lot of "chronic" back pain, exercise and weight loss is actually a tried and tested solution - but suggest that to patients and you get laughed at. And you get the "new world" disorders such as fibromyalgia, which also magically needs str

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              We badly need something better to deal with chronic pain, but there isn't much motivation for companies selling expensive medications like Vicodin to destroy the market for their high priced products. At best they want to develop more expensive drugs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        If you hit yourself with a hammer, you may need medical assistance to recover.

  • Drug dealers: addiction is the addicts own fault. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday October 06, 2019 @05:14PM (#59276652)

    Come on, when applications are engineered to be addictive (they don't hire neuroscientists for nothing) it's quite clear they know what they are doing. We have the same problem with food: foods are engineered to be maximally addictive. To say they are not responsible for what they are doing is equally as ludicrous a response as drug dealers blaming the kids they got hooked.

    Considering his total lack of remorse and instead being proud of harming people, I think there is a good chance he's a sociopath.

    • We have the same problem with food: foods are engineered to be maximally addictive.

      Junk food you mean. Not proper food.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Well merited insightful mods. What happened to the FP effect? No mods over there?

      Anyway, I've read a number of books that support your position (and I mostly agree with them). Two of them come to mind without searching my database.

      Nudge is talking about soft-push manipulations for the targets' own better good. It's interesting in that one of the authors is supposed to be a Libertarian, and he almost seems to understand the fundamental logical fallacy of Libertarianism.

      (Disclaimer: I've read Ayn Rand and t

  • Mutual exclusion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Sunday October 06, 2019 @05:16PM (#59276662) Journal

    Why do these things need to be mutually exclusive? One thing I don't often find a shortage of is blame. Why can't we blame both when it takes two to tango?

  • ... is to recognize social media as an online game taken seriously.

  • So you want a pass then? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Sunday October 06, 2019 @05:54PM (#59276732)

    Remember Zynga? The maker of Facebook "games" that were deliberaltey designed to maximize addictiveness?

    This is the norm nowadays. Shamless casual addictivity-maximizing design. Paying whole teams to do nothing else all day.

    And one of those extra-bright assholes got the idea, today, that one could improve that, by laying *all* the blame on the victim.

    . . .

    No, sorry, had you just designed a normal service then people getting addicted would be a curious effect, that needed solving. Not by laying blame, like a pre-schooler, but by finding the cause and how the system works.

    But you didn't. You deliberately made it as addictive as possible. Like a cigarette compared to a pure wild tobacco leaf. So luckily, we already know how it works, and most of the cause: YOU.

    Nope. Nobody gets a pass.
    I always took my share with addictions, and did what was inside my realm of possibilities to get out.
    YOU take your share too, as you did what was inside your realm of possibilites to get me IN! Fuckin' manipulative psychopaths.

  • "Only one laptop in a meeting"??? What a travesty! Mostly personal meetings need none but the corporate meetings cannot possibly have sufficient distraction.

    I'm no shrink but what I remember of my psych courses was the hallmark of addiction was that it produced some sort of dysfunction. Sometimes extended [debateably] to a sudden absence. Chemical addications were first identified, then behavioural (gambling, sex) that operated through the brain's chemistry. "internet" addication could qualify but where

    • "internet" addication could qualify but where does "suboptimal" become dysfunction?

      When needs are going unmet because of it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by redelm ( 54142 )

        Thank you. (Sounds like from a course). This gets into the slippery slope of what a "need" might be. If it can be unmet (especially over time), is it really a "need" or merely a "want" (or someone else's need)? I would agree relatively uncontaminated air and water are needs, food in the longer term. That's why I phrased it as "substantial effort at repair".

        • This gets into the slippery slope of what a "need" might be. If it can be unmet (especially over time), is it really a "need" or merely a "want" (or someone else's need)?

          It's a need if the lack results in undesirable outcomes. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

    • When people fall into depression and loneliness because all the programs and the initial signals in their brain are telling them that this is real social interaction when it isn't and causes long term mental issues.

  • Substance addictions are usually self-limiting. Eventually the addict kills itself and the problem is solved.

    We just need to figure out how to make technology addiction self-limiting and that problem will then be solved as well.

  • Becoming addicted to something, anything, is certainly a failing on the part of the addicted. You were weak, you did something stupid, and you kept doing it, despite the damage it does to yourself and others. Is this under debate somehow?

          I am all for helping people avoid and overcome addictions, but it is now and certainly always will be a personal failing.

    • I am all for helping people avoid and overcome addictions, but it is now and certainly always will be a personal failing.

      Studies show that when you improve people's lives, you reduce the rate of addiction. You can describe it as a personal failing, but it's really a social failing. Society is failing to meet needs, and some people turn to chemical forms of escapism. For others, they get all they need from judging the less fortunate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by noodler ( 724788 )

      You were weak, you did something stupid, and you kept doing it, despite the damage it does to yourself and others. Is this under debate somehow?

      Yes, this is under debate, unless you want to claim that every person is in control all the time and has an infallible brain that cannot be played or otherwise influenced externally.

  • "We will start to realize that being chained to your mobile phone is a low-status behavior, similar to smoking."

    I think this has already started among the elite. I have noticed in some circles it is a bit of a social standing to not carry your phone at social events. And I don't mean "not carry" as in leave it your jacked the whole time and not check it. I mean it as the phone is in the car, or at home, or you lost it whatever. It's a power play that says "I answer to no one and my time is mine to sp

  • People at risk are unable to minimize exposure (Score:3)

    by Headw1nd ( 829599 ) on Monday October 07, 2019 @09:00AM (#59278378)
    As someone who has had trouble dealing with the unlimited stimulus on demand that the internet provides, I've found that the most difficult part is that walking away simply isn't an option in most careers. I am expected to stay plugged in at work, there is no ability to do my work offline as my corporate network supplies me with the software I need to use through the internet. It's like trying to recover from alcoholism but everyday your boss sends you to the liquor store.

  • No, no, no, nothing is supposed to be your own fault these days. How else are the trial lawyers supposed to make money?

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close