My dad used to tie up the Ethernet cable on our family's home router and hide it in a closet. The knots were to prevent us from reconnecting the router and putting it back before he got back home. He'd be able to tell if we tried since he was the only one able to tie that special knot :)
All to prevent my siblings and I from wasting our summers on Runescape or Miniclip or something. Looking back, the hours we were playing each day is nothing compared to the hours he spends scrolling through crap these days. My dad worked in such an intellectually stimulating job before, so it's baffling to see that he chooses to do this all day. I imagine most older parents are in the same boat these days. It has made me hate social media, YouTube, short videos, et al. even more
I'm not sure I agree. We had all these complaints about TV going back to the 1970s (the earliest clear memories I have). It was called "the plug in drug" and "the boob tube."
Homebound and housewives used to watch hours of game shows and soap operas all day.
If a kid liked to read, some parents would tell them to "get your head out of that book and go outside."
We've had those complaints for a long time, and associated stereotypical problems with them - like daydrinking housewives. And now we have increased loneliness, mental health issues, etc. So maybe there's something to the complaints. Maybe sticking your face in media cloistered away at home 24/7 is worse for the mental health of most people than socializing, having to get out there and find ways to entertain yourself with others.
If you never practice making and having friends, how are you ever going to have them?
at least from what i've seen, most Americans now live in communities where even if they wanted to there are an increasing lack of places to just hang out, particularly if you don't want booze involved.
the real estate shortage is driving two effects; places not optimized for revenue are being priced out of existence, and workers need higher wages to pay housing costs which squeezes these places further and results in things like shorter operating hours even if full closure doesn't happen.
Where would those friends ever be in the first place? Everyone I know and see is on their phone doing the same exact thing. Nobody socializes except at work where they're forced to be.
Perhaps they disagree with the idea that it’s an addiction or that it’s a problem with screens in particular, rather than a problem with people not being able to or not knowing how to spend their free time in other ways.
I can see that, but IMO the main difference is that this feels like it's intentionally trying to be an active detriment to your life. TV et. al are fairly neutral generally. Even with the ads.
But with targeted advertisement, it feels a lot more like they're trying to get inside your mind to steal your money.
And with content on social media, it feels specifically engineered to make your life as bad as possible. More fear, more anger, more racism, more sexism. Here's some big boobies, now look at this disgusting immigrant. Isnt Earth awful? Aren't these guys ruining everything?
This. Targeted adds + bespoke algorithms make our current tech incomparable to the previous boogeyman of TV et al. We have devices that are designed to keep and farm our attention at all costs
You weren’t watching TV every free instant you had, like at a red light, on the escalator, while using the urinal, etc. I mean some of these people must not think at all. All free time they could have spent daydreaming or planning or whatever is just taken up by the dumb app in tiny dopamine driving chunks of time. This has to have some effect on brain wiring over time. Just giving yourself absolutely no time for your own thoughts.
TV is still addictive, and it was. I felt it myself in 80s and 90s, good content was rare and I had to set an alarm in the middle of the night to watch some good stuff. And stick around 5 minute block of ads. Active screens, especially ones always in the pocket or on the table, are way more addictive.
It takes some... special mindset to be polite to not see it literally everywhere, the scale and intensity of it, the addiction of kids especially. They have no freakin' defenses and often didn't experience normal life, ever. Ask any child psychologist about their opinion of screens among kids before say 14, and even afterwards.
It can be fought, we are quite successful so far with our kids and we have quite a few parents around us with same mindset, but we have to lead by example.
Easiest is to unplug from active social cancers (fb, instagram, tiktok or whatever kids are addicted to these days). Ignore most of the news, read about topic from source far away from place/country affected. TV can serve some quality content but one has to do some effort, no ads. Computer games are a waste of time and life (I know, I've wasted half of my childhood with them, 100x that for any online gaming), if one is bored then get a sport, passion, read a book, force yourself into some social action, whatever is vastly better. Then comes along junk food, again parents lead by examples.
Life is freakin' short, its pretty sad view to waste it on all above in more than a minimal fashion. Its sort of life success in 'look I am not a homeless person or heroine addict', but just a good fat notch above that. Literally anybody can do better.
I agree with quite a few points here especially on short form content and the mainstream news these days. However on computer games I am still a little undecided. I tend to (try to?) play "creative" games... think Minecraft, Factorio, etc... where you have the chance to execute some project or vision without any real world costs.
Thinking about it, my overall position is to maintain a balance between dopamine from long-term sources and short-term ones. I think long-running creative projects that make you think are generally good whether they are digital (see: 3D animators/artists) or physical - it's just personal preference which one you tend towards. The types of games I try to limit are those with temporary rounds/matches/etc... unlike a Minecraft world, there is no cumulative aspect, no long-term planning apart from your own increase in skill. Despite that, the short satisfaction from momentary successes in each game keep you playing.
Nah, this misses the point entirely. The scale of the problem today is multiple orders of magnitude greater, for several reasons.
First, TVs were stationary. Unlike smartphones, you couldn't take them wherever you went. If you were wealthier, you could somewhat compensate for this by having multiple TVs, for example in the bedroom in addition to the living room. But whenever you stepped outside your house the TV did not come with you. Places like doctors offices or hotel lobbies might have them in waiting rooms but that was really it in terms of the average person's exposure.
Second, TV programming was not explicitly designed to be addictive. Sure, studios wanted people to watch their programs because that's how they got ad revenue, but they had neither sophisticated tools nor the methods to dial addictiveness to the max. They did not have algorithms, for example, to serve you personalized content based on your tastes and desires. You picked from a limited selection of what was available in that week's programming.
Third, TVs did not have built-in mechanisms to demand re-engagement when you had them turned off. No such thing as notifications. At best you had blurbs about what is next on the program, but those were both channel-specific and also required your TV to be on. So people were not constantly bombarded with micro dopamine hits like they are today.
I could go on, but yeah, your rebuttal does not stand up to critical scrutiny. What we have today is a global scale addiction. It is absolutely nothing like TVs or newspapers/books before them.
I think even highly-engaging well-written high-production-value TV doesn't satiate all of your brain's achievement circuits. Being an Internet native, I was binge watching shows well before the term was invented, and before shows were fluffed out to compensate for bulk half-engaged viewing. When an episode ends I don't want to leave the universe - it's so easy to up-arrow, backspace to the episode number, tab, enter. But I always found there was kind of a limit whereby eventually I would have "had enough" and move on to something different to feel like I was actually achieving something - getting back to work, social interaction, physical chores, etc.
Whereas the plethora of web/apps can provide simulations for all those different circuits in your brain, as you move between them each satiating a different aspect of your personality. And then when you've got time to really "relax", you can still turn on TV in the background to be engaged in multiple low effort stimulations at once.
We had opium dens in the past, why not fentanyl dens today?
It's just something to do to fill the boredom.
(That's to say: Just because something was mildly bad in the past doesn't mean that the current, somewhat similar, thing in the present isn't horrifically bad. The issues are orthogonal +- 5deg max)
If we kept opium dens there probably wouldn’t be widespread fentanyl use, isn’t it a reaction to the challenges of getting less dangerous opiates, i.e. is more potent and easier to smuggle?
Many places have “supervised consumption” sites or decriminalization now that has gone very poorly, I think in retrospect having opium dens for those who choose to live that way might have been a better alternative to the current state.
This explains too much. I remember the Internet before corporate dominance and it was just as, if not more, magical then.
There's just something about having a beautiful OLED screen, the tablet-like shape, touch interface, and access to all of human knowledge/news/entertainment. I remember when people used to have a tv on when they lounged around the house, or cooked, or cleaned. My parents even had a little special splash proof CRT TV in the kitchen.
The modern screens are just that, except also much more convenient and with million times more content, and personalized, and wireless ANC headphones if you like. This is it, this is peak human information environment. It's not a conspiracy of corporations.
Much like obesity is primarily driven by abundance of calories, another fight we won with our natural environment. The highly processed foods and marketing are just barely making a dent at the edge, and are largely a zero-sum game between food manufacturers.
I have noticed that better devices just lead me to more time spent in apps I don’t really enjoy, just because I like the device itself.
I’ve had success consciously worsening my experience, doing stuff like reducing color intensity with accessibility options or using the web version of an app for added friction, which is ridiculous but here we are.
I had a similar experience rebooting my 9yo iPhone [0] after a more recent one went out of service. Hours of screen procrastination got replaced with IRL activities/thinking. I decided to not repair the fancy LCD and keep the little friend. It’s been two years and I don’t feel going back soon.
Reducing color intensity is a great idea to worsen the experience, I’ll give it a go. Yet first thing I do after wake up is checking Hacker News and the design is probably not at fault. Still some self improvement to do.
I have the same experience. I have felt it specially when moving to a new iPhone with 90 or 120Hz screen refresh frequency. Everything is so smooth that becomes pleasurable already by itself.
But not only that, also my work iPhone got recently upgraded from an old SE with small screen and laggy performance to the new 16e, and I found myself more eager to check work emails, ms teams than ever before.
I don’t think that’s a good development, but at the end it’s my responsibility and my own decision on how I use those devices. That also means I will probably downgrade to a worse iPhone instead of getting the best available.
