
I’m a Tech Addict and I’m Not Ashamed - ejstronge
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/tech-addiction-phone-screens.html
======
base698
“Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in
the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its
authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes
its orders from technology.”

“Technopoly is to say that its information immune system is inoperable.
Technopoly is a form of cultural AIDS, which I here use as an acronym for
Anti-Information Deficiency Syndrome. This is why it is possible to say almost
anything without contradiction provided you begin your utterance with the
words “A study has shown …” or “Scientists now tell us that …” More important,
it is why in a Technopoly there can be no transcendent sense of purpose or
meaning, no cultural coherence. Information is dangerous when it has no place
to go, when there is no theory to which it applies, no pattern in which it
fits, when there is no higher purpose that it serves. Alfred North Whitehead
called such information “inert,” but that metaphor is too passive. Information
without regulation can be lethal.”

― Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

[https://www.amazon.com/Technopoly-Surrender-Technology-
Neil-...](https://www.amazon.com/Technopoly-Surrender-Technology-Neil-
Postman/dp/0679745408)

~~~
manfredo
> This is why it is possible to say almost anything without contradiction
> provided you begin your utterance with the words “A study has shown …” or
> “Scientists now tell us that …” More important, it is why in a Technopoly
> there can be no transcendent sense of purpose or meaning, no cultural
> coherence.

I don't think this is really related to the proliferation of internet
connected technology, or even technology in general. People have always been
using bad sources of information to justify false beliefs.

Before Facebook, people cited the crap they read in tabloid magazines.

Before that people cited untested (or poorly tested) theories like phrenology.

Before that people cited philosophers like Aristotle who claimed that all
matter could be infinitely subdivided.

And before that people cited whatever their local priest or shaman told them.

Information may have less regulation but it's erroneous to assume, as this
excerpt seems to be doing, that regulation of information makes for better
information. There is no shortage of instances in which those in charge of
regulating information degraded the quality of information, often to suit
their own interest. I'm still willing to defend the claim that in aggregate
freer flow and production of information improves the average person's
understanding of the world .

Do we really think that people living in regimes with more tightly regulated
flows of information have better understanding of the universe than people
with freer access to information?

Do we really think that people with lesser access to technology have better
understanding of the world than those that have no internet access?

~~~
base698
His broader point is that the medium melds the form of the message. In ancient
times we'd have "Old Wive's Tales" that pass the good information around. In a
Technopoly you have the same information taking the form of scientific papers.
Even for things which may not be science.

The secondary point is when you divorce these pieces of information from their
culture they become something else.

> Do we really think that people with lesser access to technology have better
> understanding of the world than those that have no internet access?

This seems related to what Nassim Taleb would say, "It's easier to macro
bullshit than to micro bullshit." IE. Your barber/chef cannot bullshit you,
but your economist/software engineer can. Over time the good information gets
processed via something like natural selection and you end up with good ideas
persisting. So it's not clear to me that a society with the level of
information and no clear anchors is full of more understanding than those in
the past. See: Lindy Effect

It's a very convincing argument. See Twitter, Facebook
(/r/insancepeoplefacebook) et all.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect)

~~~
manfredo
> Your barber/chef cannot bullshit you, but your economist/software engineer
> can.

I strongly disagree. Nearly all of the serious misunderstandings of the world
I have harbored in the past I believed because I trusted the words of key
individuals I held in high regard.

Your reference to r/insanepeoplefacebook actually demonstrates that many
people are able to recognize false information online.

~~~
base698
Eh, so if you get a dinner that taste like shit or a haircut that looks lumpy
and terrible you can't tell?

Held in high regard isn't the point, it's that you know what bad food tastes
like. It's nearly impossible to tell whether an economist on television making
market predictions has done due diligence or is just talking out of his ass.

~~~
manfredo
Perhaps I misunderstood your comparison. I thought your comment was saying
that interpersonal interactions in general (like a conversation with your
barber) don't spread BS as well as internet apps. It seems like you were
referring to the barber's ability to convince you that his skills are up to
par?

------
chess93
I can't help but think I would be much happier if I had never seen a computer
or cell phone in my life. Maybe its just my personality type. Maybe its
because I started at a very young age. It could be anything but I am fairly
certain that the constant stream of stimulation to my brain has done plenty of
damage.

This article seems analogous [1] to an article that states "I use hard drugs
and I'm not ashamed" authored by someone who manages to keep their use under
control. Sure, it works for them. Great, but they are not the failure mode of
drug use.

~~~
dondawest
IMO, the constant stream of stimulation happens one way or another. If you
were born 50 years before , you could get overstimulated by TV. 50 years
before that, and you could be overstimulated by books. Maybe my life would be
better if I’d never read a book or seen a cell phone — but I doubt it: I’d
probably have just sought out whatever the next-most-stimulating thing was and
become addicted to that.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

~~~
chess93
I am a big fan of the "humans are social creatures" mantra. In that regard, if
something is more stimulating than social interaction it is likely to be
harmful but if something is less stimulating than social interaction it is
probably fine. [1]

In this simple model, I would probably say books are definitely less
stimulation, TV is probably about equal (I have no idea), and modern
videogames and social media are definitely much more stimulating. So, books
would only become a problem in the presence of other factors but social media
can become a problem for anyone.

In highschool I would play high stimulation PC games while browsing the
internet on another monitor while listening to music while using voice chat. I
also had almost no desire to socialize while in highschool.

[1] It goes without saying that we probably can't reduce activities to a
single metric like "amount of stimulation" but I think this is a useful
thought experiment.

