
The Acceleration of Addictiveness - j_baker
http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html
======
patio11
I worry about the acceleration of addiction in particular subgroups of the
population. WoW (or Farmville), for example, is not crystal meth... but that
flippant observation is a response to a core truth that some people just have
a lot of trouble saying no. Maybe they're poorly educated, maybe they're
genetically predisposed to addiction, maybe they're clinically depressed, for
whatever the reason they've got a weakened psychic immune system. It gets
dramatically easier (A/B testing! end to end analytics! using their own
friends' pictures as your call to action!) and stupendously more profitable
(virtual goods!) over time to pay extraordinarily savvy engineers and
marketers to design the Skinner's Box From Hell and extract money from them.

And what do you do if you're a startup founder at the next Zynga and discover,
running the numbers one day, that 80% of your revenue comes from 2% of the
population who cannot attend the user meetups because they can't bear to be
separated from your service for that long?

~~~
DenisM
_And what do you do if you're a startup founder at the next Zynga and
discover..._

It depends on what your goals were. :) If you were in it for the money you
plow right ahead. If you waned to make the world a better place (and get paid
for that) you dump it on your investors and move on to the next thing.

Another option is to see if you can put what you learned about compulsive
behaviors to better uses - I think the world would be better off if people
were compulsive about maintaining good finances, hygiene, business schedule
etc. Better yet, compulsively making sure they did the best they could for
their family.

~~~
philwelch
It's a tough career move, but I think you'd be morally obligated to destroy
the thing you created instead of just passively abandoning it. Or at least fix
it. Adding automatic crop harvesters/replanters to Farmville would do a lot to
heal Zynga's soul. WoW though, you just might have to turn off.

~~~
eru
Just add perma-death to WoW (and some incentives for not just grinding, but
risking your virtual life).

But that won't suit the bottom-line of Blizzard.

~~~
blasdel
I don't know about that, nethack is habit-forming in its own ways.

~~~
eru
I know that all too well. But it gives you geek-cred.

------
drewcrawford
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. Why is this "new" addiction
_wrong_? What does it mean to say it is _bad_?

pg is taking great pains to distance himself from _real_ addiction, like
crystal meth. Yet he never explicitly explains anywhere why the new
"addiction" is actually _bad_ , other than trying to loosely associate it with
alcohol. I don't think that the "addictiveness" of a thing _alone_ is enough
to call it bad. I'm way more addicted to air than a meth addict is addicted to
his fix, and I don't consider air addiction a disability.

Now perhaps he's right and it really is bad--but I think this is a fundamental
assumption that needs to be discussed and argued, not swallowed whole.

* Is it _morally_ bad?

* Is it _dangerous_?

* Can the claims of loss of productivity be scientifically substantiated? To what extent?

* To what extent is the comparison to alcohol valid? Is it mood-altering? Does it significantly affect decisionmaking?

I think these are important questions that we have somehow skipped in this
discussion.

My personal take is that we simply have a lot more free time now than we did
50 or 100 years ago, where we needed to spend more time feeding and clothing
ourselves, and so Farmville arises to fill the empty space. Could this be
redirected into something productive? Maybe? But people also burn out and have
inefficiencies, so I'm not sure you could extract much more productivity
unless we returned to hand-to-mouth.

~~~
pg
I defined bad as things you don't want to want. E.g. because while they give
you initial pleasure, they might give you net less pleasure in the long run.
Though that isn't the only reason you might not want to want something. For
example, you might dislike the environmental cost, or the thing might conflict
with some principle you held.

I don't think there's a sharp distinction between "real" addiction and other
types. I think there's a smooth continuum. Even among things at the extreme,
like addictive drugs, there's a continuum.

~~~
drewcrawford
I don't think the phrase "don't want to want" has any semantic meaning if you
try to break it down.

Here's a silly contrived example: I am addicted to air. A suffocating person
has no air. They are very well aware of their addiction. They wish they did
not need air. They "don't want to want" air. The whole of NASA probably wishes
humans could get along fine without air. But none of this means that
dependance on air is "bad" or should be avoided in the normative case.

I agree with you 100% that there is a smooth continuum of addiction. Where we
disagree (and where, I would say, you've forgotten to argue something) is that
you believe addiction and badness are inherently correlated.