I’ve considered that as well, simply getting rid of the high tech altogether and going for a budget or old phone. My main issue with that is the camera, as I place a lot of importance in photos/videos.
I know some people have gone back to carrying a digital pocket camera, but I haven’t really bought into the idea for convenience and because I think taking it out has different social implications.
It definitely does, but in my experience a standalone camera is usually better received than a phone.
I think it’s got to do with the implication of easy shareability. Pointing a phone at someone always brings to mind the idea that the photo can be sent anywhere within seconds. Are they going to post you on their instagram story? Are they going to send it to their friends and laugh about you?
The friction to sharing photos is so much higher with a standalone camera that I think a lot of people feel much more comfortable with one pointed at them.
Then again, that same friction quickly becomes a problem for the user - I know I’ve lost a lot of my photos just because I couldn’t be bothered to connect the camera, transfer the photos, organize them, back them up etc.
For me it’s not really the risk that it will be well received, but rather that cameras trigger a more artificial response.
Selfies or phone pictures are quick and people mostly don’t react, but cameras make us pose, subconsciously. At least I feel a phone gets me more natural photos, that work better as memories of the moment.
The lack of instant online backup is also a good point, I don’t know if that’s on the table on newer models.
Huge agree. Apple likes to pay lip service to this with "screen time" features, but will they make a smaller phone for people who don't want their life centered around staring at the shiny screen? No, because they don't sell as much as big phones.
It's a good idea. Companies try really hard to optimize and make everything they want you to do as easy and smooth as possible (and vice versa). Personally I avoid things like Apple Pay for this reason, it's there to remove friction from purchasing stuff, which results in us doing more of it.
I disagree, I guess, except for your comment: "and with million times more content"
That's it in a nutshell, I think. We had television at home since I was maybe 10 years old but the content that would interest a kid was very neatly time-slotted to small segments of each day (with Sunday being essentially an entertainment desert to a kid).
So TV was boring most of the day so we went outside, or if Winter, found ways to amuse ourselves indoors. I drew pictures, played board games with my sister, wired up a circuit with my 65-in-1 electronics kit…
The other half of that is that they used to make 65-in-1 electronics kits. And they were actually educational. There was an expectation that leisure activities could nevertheless improve you as a person. Now you have to go looking for that sort of experience, and it generally only happens as an adult, who has already developed skills and taste to do so.
"... Sodium cyanide can dissolve gold in water, but it is also a deadly poison. “Atomic” chemistry sets of the 1950s included radioactive uranium ore. Glassblowing kits, which taught a skill still important in today’s chemistry labs, came with a blowtorch."
There is plenty of electronics-oriented content online that will teach you way more than 65 circuits. It's not "hands on" in the sense those Radio Shack kits were, but that's what Sparkfun is for.
How much do you disagree if you agree with the root of the argument?
Whatever it was that made humans enjoy books, newspapers, magazines, movies, tv shows, written correspondence, phone calls, etc, is now available times a million, 24/7, in your pocket, essentially free (if you don’t count externalities ofc). Plus the ability to handle a huge number of admin and business tasks from anywhere. Not hard to see why it’s so addictive for almost everyone.
Good point. I think I was reacting to the notion that we like the physicality of the tech — the OLED, whatever. I think the content is the point (and the lack of content for a kid when there were just four TV stations).
This explains too little. I remember TV before corporate dominance and it was nowhere as bad as cable-TV.
It's hard to believe but initially the content was much thoughful, with actual cultural gems produced for it. Then that content got pushed further and further late at night and eventually disapeared. We can categorize that trend as some kind of "natural erosion" but that'd be ignoring the various forces that fought to change that medium, one of which may be lazy humans relinquishing their soul to the beautiful screen, but another sure one is profit seeking through selling advertisement.
Also, I remember a time when bringing a handheld video game at school would be terrible for a kid's social status. Now it's socially acceptable to spend time in video games.
Fair, but the risk of malware is probably much greater if you don't use an ad blocker. Most ads are scams are phishing these days. Even if you're quite savvy, you can always misclick.
> But yeah it's kind of delusional to put a blanket ban on code you could read yourself.
uBlock origin is 307k lines of code. Yes, you could read it all, but its an impractical task.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting uBO is untrustworthy, but just because a piece of software is open source doesn't mean it is practical for an individual to audit the code themselves.
I'm not the person who orignally said they dont use extensions. I have no issue using uBO or other extensions.
I'm sure typing this comment and sending it over the internet involves billions of lines of code running on countless pieces of hardware. Of course there has to be some level of trust somewhere.
That's a fine default stance. But uBO is one of, and some would say the only, extension that you should evaluate on its own merits rather than stereotyping with the rest of the category.
> Much like obesity is primarily driven by abundance of calories, another fight we won with our natural environment. The highly processed foods and marketing are just barely making a dent at the edge, and are largely a zero-sum game between food manufacturers.
Who is getting obese from fresh fruit and vegetables, whole grains, and the like?
People will eat a whole bag of salted potato chips or a whole container of ice cream in a sitting, but who eats a whole bag of oranges in a sitting?
Yes, something i didn't know whan i was 18. It's not easy to know what to eat when you're young, and to pick up bad habits. Then when overeating destroyed your hormonal balance (insulin, ghrelin are appetite regulating hormones that which imbalance can make a tiny bit of hunger massive and painfull), it's extremely hard to adopt "normal" eating habits without a lot of stability in your life.
I suppose that for any given action, there's likely always someone who will do it, but in any case a bag of oranges has significantly different nutritional properties than a bag of chips. How many oranges are we talking about, and what size oranges?
I could too... if I wanted to. For me at least, oranges are not the type of food that inspires me to binge. Do you seriously not understand why people tend to binge on certain foods and not on others? In any case, 5 oranges is at most maybe 400 calories, very low fat and sodium.
> I'm not obese.
Which is my original point: "Who is getting obese from fresh fruit"
Compared to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we have a practically unlimited supply of fruit, but I don't think thats really the problem.
I know it's going to generate a bunch of responses and consume a bunch of attention, but what value does this drive-by comment add to the discussion, really?
Yeah we know sugar is bad. The article's about screens. It's not really important whether sugar addiction or screen addiction is bigger. This isn't worth fighting over.
They can both be bad and you can post an article about sugar for talking about sugar.
As you see in other comments, people are debating the relative net effects of other inventions of modernity. I think it is interesting and very HN to think about screens vs sugar. What value does your pearl clutching add to this discussion?
Yes but it's not just sugar - people are really missing the forest for the trees with this sugar stuff.
Highly processed foods and fast food aren't just bad because of sugar. If you read the nutrition facts, they're extremely calorie dense and contain huge amounts of saturated fats.
Just swapping your sugar intake for steaks and cheeseburgers won't save you. It feels almost like one of those "get rich quick" schemes.
Doctors HATE this one trick! (Just don't eat sugar)
No, actually, you'll still be obese if you do that. You need to eat greens too, and live an active lifestyle, and limit your saturated fat intake, and eat less animal products.
Thank you for saying it. Ever be around to watch kids grow up or have them yourself? The exposure and cultural, regulatory control that the junk food industry has here in USA is kind of amazing. Especially in schools. It's really insane but it's become accepted here it's normal for kids, toddlers to consume hundreds of grams of added/free sugars per day. Even infants if you think about it, when ever in human history does an infant grow up sucking down pulverized fruit packets multiple times a day, 365 days a year? This is totally normal and acceptable for most people today.
Did you ever go and eat a bag of pure sugar? Or rather a bag of sweets, which usually contain other stuff, not just sugar.
We're not addicted to sugar, the "sugar cravings" are mostly to combos of carbs and fats.
Eating enough turns off my "sugar cravings". Eating lots of protein makes any craving for sugar disappear (I survived last Christmas by not eating any cakes, just lots of meat).
Thats my philosophy too. If you're full, you have no cravings at all. I have zero sugar cravings unless im really hungry, at which point real food is still the better option. Focusing on what you Should eat (nuts, berries, greens, etc) is much more rewarding than obsessing over what not to eat.
> You may be surprised how close many candies are to being pure sugar with food coloring.
Grab a fistful of whatever candy you're thinking about when you say that and put it in your mouth. Then once you've done that, try doing the same with pure sugar. Tell me if you think you got different amounts of sugar in your mouth or not.
It's not the first time I hear this soundbite, and while it perhaps sounds cool as a TikTok comment, it really doesn't make much sense in reality.
Now take pure sugar, add a dash of mint essence and a little oil, dissolve in hot water then dry in a warm oven. Kendal mint cake.
Take pure sugar, add to hot water to make a thick syrup, add food colouring, cook at two hundred and something degrees. Hard candy.
Most other candy recipes are similar, and over 50% sugar by weight. Sugar is the main ingredient by weight after water of many drinks.
You're being deliberately obtuse if you continue to insist on comparing a bag of sugar to something made mostly of sugar. It's like saying "You like steak? Ok, go lick that cow then tell me you like steak!" - it's a straw man argument.