~~~
ahartman00
"using voice chat" ... "almost no desire to socialize"

What is your definition of socialize? What makes voice chat different from
voice, other than lack of body language/non verbal cues?

~~~
AQuantized
Obviously lack of body language is precisely what makes it different?

~~~
ahartman00
My question was meant to be: why is talking to people on voice
chat/text/whatever internet technology not considered socializing? What is it
if not socializing?

------
rvn1045
Finding that balance in technology use is far more elusive than what the
author makes it seem. What about kids and teenagers who very little self
control and awareness to keep things in balance.

~~~
Funes-
Most adults I know have little self-control, too; and even less when it comes
to technology (namely, smartphones and social media). And I don't exclude
myself, either: I do have to put out a conscious, sustained effort not to
spend the entire day in front of my computer. That, the pervasiveness across
generations of addiction to the more mainstream devices and Internet
platforms, hints at a problem centered around their very design. That's my
take on it, at least.

~~~
munk-a
It's worth the effort though - and don't be afraid to remove yourself from
technology that demands too much from you for what it gives... that's why I've
seen more friends of mine drop facebook recently - it's a nice place to keep
in touch with family, sure, but the cost for that communication is extreme.

------
idlewords
Kara Swisher's recent columns in the New York Times have been one of the most
surprising disappointments in tech journalism. It's hard to think of a better-
connected person, and one with a good critical eye, working in the field. But
what she's written for the NYT in recent months has been meandering and almost
completely lacking in substance. I keep hoping she'll snap out of it and use
the platform to have a real impact.

~~~
kristianc
Most of the important battles in consumer tech have been fought and won -
there's now very little to pick over other than the consequences of the big
companies getting really big, and what it means for society for people to be
'extremely online'.

Both have been done to death and there's now very little new to say about
either. The screen time one isn't even backed by science.

~~~
goldcd
Even to the casual observer/thinker "screen time" being a concern is quite
clearly "bollocks"

For as long as I can remember "society worries about every change" \- but at
least previously we focused on the content, rather than the conduit.

Online radicalization, porn addiction, violent videogames, video-nasties,
metal music played backwards, Elvis's hips, fictional novels, .. , gnostic
gospels, .. , overly-optimistic portrayals of mammoth attack on cave walls etc
etc

My concern with "screen time" is that we seem to have taken a step back and
have got even lazier in our "ill-conceived collective concerns about
'others'".

It blows my mind that a child today, anywhere on the planet, with a $100 phone
can access pretty much every thought or concept humanity has ever produced -
whether a thousand years ago, or 30 minutes ago. I'm 42 and what's happened in
my lifetime utterly blows away previous milestones like "writing", "printing"
or "recording".

What really, really pisses me off is that this isn't celebrated - despite only
happening "because of screens"

Now is everything on a screen good? No - of course not. But maybe a better
target would be "asymmetric engagement" or "prevalence of uncited facts" or
"Kardashians"

"Too much screen-time" should be taken as the equivalent of "Reads too much"
or "Discusses over a beer excessively"

~~~
lucasmullens
Who are you quoting?

~~~
goldcd
a fair point - but if it wasn't clear, all opinions expressed were anecdotally
happening between a single pair of my ears. My apologies if you'd adjusted
your personal realization of the world around you, based upon my post
(although, I can't pretend my ego wouldn't have fluttered a bit)

------
standardUser
Nothing facilitates my social life more than technology. It's how I find
events to go to, buy tickets to those events and plan how to get there. It's
how I keep in touch with people far away from me and how I plan trips to visit
them. It's how I find dates.

Without technology my social life would crumble. I'd adapt, sure, just like
I'd also adapt to a world without motorized transportation or recorded media.

For people who genuinely worry about technology's impact on their lives, I
suggest spending a solid hour or two seizing control of the software you use.
Turn off notifications you don't want. Uninstall things that don't provide you
utility or joy. Unsubscribe! I have to give myself a digital tune-up along
those lines every few months to keep things in check.

------
rdiddly
One thing to notice in this piece: A guy who just insisted on drugging-up a
mother and cutting her stomach open to take the baby out, jokes that she has a
problem with technology. I can hardly think of a more complete assertion of
the dominion of _techne_ over a natural process, than a caesarean. But that
technology is old enough to be invisible and beyond question, while the newer
Blackberry apparently merits all sorts of skepticism. Just an interesting
dichotomy.

Also beyond the scope of questioning are her diet and lifestyle, which are
affected by technology. If her diet is the typical technology-enhanced, sugar-
rich diet and her lifestyle is the typical technology-enhanced lifestyle where
you're not doing a whole lot of plowing in the fields, much less stalking prey
for 36 hours straight on an empty stomach... well then, those are going to be
factors that contribute to your "needing" a caesarean in the first place.

Anybody who is "anti-tech" is probably fooling themselves a little bit. Even
the most valiant resisters are declaring "OK no tech from this point onward,"
where that point might be in the 1700s or whenever they choose. If you were
completely anti-tech, you wouldn't even be able to pick up a rock and use it
as a hammer.

Regardless, while being anti-tech is infinitely debatable, we should probably
all be staunchly anti-scummy-predatory-BS-tech, just like you should be anti-
their less-advanced scummy-predatory-BS predecessors.

------
cafebabbe
And suddenly, the smart monkey ran out of minerals.

------
mychael
The NYTimes deserves a better tech journalist than Kara Swisher. She had some
good coverage during the dot com era, but she is now a member of the SF
technocracy she's supposed to be covering. It's time to make room for some new
voices.

------
lifehacked
Same here, my friends be like "let's go out and socialize" I be like "no way
I'm learning about graph algorithms", they just dont get it.

~~~
postsantum
Be careful, those invites tend to be finite