The difference you’re tasting is primarily flavoring, not sugar density, so that’s not a great test. People can’t really tell the difference by taste between hard candy made of pure sugar and hard candy made of sugar plus cornstarch, especially when other flavors are added. But anyway, candy generally tastes insanely sweet and sugary to me. What is the point here? The fact that candy is mostly sugar and people say so predates TikTok by a bit… centuries? Isn’t candy defined as anything sweet where sugar is the primary ingredient?
By the time you're saying that most of what everyone eats is nothing but sugar, you've taken things too far. Grain isn't sugar.
(I'm really curious what the rest of the bread is. The nutrition facts note 4g of protein, but that leaves 12 grams, or 32% of the bread (!) unaccounted for.)
Ah yes I you're right, I was reading too quickly and read the carbs as sugar. That said having candies that are like 60-70% sugar is basically sugar in my book, especially since the rest is corn syrup.
Hence my tiredness of that soundbite, because it's almost never actually true. But I guess it depends on if you see "60% of contents is sugar" as "pure sugar with food coloring" or not, at least for me it's a difference but I understand for others it's basically the same.
There is a difference between 60% sugar and 100% sugar. Why is the difference between pure sugar and Jolly Ranchers meaningful to you? Is there a different outcome or recommendation? It’d certainly help to explain what difference you see and how that difference impacts your choices, rather than state that once exists without elaborating.
So what is the difference, exactly? Depends on what’s in the other 40%, right? It would be a bigger difference if the other 40% was made of fats or proteins or fiber, but in the case of Jolly Ranchers and many other candies, the other 40% of calories is cornstarch, which isn’t sugar but is made of glucose chains and breaks down into sugar when digested. Cornstarch, like sugar, is 100% carbohydrate. https://www.soupersage.com/compare-nutrition/cornstarch-vs-w...
@saagarjha didn’t claim candies are pure sugar, they said it’s surprising how close they are to pure sugar. And 60% sugar + 40% flavorless cornstarch + flavoring and food coloring is close to pure sugar with food coloring. Close is a relative term, so when arguing about it, it’d be helpful to provide a baseline or examples or definitions. Jolly Ranchers are much closer to pure sugar than meat or broccoli is. Jolly Ranchers are much closer to pure sugar than even a banana, which is also 100% carbohydrate calories. I don’t know how to argue that Jolly Ranchers aren’t close to pure sugar. Maybe you can give an example?
(Serving size: 15g, of which sugar: 14g. These numbers are rounded pretty badly. Compare https://crdms.images.consumerreports.org/f_auto,w_600/prod/p... , in which 2.5g of "total fat" break down into 0.5g of polyunsaturated fat, 1g of monounsaturated fat, 0g of saturated fat, and 0g of trans fat.)
A sister product, Runts, reports 13g of sugar in a 15g serving size. Spree appears to be the same thing as Runts, but in a disc shape instead of a stylized fruit shape.
Skittles are 75% sugar at 21g per 28g serving size. They have to be soft and chewy, which I assume explains the difference.
Some other chewy candies:
Sour Patch Kids report 80% sugar (24g / 30g).
Swedish Fish report 77% sugar.
Going back to the "it's just sugar" candies, Necco wafers report that one 57g roll contains 56g of carbohydrates, of which 53g are sugar.
> especially since the rest is corn syrup.
Huh, you might be on to something. Karo corn syrup doesn't appear to report its amount by weight. But its nutrition facts report that every 30 mL of syrup contain 30g of carbohydrates, of which 10g are sugar. So corn syrup will drive a wedge between reported "carbohydrates" and reported "sugar".
> We're not addicted to sugar, (...) Eating enough turns off my "sugar cravings".
Glad it works for you, but that's not universal. I'm pretty much addicted to sugar, regardless of what else I eat. So I have to not buy it in the first place - that way it's just not available.
I think this might be an issue that’s independent of sugar. Something something dopamine and serotonin. I also do not have issues with sugary foods, but I did in the past when my life was more stressful.
Look down the cart of your fellow shoppers the next time you go to the super market. Odds are some of them will have only huge bottles of sugar drink, sugar cereals and cookies.
Not sure I would call that an addiction. Sugar is one: almost everybody consumes way too much sugar and would be incapable of reducing that to a healthy amount. I am including myself, pretty sure you're part of the club.
Sugar is very difficult to unplug from if you don't cook for yourself.
Here in Singapore almost every restaurant and hawker is obsessed with jacking their food up with sugar. Worse though is that if they don't the local Singaporean "foodie" hitmen will annihilate the restaurant with poor reviews on Google Maps for being "bland".
So eating out is a no go. Cooking again unless you're obsessed with reading packaging or make everything from scratch yourself you're instantly adding more sugar than you know.
I have a suspicion that now fruits are also being engineered to be sweeter because apples are way way sweeter than I remember growing up and a lot of the oranges my mother in law buys for me also are blindingly sweet. And yet I feel there's a certain fragrance missing from these sweet fruits...
> now fruits are also being engineered to be sweeter
Yes. But it's not by injecting sugar into fruits like many people think.
Farmers including the one next to my rural alt house:
- Take consultancy of agritech and selectively breed variants that are sweeter [0]
- Optimize min(fruits/tree-or-vine) to concentrate sugars in remaining fruits. [1]
- Ethylene-based post-pluck ripening to convert some starch to sugars and make it sweeter. [2]
- and more. Richer the farmer, the more sophisticated the techniques.
If you want truly fresh natural fruits, buy from a poor farmer directly and pay for logistics yourself. They have to be poor because well, they have to sell at market rate. Tragedy of the commons and all that. And logistics chains depend on fruits being fairly resilient. The logistics loss for natural fruits is 30-50% depending on the fruit. So yeah you need to pay 3x as well.
[1] this technique leads to lesser minerals, polyphenols, vit c etc in fruits. "Crowding out".
[2] this technique leads to less fiber formation since there's no time for polysacs to form. Major reason for fiber deficiency today according to agtech person I know is that people are eating fruits the same way their grandparents did, but whoops, you don't get enough anymore.
[0] They are bred to naturally do the above two things. Mostly, they are bred to autocatalyctically generate ethylene earlier.
If your country is in the business of exporting fruits, then the farmer has to compete with the whole world, and the tragedy of the commons mentioned above goes global. So every effect mentioned above multiplies 2-3x. Because it has to be even more logistics friendly, supply has to be really uniform due to expensive GTM, etc,.
Almost every cuisine Singapore serves will be sweeter relative to the authentic recipe. For example Korean food here is so sweet my wife thought she doesn't like Korean cuisine until she went to Seoul.
Japanese food is definitely healthier in many respects although there's still a lot of sugar hiding in sushi for example, and oyakodon, teriyaki and katsudon sauces are also often quite sweet.
Shabu shabu is better but so are most hotpots in a clear soup
Studies on rats have shown significant similarities between sugar consumption and drug-like effects, including bingeing, craving, tolerance, withdrawal, dependence, and reward. Some researchers argue that sugar alters mood and induces pleasure in a way that mimics drug effects such as cocaine. In certain experiments, rats even preferred sugar over cocaine, reinforcing the idea that sugar can strongly activate the brain’s reward system
This is somewhat intuitive when you think that sugar is almost pure energy and in a food-scarce existence that we evolved for, energy is synonymous with survival. So alongside reproducing, consuming energy is probably one of the most basic of desires we are hardwired to seek out in more ways than one
Restaurant food is optimized for everything but healthfulness.
Portion size, saturated fat, excessive salt, sugar, sometimes alcohol, low fiber— the industry has defined itself as an extension of the junk food industry. Which is ironic! Because pretty much the only food I would be willing to pay a premium for would be healthy food, demonstrably healthy food.
The reason it isn't, is because it's automatic. Your brain keeps you breathing as much as it can (if you hold your breath until you pass out, your brain will start breathing again for you). Breathing isn't reward driven. It doesn't engage the dopamine system the same way, eg cocaine does. You don't become tolerant to breathing the same way you do, eg cocaine. Lastly, for something to qualify for Substance Use Disorder (SUD), they need to keep doing it, despite social and health ramifications of continued use in the face of developing a tolerance for it. Other than some edgelord shit, no one's gonna give you shit for continuing to breath.
> If people dont know what to do with themselves its kinda their own issue.
That "kinda" is important. I didn't have the freedom to just do what I wanted to when I was a young teen. 14-year old me couldn't just take a walk. I'm in my late 40s now - my mother was particularly strict for the time period.
People have children. Some folks really are stuck at home, taking care of someone, with a life peppered with boredom. You know, like parents. Screens have a way of decorating those bits of time and lessening the monotony of it all.
Not to mention the effects of being poor - I'm not even talking outright poverty here. Just a point that you simply have to budget somewhat carefully and don't have a lot of extra money. One of the great things about the internet is the entertainment built right in. You pay for the communication access society and businesses expect from you, you get entertainment as well.
Societal expectations might also keep you in. If you need an app to make sure that your child isn't left out, it might mean that you don't have the same options to simply quit something without harming innocent folks along the way.
Other folks have touched on the addiction bit, so no need to repeat here.
The one thing to know about addiction is that everyone is different. If you think that it's easy not to be an addict, you may just lack empathy.
It's easy for you to quit smoking? Good for you. But it's very clearly not the case for most people. Feels to me a bit like saying "it's easy to be rich, you just have to be born in a rich family like me".
Circular logic. What do you think "discipline" is? It's just a word people use to describe people with strong rational, goal-oriented behavior, with ability to follow through over long periods of time.
This is also called "executive functioning" and it's wholly dependent on your brain chemistry, i.e. the thing that is malfunctioning in addiction.
So yes, they lack "discipline" because discipline is also physiological, it's not just (and maybe not even primarily) a reflection of the person's character. By treating them as separate you're engaging in mind-body dualism.
> Same reason as to why a lot of people smoke, they cant bear being bored for 5 minutes. Its incredibly easy to quit too
For you information, nicotine is generally considered a highly addictive substance (see for instance: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/drugs-a-to-z)
Although various people do seem to experience it very differently, and some indeed have reported to me that they feel almost no addiction. From others, I've heard such things as "I've quit smoking 30 years ago, and for 30 years I've been craving for a cigaret". My personnal experience is that it takes a good, dedicated several weeks long effort to quit; I haven't had a lot of addictions in my life but this one was by far the hardest to get rid of. But the effect of nicotine, or lack thereof, are benign, maybe that's why it gives you the impression that it's not very addictive. Turns out, the most addictive substances are not necessarily the ones with the strongest effects.
As to who is lacking discipline, well I guess we would all be better off with more discipline. Including you, who lack the discipline to do the mental work to research a topic you know little about before you comment on it, and most importantly the mental work needed to see things from other's perspective. ;)
Wow, did you actually smoke for a decade or more? I did and kicking the smoking habit was the hardest thing I have done in my life.
Even after I quit I wanted a cigarette every day for a year—the battle was each day, for hundreds of days. At the time I would often dream too that I was smoking — and continued to for another few years.
Even now I think if I were told I had a year to live, I would be tempted to light up again.
They are and they aren't. They're both a form of escapism, for the user to deny reality while in an altered state of consciousness. Users do it to their detriment, despite social and health consequences. Thus, some of the techniques used to help people with substance use disorder (SUD) are also applicable to screen addiction. fwiw, gambling addiction is another different but same addiction with similar treatment plans. No, gambler's aren't shooting up heroin the the bathroom, nor are screen addicts, but at some level they are comparable. The first thing you reach for in the morning and the last thing you think about before bed.
This elides the difference between drugs/addictions that make you more conscious of your surroundings and those which make you less conscious of them. I put cigarettes in the same category as coffee. They make you more alert, make your brain work faster. They are sister chemicals. If I want to escape I drink or smoke weed, play video games or gamble. Cigarettes are not an escape.
In both cases the whole society is affected. I have to pay into my countries health system for people who got sick by choice. Thankfully this isnt the case for people addicted to screens.
smoking, alcoholism and obesity are fiscal positives, not negatives.
smokers pay obscene amount of money in cigarette tax for decades only to die in their 50's or 60's instead of collecting the benefits of having also contributed into social security all their lives. most of them die suddenly from a heart attack or after a short illness.
Its not that simple. Smokers that dont die suddenly (how many are those actually?) dont die much earlier because healthcare improved and also:
- kill/cause damages through passive smoke
- can/do cause enormous health bills (my dad struggled on for almost 6 years)
- cleaning up their trash costs money
- set fire to stuff with thrown cigarette butts
- often dont just die and just cant work anymore thus stopping working earlier, create less value in general
I'd love to read up on current studies/research but lots of studies are 10+ years old now but the damages seem to outweigh them not having a retirement.
Smoking related deaths are relatively cheap. In Canada a typical pack-a-day smoker pays an extra $5k/year in taxes, and then dies not long after they retire and start collecting social security.
A bigger burden are the healthy people who live into their 90s while their bodies slowly decay over the span of decades
Smoking used to be an unavoidably pushed part of life, too. It was linked to strength, manliness (or femininity actually, depending on the target market), independence, etc. Tobacco company mascots loomed over us from billboards, and told us on TV that cigarettes make a person cool. Untold billions of dollars were spent on marketing literal poison, using every trick in the book, and it worked. People smoked all the time, everywhere - at the dinner table, on planes, at their desk at work. People burned their houses down because they went to sleep with a cigarette still in their mouth.
Just because something feels like an unavoidable part of life, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true - it could just mean that that giant advertising companies convinced you that it is. I wonder if in a couple decades we’ll look back at screen addiction the same way we look at tobacco now.
I understand how cigarettes were advertised and pushed, and seemingly unavoidable.
Is technology the same? Yes and no...we can totally abstain from tech and live that lifestyle. But then we wouldn't be here discussing this issue at all, or ever.
So while they are both pushed: if you cut out smoking today you can still live a 'normal' life. Cutting out tech is a drastically different life.
I'd rather not discuss what is meant by 'normal' -- I hope you get where I'm coming from.
I think “using technology” is just too broad, and a distinction needs to be made. Screen addiction doesn’t just mean using a screen.
You’re right that it’d be pretty much impossible to refuse to engage with any modern technology these days (unless you lived in an Amish community or something similar); but obviously there’s a huge difference between responsible use of tech where useful or necessary (and for fun, too, in moderation!), and lying in bed mindlessly scrolling through Tiktok and/or watching cable tv for hours every day - which I see a lot more people doing in the past couple years.
This is an incredibly ignorant take on addiction. It's never a choice - by definition.
> Its incredibly easy to quit too, people just lack discipline.
Hey, do you want to chat about how when I tried to quit nicotine, I went through 2 weeks of physical and mental hell, how exhausted I felt not being able to sleep more than an hour without waking up, still feeling exhausted, with mental fog so severe that made quitting feel impossible?
> This is an incredibly ignorant take on addiction. It's never a choice - by definition.
It isn't that clear cut either way IME.
I had a big drinking problem. I was the one that choose to start drinking. I was the one chose to stop drinking. Nobody forced me to go to the bar or the off-licence.
I accept for other people it isn't that simple.
> Hey, do you want to chat about how when I tried to quit nicotine, I went through 2 weeks of physical and mental hell, how exhausted I felt not being able to sleep more than an hour without waking up, still feeling exhausted, with mental fog so severe that made quitting feel impossible?
I had similar issues when I quit drink. Sleep was irregular, I went hot and cold for the first month. I had this like weird wave feeling go through me one night (it the only way I can describe it). I think that took like a month or two.
> Nobody forced me to go to the bar or the off-licence.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that you had a real choice. What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.
Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?
It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.
> Of course, but that doesn't mean that you had a real choice.
Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.
I cured my addiction by simply not buying alcohol and abstaining. That was a choice I could have made at any point in the past.
There are people that can drink responsibly. I am not one of those people. I made the responsible choice as an adult, to abstain from it. I don't miss it either BTW. I feel actually free.
> What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.
I would have a lot more money, I wouldn't have got into stupid situations, some which I almost got myself killed, I wouldn't have had to spend 5 years rebuilding my career.
> Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?
The comparison you are making here is asinine.
> It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.
The moral judgement is often painted by some as subjective. A lot of the times it can be, but very often it simply isn't. There are good reasons it is correct for people to judge someone poorly because they abuse drugs or alcohol.
It isn't just the fact that they are making different choice that they disapprove of, it is the behaviour and consequences of that behaviour. This behaviour is frequently at best makes the person difficult to deal with, and at worst anti-social and dangerous and can often have dire consequences. That is simply a fact. Those people are correct to judge those people poorly.
I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either.
You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.
There seems to be a strong culture towards removing agency from people and allowing them to escape any form of judgement on the consequences of their actions.
Sure, maybe some people really do have thyroid problems; but this idea that overweight people are somehow not responsible for their own condition is ridiculous and dangerous.
I had drug and alcohol problems in the past, it was my own choice, and my own choice to get out of that situation.
I smoked, I chose to stop.
I was unfit due to laziness, and I fixed that too.
None of those situations were the result of anything other than personal choice.
> Sure, maybe some people really do have thyroid problems; but this idea that overweight people are somehow not responsible for their own condition is ridiculous and dangerous.
You’re not wrong, but I think you’re missing the bigger picture. These are systemic issues, and solving them on an individual level can only go so far.
People are responsible for their own health, but we also live in a world where billions of dollars are spent on marketing and lobbying to get them addicted to junk food and make it the easiest choice. It’s still a choice, but the game is rigged.
“Just decide to stop” may have worked for you - it worked for me, too! - but on a societal level you need societal change. A lot fewer people smoke today than just a couple decades ago - not because everyone has individually somehow built up stronger willpower, but because of legislation that made tobacco harder to market, more expensive, and forbidden in many public spaces.
It doesn't have to be one extreme or another. But we already learned that there's a decent chemical component to addictions of many kinds. GLP1 significantly lowers drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other cravings in many people with addictive behaviours. So it's neither completely a choice nor completely body driven.
Suppose that I discover a chemical combination that causes people to eat more. I arrange with all the biggest food manufacturers to put this in all their food. People eat lots and get fat. Whose fault is it?
Regulators fault for not picking up on it. Also the peoples fault for voting these kinda regulators into their position. Happened decades ago with all the teflon thats now in all of our bloodstreams and will continue in the future.
> Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.
I am not denying you anything. If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.
Dualism is what's behind harmful attitudes towards addiction and every other psychological disorder. People use the same exact reasoning to delegitimize depression, ADHD, anxiety, or whatever else they can use to feel superior.
> I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either. You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.
> If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.
This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.
I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices. That is obvious. The point is that people have their own agency. I had to accept I had an issue and decided to face up reality, everything after that was relatively straight forward IME.
This process took a year, so it wasn't like I woke up one morning and my mind was changed.
> Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
You are trying to latch onto anything to invalidate my point of view on the matter, based on an incorrect preconceptions of my beliefs. Which is unfortunate.
The fact is that moral judgements made by people are often for very good reasons. Even if they can't verbalise them effectively. Rather than dismissing them because you politically disagree with them, it is often worth finding out why they exist.
> This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.
No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds. If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.
> I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices.
This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.
> No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.
Yes you are. Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.
From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism" (like that would matter at all), you've lost any good will I may of had with you in this discussion.
> Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.
Brain / Mind are synonyms for the most. I don't even think you know what you are saying.
> If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.
I think psychiatry can help some people. However it isn't the be all and end all of how deal with addiction or the human condition in general.
> This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.
Obviously. That doesn't mean that addicts don't have agency.
> I was an addict. I know what I am talking about.
You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.
> Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.
You're just repeating truisms. Yes of course people have to want to quit, but out of the people who want to quit, most are unable to follow through. They relapse despite fighting like hell inside their own minds.
> From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism"
You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.
P.S. I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience. If that makes it easier for you to move forward, I'm genuinely happy for you, but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.
> You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.
I actually edited out that from my reply because I knew that this would be used this way. Also "lived experience" is such a stupid phrase. Obviously I was alive when this happened.
I am not claiming to be an expert. I am claiming you are over-intellectualising something. This is something that people constantly try to do, with almost everything now. Everything is a condition, every failing someone has can be scientifically explained. I find it nauseating tbh.
> You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
1) You brought this up by talking moral judgements of others. So it did cross your mind. So that is a lie. Also I feel extremely guilty about what I did. I should do.
2) I am not part of that group. I specifically said so. What I was trying to explain is that "While I am not one of these and do dogmatically believe it, there some rationale and value behind it".
> And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
I said you didn't know what you was talking with regards to moral judgements. I specifically quoted the piece of text I was responding to. What you wrote was kinda tripe tbh.
> That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.
What you did was make a jab at me because you assumed I was dogmatically believed in a set of ideas. You seem to be attempting to retcon this now. I don't find it offensive. I find it tiresome. I am not an American, and I am not a conservative.
> I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience.
I am not saying I was in full control of addiction.
I did make a choice to drink. Every-time I bought the alcohol (often while sober) I made a choice, full cognisant of the consequences. It was my own hubris to stopped me from taking the correct course of action sooner. There doesn't need to be a more complex explanation because it is the truth. I don't need to intellectualise it further.
I have seen other people do exactly the same thing as I did.
> but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.
I am not doing either. I have throughout this thread said "this was my mistake, I take full responsibility". I am specifically telling you that I am not better than anyone else and in fact people were correct in judging me poorly due to my own behaviour at the time.
So your argument is that smokers and obese people have literally no control over their consumption because of non-duality? I mean, I’m a buddhist, I probably have a stronger sense of non-duality than most and that’s just horseshit unless I misunderstood you.
edit: this is like saying rapists aren’t responsible for their crimes because they had a physiological response to seeing someone they found attractive.
Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.
No, I'm saying that, to a very significant degree, our behavior is driven by physiological processes inside of our brains, and overcoming these can be extremely difficult. If people could just choose not to eat then they wouldn't be obese to begin with.
You would know if you ever experienced depression, ADHD, or any other disorder takes away your executive function. I take it you don't consider these to be real disorders?
> Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.
Oh no I think they’re real, but I also I think the proportion of people who genuinely have no control over these parameters is vanishingly small.
In all things, generalisation is probably too blunt, but removing the agency from everyone, turning them into victims of their own brain chemistry and advancing the narrative that they can’t possibly change their situation does them far more harm than good.
Even depression, there are things which you can do to overcome it. I’m not saying it’s easy, but you seem to be arguing it’s impossible.
Stop painting everything so black & white. I am not arguing that it's impossible, nor that people have "no control" over anything. I am arguing that it's difficult and that it's ignorant and harmful to paint their problems as just "lack of discipline".
The problem is that dualists (like the person I originally responded to) assume that willpower is separate from physiology, therefore what's easy for them should be easy for others, and therefore if others can't achieve the same things they are achieving then they must be lazy, lack discipline, and don't deserve additional help or compassion.
These sorts of ignorant beliefs then shape policy and make it harder for people to get help to deal with their problems, perpetuating the cycle, for example the rather famous failure of "the war on drugs". That's the only thing I'm arguing - that people need to accept that addiction is a complex and individual health problem and to start treating it as such, it's the only way we're going to move forward.
Of course it’s difficult. Do you think having drive enough to overcome an addiction, or fight to change your situation is simply “easy” if you have discipline? What kind of argument is that? You need discipline precisely because things are difficult, I don’t really see where we disagree on this.
You continue to assume that discipline is something you innately have or don't have as part of your character/soul/whatever you want to call it, independent of your body and brain chemistry, that's where we disagree.
The way people judge "effort" and "difficulty" is broken, that's part of the problem. Whether you have or lack discipline is judged by the outcome, not by the effort that person made because the effort is invisible to the outside world.
Person A quits smoking (with 1 unit of effort), therefore they have "discipline"
Person B fails to quit smoking (with 10 units of effort), therefore they're judged to "lack discipline".
> Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.
Okay, but where do you think that discipline comes from? Is it an inherent quality that a person is born with? I’d argue that it’s not, and it’s something that needs to be learned and exercised. Many people didn’t get the opportunity to learn it (yet?), and I don’t believe it makes them somehow inferior.
I don’t think it’s in inherent quality either. Why do some people decide to put the cake down and hit the weights and others don’t? I don’t know, all i’m saying is the option existed for both and in the end it’s a choice.
Alcohol doesn’t affect me much personally, so I’ve never understood why anyone would start drinking in the first place. But that’s where I would argue that addictions are less of a choice and more circumstantial.
You know what is the funniest thing. I used to drink all these different Ales and artisan beers.
After I quit drinking alcohol. I used to have a 4 pack of these 0% Ales/Larger that was supposed to taste similar. The packaging differs from the regular beer in that it has a silver top instead of dark blue on this particular. I picked up the alcoholic ones inadvertently as they were in the wrong place on the shelf.
When I took a sip, I thought it had gone off. It tasted terrible, like poison! Obviously once I checked the can, I realised my mistake. I gave them to my rest of the pack to one of my neighbours I think.
Can we stop redefining-down the word "pandemic" please? I think enough people are already going to stick their fingers in their ears and go "na na na" when the next actual pandemic virus comes along. Maybe just skip the comparison and say screen addiction is the most dangerous addiction humanity's ever seen. Then it just sounds like a normal hyperbole. Or try these:
No, that's not possible. Your comment will be seen by a tiny minority of people on the internet and is a drop in the ocean. The impulse to persuade social change works in small groups, and the frustration you're feeling is completely feckless on the internet. (ie, if you were saying "can we stop [thing] in a small workplace you might actually have success. Out here on the internet this is really impossible, and is a mismatch between our intuitions and reality.)
Fully agree with you comment. I am shocked that the hyperbole with the classic "greedy corporations are eating us alive" empty narrative got so many upvotes here
This got both of my parents. What's interesting is that neither of them really used a computer or smartphone much, but both got addicted to iPads in their late 60s.
What they do in their free time is their business, but it often even messes with human interaction. I've been midsentence with them in person when they'd just pull out their iPad for a quick scroll, completely oblivious that I was even there or talking to them. What's weird is that it almost reminds me of a person taking a quick vape or smoke... I'm not even sure they realize why they're doing it.
The problem is they are both drugs and productivity devices. I have two iPads and I love them. I use a Mini exclusively for book reading and logging workouts. I use a Pro for video calls and occasionally YouTube videos.
The addiction didn’t get me through them… on the other hand, here I am posting HN comments instead of doing something productive so it did reach me through my phone.
Absolutely, because they have the time for it and fewer alternatives. I got my mom a tablet, set her up with ReVanced YouTube & Twitter plus VLC, and now she is by far the heaviest user of our NAS, last Kindle user on our Amazon account, and reachable on Signal pretty much always.
Would it be better if she sat at home with the TV on and a paper book? No, I don't think so.
This is also where the leisure time went. Keynes predicted 15 hour workweek, we decided to just have kids and the elderly not work at all.
My dad watches niche car repair videos on YouTube and my mom does online art classes. Back when we didn’t have fast internet, my mom would watch crappy reality TV shows out of boredom.
I think overall, the internet is taking up more of their time than books/tv did in the past (just as it does for me), but it also gives them access to quality content within their niche interests.
I'm certain there is a lot more very good content on YT than anywhere on TV, but that's unfortunately not the content that google is pushing toward the users.
(Yes, I'm aware that they push whatever the users click onto and whatever makes them profit; I don't care, I still believe they should push the best content).
That’s true for most mass market crap but that’s a low bar because it’s all just escapism in a different format. Books still have a much higher signal to noise ratio and information density than all content short of academic textbooks or courses (and I’ll die on that hill).
Sapiens is a good example of that kind of mass market crap. I’m currently reading After the Ice by Mithen and The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow which are much better attempts at pop-academia takes at early human history. Even just the notes section of those books is a goldmine for sources that you’d be hard pressed to find anywhere else outside a dense textbook.
Now with AI it’s easier than ever to stick to the good (nonfiction) stuff. Ask it for book recommendations and then ask it to search online for criticisms/reviews of their accuracy. I used to double check the sources for the reviews but never found any broad strokes inaccuracies.
> Sapiens is a good example of that kind of mass market crap.
I think Sapiens is an interesting case, because, in my situation, I listened to the audiobook and enjoyed the experience.
I enjoyed it so much that I started to question everything I was hearing and spent at least twice as many hours checking what the author said than listening.
To the point that now I completely forgot the content of the book, but learned about so many things that I would probably had no reason to learn about without the book.
So it acted as a gateway with me.
Meanwhile I know of other people who took it as gospel and are now living with a polarized mindset.
You don't read, typically, for fact-ness. The more facts you know doesn't mean your mind works better or you're smarter. Those are pretty much separate things.
Books are mostly for comprehension and critical thinking.
The problem with facts is that they're a bit anti-critical thinking. They're just true - there's no debate, or philosophy, or introspection.
Fiction makes you think. About the world, about the future, about yourself, about who you want to be, about what life is about, about why you exist, about love, about injustice, etc. Facts don't really do that.
With age your company dwindles as people drift away (or die) so you have fewer people with which to enjoy these activities and many become less attainable/enjoyable with lower physical strength and endurance.
Most of the current elderly also grew up in an era where they believed cities and urban areas were bad, so they moved out to the suburbs where everything is farther away and requires driving. It requires a lot more effort to do anything and they have effectively isolated themselves.
My grandparents who lived in a city could walk down the street, get groceries, and easily meet friends for a snack or chat. Even when they were alone, they were part of a community. My parents' generation all live far away from each other, struggle to get out of the house, and are scared of strangers.
My mom had access already. I just patched her app to not show ads, allow video downloads, and have nicer colors.
Twitter is also the best news app. You get the info, trend, and critical commentary (with people you follow boosted for you in the comments) all in one go.
Why capitalism? How about taxation and over-regulation? And if not that, what about envy? You could live like an Irish immigrant 100 years ago, with a wood stove and an outdoor latrine. But you’re not going to want that if everyone around you has got a/c, stainless steel appliances and a Toto washlet.
Just got back from Reno, and I can confirm that there are hundreds of old ladies there addicted to playing video games all day. (But I grew up in Vegas, and this ain't news... The Economist should check their local slot parlor, or fruit machines or whatever they call it there).
I have noticed the same trend with my parents. The people that were insisting that I was spending too much time as a child in front of the computer and should get out, are now retired and permanently glued to their phones.
Same experience in a European country. Parents didn't get a TV for the home when we were kids. Now neither parent can eat full meal or hold a conversation without looking at something from their phones, even when they have guests over. I spend WAY too much time online as well, but I make sure I do not take out my phone during meals, when talking to someone, etc.
Same. When I’m visiting my parents, I sometimes check the Screen Time stats on my dad’s iPad. Consistently, he’s spending around 30 hours per week on YouTube. It has pretty much replaced TV for him.
I can hardly get my mother, father or in laws to look at us anymore when we visit, they just look at social media and sometimes comment on whatever they saw and share it with me, sometimes via a message too. It's weird but for us, it's been going on since FB and Pintrest but Instagram and TikTok have taken the addiction to new levels.
They basically wouldn't travel to anywhere quality, high speed internet isn't present.
If they didn't have to answer for iPad babies then unfortunately they won't have to answer for this either.
I've resolved to accepting the fact that most people are just content with any form of brain rot because the alternatives are too mentally taxing. Technology has just enabled brain rot to distill into its current form, but the demand has always been there.
I wouldn't really call it "demand". It's more like one-shotting humans with a product which maximally stimulates them through what is basically a psychological hack.
We were not built with the capacity to handle the sheer amount of stimulation the modern world has. You have to put in a lot of effort to not succumb to natural desires that would have been adaptive behaviours until recent history.
Succumbing to constant distraction, even if a natural desire, would never have been a successful evolutionary strategy for an individual organism. Spending large amounts of time absorbing and repeating bullshit has proven to be a pretty successful group survival strategy throughout human history, though.
Lets call it a next great man-made filter. Weak personalities will take a hit and have a lesser life compared to their potential, the ones more mentally resilient or with good parents (or both) gain a clear advantage in basically all aspects of life. Waiting around for state regulations to cover our asses has always been a bad move, and its same now. They will come but too little too late, one has to fight for oneself and closest ones in true capitalist spirit, and this is indeed distilled capitalism at work. Its jungle out there, and servants of the biggest predators form like 50% of this very forum (go ahead and downvote some meaningless number in DB, but take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself how good human being you truly are).
I can't bring myself to feel much sympathy for the ones that fully realize this, and yet go full speed to their addictions, even push it to their kids since good parenting always take a lot more continuous effort. We keep discussing this mind cancer for a decade here, its not something shocking on any level for anybody who gives a fraction of a f*k about their quality of life or mental health. The rest has bread and games for the poor, version 2025.
The article suggests there’s evidence that screen time has the opposite effect. A little surprising but I guess for a lot of people it is more stimulating than watching the news or soaps all day
Why don’t they search for topics that interest them though? Surely not all of them are tech literate enough to scroll, but not search. My friend’s dad in his 70s watches nature documentaries and people like ItchyBoots on YouTube.
They are lobbying harder than ever before, look at the recent inauguration and who was there. Thy will never answer for any of it. They control information. They control the narrative.
Even normal television has gone to full on elderly brainrot, and the TV personalities are behind it.
Go watch an episode of 25 Words or Less on your local broadcast station and watch how much slop is peddled on the show between the colorful noises (dear God those horns in the jingles are pure torture). They've fully tied in slop mobile games (some Solitaire game) into main gameplay advertising, they pull in horribly grainy live video from elderly "superfans" joining along from home, it's all just one giant slop machine before the evening news.
To its credit, the article avoids mention of various "generations," which are a pretty unscientific prism through which to view the world. Yet there is still something to be learned from looking at a particular age cohort and its cultural zeitgeist. The people reaching retirement age today are the oldest members of Generation X. People born in 1965 are turning 60 this year. These people first had access to gaming consoles and personal computers cheap enough for general consumers when they were in their teens. They were 18 in 1983 when Atari crashed, and 28 during Eternal September in 1993. So it's no wonder the numbers are increasing in older people. People have a tendency to think a demographic like "older people" is static, when it's really a sliding window. Digitally-savvy people are simply aging into it. And you will too.
Nah, it's more than that. My very boomer parents just sit on the couch doom scrolling all day, and they were late getting smartphones.
Although they also got us Ataris in the early 80s and internet access in the late 80s, so they were technology forward through their whole lives. So maybe they lived more like late Gen X...
I think you are correct. Tech was binning people and older Gen X slid forward identifying with late Gen X much more than those on the other side of the divide.
Elderly gen-x are screen addicts because they had access to gaming consoles and computers? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment. Not every gen-xer was strapped to a console growing up.
My boomer parents and their friends are all staring to their phones wa-a-ay more often than I’d consider healthy. At least as much as my millenial/xennial friends.
Social media and attention stealing algos are addictive and unhealthy, regardless of the age group. If anything I’d say that gen-x is uniquely positioned - old enough to have experienced the world without the internet, young enough to see the consequences of it.
The problem of algorithmic feeds gets a modest amount of attention, but I still think its not nearly enough. Addicting feeds are evil. If we ever manage to make it beyond them, we'll reflect on them with the same regret as slavery.
A quote from an author I like, Matthew Crawford: "Attention is the thing that is most one’s own: in the normal course of things, we choose what to pay attention to, and in a very real sense this determines what is real for us; what is actually present to our consciousness. Appropriations of our attention are then an especially intimate matter."
I can't really envision a solution, frankly. On a personal level, I have tried dozens of strategies to use my phone less, including deleting many of my social media accounts, and regrettably, its still an issue. My best guess is legislation that bans machine-learning algorithms on newsfeeds. But there are billions of dollars and a dysfunctional government (speaking U.S. here) motivated against that outcome.
For me, absolutely. And the fact that it’s text-only helps enormously too. The way I interact with HN is fine to me. I skim the posts once a day and read maybe one or two.
I think it's also important that HN doesn't have infinite scrolling. It's old-school: 30 items per page, click at the bottom to go to the next page.
I made a rule for myself that I would never go past page 2 of HN. So, each morning, I see 60 items, and if none of them interest me, then I just move on with my day. I think that's why I never became addicted.
The rate at which content ends up on the front page is also slower than your ability to consume it. So even if you do keep clicking, you end up on yesterday's links you've already read.
If you didn’t have that rule would you go past page 2? Frankly I just don’t find HN articles as cheaply and quickly mentally palatable as other sites. The content here is usually more cognitively demanding, so I don’t end up scrolling.
I think there needs to be a culture shift. It's already happening among millennial parents where they don't give phones to kids till they're old enough or even 18.
I mean I agree, and folks my age (gen z) do police one another on phone usage at dinner, for example. I just wish there was an easier or better way to expedite this cultural shift.
It kinda reminds me of cigarettes. A similarly addicting thing that largely disappeared in the US when it became unfashionable/shameful. Is there a way to make this happen for phones, I wonder.
This reminds me of elderly people addicted to cable news. Once separated from TV they can only talk about politics, but it’s weirdly up to the minute and yet still so poorly informed.
Sometimes I think… What if this is just human evolution at play? After hunter-gatherers, humans became sedentary farmers and herders. Imagine if psychology was a thing back then. There would have been so many papers on how this shift was changing the very core of what we were.
What if technology is just evolving us into something else? I can imagine in 1000 years from now our cyborg versions would be walking around with screens inside their brains not thinking twice about it.
I don’t think I’d like that world at all. And I hate what screens have done to my current world. But shit, maybe there’s no stopping it.
Well everyone use their branes so much that in the end they are all going to turn into eggs becos they will hav thort a way of getting along without walking. This will not be until 21066 a.d. (approx.) but it makes you think a bit.
It's a pity that they are missing a hugely troubled audience - elderly hooked on YouTube, specifically.
It's an ugly addiction that mirrors what we've seen with alcoholics and schizophrenics, whereby they point a finger at anything but the actual problem, and any remedy that the have, or are given, they adamantly avoid and refuse.
YouTube, like other social media, is driven by pushing and pulling on the right emotions in the right way to get you hooked. Sexy, funny, happy, cute, sensational, sad, scary, angry. Enough Sophia Vergara, cat videos, UFOs, doom and gloom, bias-confirming politics, etc, and you'll have someone watching all day long. It's not like what it was when an elderly person watched daytime soap operas and gameshows, this is a dopamine-fueled additive binge. We've seen several really bad cases where it's almost everything that the lonely elderly person does. There's no more "journey" or "investment" when you can simply flick to the next video that tickles your fancy in that moment.
These are the people I'm sincerely concerned about, and they have zero reason to go seek help. It's not an issue to them. In fact, they'll fight tooth and nail to claim anything else is their problem except this.
It's almost as though the first generations to enjoy television weren't ready for something this addictive.
Personally, I despise YouTube, despite growing up in the heart of the Silicon Valley. That platform serves a handful of purposes for me, such as helpful tutorials the rare time that I need them and epic Mongolian folk metal music videos.
YouTube recommendations are tailored to what you watch. I end up being recommended car repair videos, security/hacking/surveillance videos, repairing old vintage computers and some like comedy and music stuff I like.
The stuff that you mention. You can literally say "Not Interested" on the video and it will show you less of content. I see none of it.
Recommendations are mostly tailored to your history, except with a couple hardcoded slots populated with some general-purpose "engaging" trash from your locale/geographical location, pretty much always political content.
And if you click on one, by mistake or curiosity, now you've sent a signal that you like it and will get much more of it in the next batch of recommendations.
They're not short-sighted; there's science behind it. The science of getting people to waste as much time as possible generating "engagement". All of this is A/B tested to hell and people's careers live and die by it.
Yes, maybe shortsighted is not the right word, but regardless, they misunderstand signal constantly.
I go out of my way to block accounts that post stuff I don't want in my feed and pretty much all of them see that as an invitation to give me more of the same content. Likely because I "interact" longer with the content since it takes clicks to block the account.
> Recommendations are mostly tailored to your history, except with a couple hardcoded slots populated with some general-purpose "engaging" trash from your locale/geographical location, pretty much always political content.
I don't see that at all. I use YouTube most evenings (I watch YouTube instead of TV).
I do have like traditional news media sometimes on the third or fourth row and you can dismiss that quickly.
> And if you click on one, by mistake or curiosity, now you've sent a signal that you like it and will get much more of it in the next batch of recommendations.
You fix that by simply pressing "Not Interested" a few times. It can be annoying. It isn't the end of the world.
This is not true. I have never seen that at all. I rarely use the YouTube main feed, but looking at it right now, it's 100% bicycle repair and cooking.
The idea that YouTube pushes a political point of view is itself a falsehood pushed by people holding a particular point of view.
This is an important caveat. I get recommended what the parent commenter you replied to stated, mostly videos on home repair, tech, and technological skepticism because those are what I watch. I also get Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and other alt-right pipeline dorks in my recommendations solely because of my gender and age. I never engage with political content on YouTube and I’ve cleared my watch history multiple times, these still show up.
I actually ended up disabling watch history all together and I’ve installed an extension (Unhook) that hides the sidebar recommendations, Shorts, and other useless features.
This exact thing goes on in my YouTube sidebar. Let's say I watch a video game streamer. The sidebar will end up consisting of:
- Same streamer, different video
- Different streamer
- Far right pundit blasts immigration
- Video game streamer
- Video game streamer
- Video game review
- Same streamer, similar content
- Ben Shapiro OWNS Liberals with FACTS
- Video game streamer
- Video game streamer
It's obvious that some slots are simply reserved for whatever YouTube thinks will enrage/engage. Nothing I do seems to stop this. I can click "Don't Show Me This" until I'm exhausted, and next time around, while they might not recommend that exact channel, they just fill these slots with different ragebait. There's no way to say "Don't recommend this shit or anything like it."
I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion from this observation. The realization you should have reached instead is that game streamers are highly aligned with the radical right. Those videos are in there because other viewers sought them out after watching the streams.
> I also get Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and other alt-right pipeline dorks in my recommendations solely because of my gender and age. I never engage with political content on YouTube and I’ve cleared my watch history multiple times, these still show up.
That doesn't happen. Firstly you literally click on the video and say "don't recommend channel" and you will never see a JRE episode again.
Also, just by how you phrased that whole paragraph. I don't believe you are telling the truth.
None of those characters are "alt-right". "alt-right" essentially means White Nationalist.
You cannot tell me that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are White Nationalists because of their support for Israel and one of them is Jewish. White nationalists really don't like Israel and Jewish people. They however were labelled as "alt right" to smear them, by other political commentators and publications who are typically on the left and American.
You would only use that framing if you were listening to those commentators and/or publications that used similar phrasing.
Also Jordan Peterson actually talked about addiction on a Joe Rogan podcast and it was one of the things that put me on the road to dealing with my drinking issues. I stopped listening to Joe Rogan about episode 1000 after they stopped being live and were prerecorded.
I have plenty of criticisms of them now. But I Jordan Peterson did help me at least indirectly. I don't watch either of them anymore and haven't watched them for quite a number of years at this point.
There are some subtleties here. One of my friends and I are both interested in camping and outdoor gear. This keeps causing YouTube to recommend videos on prepping and guns. Go ahead and block channels and select less of this and it sort of works for a while
But then it comes back with more. There are lots of prepping and guns channels. Maybe a pepper who talks about gardens gets highlighted or a gun thing that has a manufacturing complication or business hook comes up. There are many such channels, lots of content, and the connections are very strong, at least with YouTube recommendations.
He fixes up a lot of different type of vehicles and actually explains in detail what he is doing. A lot of car stuff is just people like do a dyno test of like suped up car, I don't find it very interesting. I end up just blocking those channels.
I really think that people are nitpicking a system that works reasonably well for the most part.
yeah but then they sometime just emerge some random stuff in your feed, and if you give in to it once and click on it, they will assume this is all you want from now on.
YouTube recommendations are always so rage-baity for me to the point where I blocked them entirely.
Can't look up a movie or a gadget without getting a thumbnail with big red letters saying that the thing sucks, this despite me avoiding review/reaction content like the plague.
> I've found the opposite to be true. If I engage with a video in any way shape or form, even to say I don't want it, they consider that engagement
I don't think that is the case. If I click Not Interested. Similar video don't show.
> Now you get baited with Member Only videos too. I'm already paying you $30 a month..
To members? Or to YouTube to remove ads? If it is the former, you have shown YouTube that you are willing to pay for memberships, so they going to recommend them.
Why YouTube specifically? In my experience it is the tamest of all feeds.
Not that they have any more morals or self control, they just seem to have a comparatively awful algorithm that brings up the same 14 videos over and over.
Youtube is one of those platforms I would probably never have used if my feed wouldn't be adjusted to me.
There is real gold on youtube, like for example the math explainers by 3blue1brown. But if you ever tries opening a private browser window and opening and see the video recommendations it looks like a platform only containing mindless trash, with the mental nutritents contained in a piece of cardboard.
And there are people who like precisely that: Mindnumbing somethings that just keep your brain from having a single thought.
If you’re using it as a tool it’s perfectly usable with just a search bar. I want to learn how to do something in a visual manner, I go to YouTube. Type in “how to replace [part] on [my car]”. All I have on the YouTube homepage is a search bar, because I used the Unhook extension to hide everything else.
This is true. But it’s also hard to hold against many of them. Because they are often isolated, slow or immobile, and in cognitive decline. I saw this happen to my grandmother in an assisted living home.
>Many older people I work with would love to have more required interactions
This was actually a big issue in my office leading to work from home being rolled back. The boomers want to be in the office so other people are forced to socialize with them, and they don’t want to be home because many of them seem to resent their spouses.
IMO it’s a terrible trade-off. What they lack is true relationships and friendships, and they're filling the void with idle workplace chitchat for the illusion of connection. I’d rather be at home. I’m getting paid to work, not provide social support for lonely boomers.
Many older people held the belief that isolation is good and community is for suckers. They move to the suburbs, completely go all-in on their family, and have zero friends.
It's unfortunate, but for a lot of people, their job is all they have.
I support a couple of retired people on the side, and they are totally addicted to the lowest quality slop on Facebook/Instagram imaginable.
It's so bad that they'll click on a link to see the latest slop, and ostensibly get one of those webpages that says they have 47 viruses and call the number. I politely told them that they shouldn't click on those links anymore.
To which they said, well, if I shut my phone off when that happens, can I keep on doing it?
It's like that Star Trek the Next Generation episode where they all get addicted to that game. It's creepy and sad.
Surely the responsibility here is broader than treating it after the fact? Perhaps it’s an over the top comparison but most places outlaw dangerous drugs— you can treat the after-effects but by that point a lot of the damage has already been done. Making tech companies answerable for having developed algorithms that serve up hours of obvious brainrot content at a time would go a long way.
(And like with many of these things, holding senior executives personally liable helps ensure that the fines or whatever are not just waved away as a cost of doing business.)
Yes it is an over the top comparison. I am a recovered / former addict (alcohol). I would never compare the two. I was spending too much time on Twitter a few years ago. I deleted my account. The problem was solved. It took me an entire year to accept that I had a serious problem and then another 9 months to finally stop drinking.
The brewery, the bar nor the bar ever made me drink. I chose to drink. I also was the one that chose to stop drinking. BTW drink is as dangerous or more dangerous as many illegal drugs IMO.
> Making tech companies answerable for having developed algorithms that serve up hours of obvious brainrot content at a time would go a long way.
You get recommended what you already watch. Most of my YouTube feed is things like old guys repairing old cars, guys writing a JSON parse in haskell and stuff about how exploits work and some music. That is because that is what I already watched on the platform.
Right, and recommendations for old car repair videos that you watch a few of per week is reasonable.
The argument I’m making is that it’s not beyond the pale for YouTube to detect “hey it’s been over an hour of ai bullshit / political rage bait / thirst traps / whatever, the algorithm is going to intentionally steer you in a different direction for the next little bit.”
They actually do show a several notices that says "Fancy something different, click here". They already have a mechanism in place that does something similar to what you describe.
What YouTube recommends to you is more of what you already watch. Removing stuff the you describe is as easy as clicking "Not interested" or "Do not recommend channel".
Also YouTube algorithm is rewarding watch time these days. So click bait isn't rewarded on platform as much. I actually watch a comedy show where they ridicule many of the click-baiters and they are all complaining about the ad-revenue and reach decreasing.
Also a lot of the political rage-bait is kinda going away. People are growing out of it. YouTube kinda has "metas" where a particular type of content will be super popular for a while and then go away.
I don't agree with this take. Some people are going to be more susceptible than others, just as with alcohol or other drugs. An individual choosing to stop doesn't mean much for society in aggregate.
I don't go down the political rage bait video pipeline, nevertheless next to any unrelated YouTube video I see all sorts of click/rage-bait littered in the sidebar just asking to start me down a rabbit hole.
As an example I opened a math channel/video in a private mode tab. Under it (mobile), alongside the expected math-adjacent recommendations I see things about socialist housing plans, 2025 gold rush debasement trades, the 7-stage empire collapse pattern ("the US is at stage 5"), and so on. So about 10% are unrelated political rage-bait.
Meh. I see this in my own mom, now. But 20 years ago before phones were huge, she already spent an absurd amount of time each day watching soap operas on TV.
I have a lot of elderly friends, from folk music jams. They’re in their 60-80 phase, plenty of money and energy, decent health, minds still in tact. They’re learning new tunes, arresting the decline of technique, interacting in person regularly with others. If every older person did this, their minds would stay a lot sharper for longer. Every day you’re minutely deliberately improving and learning new tunes.
Grab a bodhran or banjo and head to a local folk jam everyone!
Maybe it's not bad. In post soviet countries elderly already watching government endorsed man-hating gibberish on tv all day long.
So I would better prefer them playing three-in-row. I think after some time it even would be possible easier to "sell" to them playing some kind of minecraft with grandchildren.
Also, I vividly remember parks in Georgia (country!) crowded with elderly loudly playing chess and domino, instead of watching "who deserved to die by our god-chosen almighty army today" crap.
Read books, play chess, write letters, knit, sew, DnD, play music, wheel around and chat with others, there’s a lot of solid options. Their environment needs to serve those up in as convenient a manner as a device, not likely, sigh.
Is this new? My grandparents spent a ton of time in front of the tv, most of the day probably. By the time some of them were near 90 they couldn't do much more anyway, but I think it started decades before that, especially in winter time after they were retired
> I wonder if I will ever become that dumb too when I am old…
It's not very nice to call that "being dumb". Imagine that you live for 60 years in a country speaking English, and in a matter of a couple years, most of society switches to Mandarin. You may well struggle learning Mandarin as a 60 years old, and you wouldn't like being called "dumb" by young people who grow up with it.
I mean surely theyve seen a cat before to know that two legged cats don't dance with babies.
I don't think they're dumb either. But I do think they've been convinced, and manipulated, very hard, to just turn off their brain and power of discernment.
I didn’t grow up with SMS or internet video but I have no trouble understanding the idea of SMS scams and fake videos. This is not akin to a foreign language. People who grew up with movies or television are deeply familiar with the idea that things you see in moving pictures may not be real. People who grew up with mail and telephones are familiar with the concept of unseen people trying to trick you to steal your money. It’s not hard to apply these same concepts when the video and text is on a handheld device rather than a box in front of the couch or paper in an envelope.
The ones I know who fall for this stuff the most have always been gullible. They were getting taken by cell phone tower investment scams and anti-vac hoaxes decades ago and the only real change is the medium.
It's factually accurate; the converse of the Flynn effect (IQ increasing over time), plus the negative effect on intelligence of lead in the paints and fuels that they were exposed to, means that particular generation is on average lower IQ than the younger generations.
First, older generation having lower IQ than newer is neither the Flynn effect nor its reversal. The Flynn effect compares historical test results to current ones; not old people vs young people but old people when they passed the test long ago with young people passing the test now. If elderly people are loosing IQ points it's most certainly because of age not because they have had a lower IQ all along.
And the reversal of the Flynn effect states that younger people are actually the one having the lower hand on this comparison.
This is also what I think is a driving factor behind American politics today:
> Alarming and misleading news may be a particular threat to the elderly, who are twice as likely as under-25s to use news apps or websites.
Millions of people are addicted to watching Fox News paint a picture of the urban US as a war zone that rural and suburban residents should avoid at all costs. That doesn't even include the right wing AI slop on social media sending similar messages. One could argue that this is affecting Trump himself, whereby domestic policy is shaped around what he sees on TV and social media (where was he seeing videos of "bombed out" Portland, anyway?).
i didn't read the original article, but an interesting aspect to the elderly screen addiction is that there's a real imbalance in content consumption vs. content creation.
young folks on social media create a lot content (posts/photos/videos) meant for their peer group to consume, so their feed is a mix of authentic peer-generated content and whatever mass-produced stuff sneaks into their feed.
older folks do not share nearly as much. maybe a text-based facebook comment once in a while. so when they log and consume from their feed, they aren't watching things created by their peers -- they're seeing content that professionals created for the purpose of broadcast.
It's not just Fox News, and it's not just the right-wing. That's something that you've absorbed from a screen.
My black, middle-class, Democratic-voting father and stepmother who certainly were alive during the early 90s (when I was a teenager and actually on the south side Chicago streets, in danger) think that crime is higher than ever before. Democrats have absolutely spent most of their time trying to convince them that it definitely is, except when targeting Republicans, or trying to defend terrible mayors.
Tough on crime is almost the only thing second-term Democratic presidents run on. Focusing on crime, at whatever level, is always a suitable distraction for the dumb middle-class (R or D). The only thing that comes in second is focusing on poor people's diets. There will always be crime, and always be people eating badly; and are you pro-crime and pro-junk food on your dime?
> One could argue that this is affecting Trump himself, whereby domestic policy is shaped around what he sees on TV and social media (where was he seeing videos of "bombed out" Portland, anyway?).
More than argue. It's not just him, though, it's completely out of touch wealthy people who think of politics as a hobby, and are constantly bombarded with local news that consists entirely of crimes. There's no concept that the fact that they heard about 2 murders and 10 robberies today within a metro area of 10 million people doesn't give them any understanding at all of current crime prevalence. Or that they hear about street crimes, but don't hear about domestic ones. Or hear about violence but don't hear about financial crimes.
They've all got a story of somebody they know who was affected by street crime, too. One incident that a hundred people get to cite.
Trump also is just consciously playing middle-class dimwits like everyone else.