~~~
pg
I think the reason it seems meaningless not to want to want air is that we're
influenced the apparent impossibility of doing without it. But imagine if it
actually were possible. E.g. if in some advanced future technology the blood
could be oxygenated directly, or our brain states were transferred to some
form of computer. Then it's reasonable to imagine someone not wanting to be
tied to tedious, corporeal respiration.

I wouldn't call it bad to want air. It doesn't bother me to have to breathe,
though to be honest I hadn't thought about it any more than a medieval peasant
would have thought about the possibility of flying across the Atlantic. But
I'd be annoyed if I were no longer able to fly across the Atlantic, and it's
not inconceivable that someone in x years might be annoyed at having to
breathe.

~~~
drewcrawford
Maybe I am too tired tonight, but I don't see how this reply addresses the
question--why is addiction (perhaps specifically "internet addiction" or
whatever you want to call it)--bad enough to warrant "hip flask" and other
equivalences with alcohol?

My comment about the oxygen was trying to derail the equivalence of
addictiveness with badness by a "proof by counterexample". The proof goes like
this: If oxygen is addictive, and if it is not bad, then not all addictive
things are bad.

I am having trouble parsing your reply, but it seems that the premise of the
proof that you are attacking is not the goodness/badness of oxygen, which you
do not dispute, but you do not think it qualifies as actually addictive
because at some point it will be cured, just as the "dependence" on "[not]
flying across the atlantic" was cured.

Again, it is late, and I am probably misreading you, but we will probably at
some point find a cure for all sorts of addictions, but this does not make
them any less real or potent right now. It might _console_ you, as you
suffocate, that someday people will no longer die this way. But it cannot
_help_ you. The need for oxygen is still substantial.

~~~
pg
We may be talking past one another. Perhaps it would help if you picked out a
sentence or passage from the essay that seems false.

------
kirse
Maybe PG and I would agree on this, because I do think things are becoming
more "addictive", but I don't believe he's addressed the root cause of the
problem.

I think with new technological advances, etc, things are becoming better at
being "false substitutes" -- i.e. masquerading themselves as the authentic
ways in which we should best satisfy the natural human desires and instincts
we all have within us.

Addiction comes into play when we are consistently using a false substitute
instead of the real thing, so addiction is really much farther down the road -
at that point your brain has been fully deceived to indulge in these false
substitutes...

Examples:

 _1\. Processed "Fat Free" garbage food and fad diets instead of healthy
eating and normal exercise.

2\. Facebook instead of "Face-to-face" social networking

3\. HD porn instead of healthy sexual relationships

4\. Online dating instead of learning human interaction

5\. Books like "The Game" or PUA. Rather than addressing your inner confidence
issues, you read this, learn the rules, and treat women like they're another
sport

5\. Passively watching TV and sucking up the Internet for mental
"stimulation", rather than reading books, creating, and building things.

6\. Constantly seeking your 15 minutes of fame and attention (which is FAR
easier to get these days) rather than real love and affection

7\. The list goes on..._

I know for a fact this list will be controversial, but I think people will
agree with me that these are, in fact, substitutes for the best way to satisfy
the many human desires we have. Obviously if you're not addicted, then good
for you. It's harsh though. Suck it up and desire to do better. I'm certainly
guilty of some of them myself.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Even if we accept your frame, it's not a simple thing. Consider these "false"
substitutes:

Large quantities of mass-produced food instead of meager quantities of
undependable crops that you spend 90% of your working life growing;

Facebook instead of being lonely and isolated in your suburban home, miles
from any of your friends;

HD porn instead of _unhealthy_ sexual relationships;

Online dating instead of avoiding social situations because you never meet
anyone you actually want to talk to, and when you do they're always seeing
someone else;

Chess and WoW instead of mortal combat and intertribal warfare;

Football fandom instead of burning the fields of rival clans and kidnapping
their women and children.

Inventiveness taketh away, but it also giveth.

~~~
alextp
But some of the things you mention only look bad when compared to even
crappier alternatives.

> Large quantities of mass-produced food instead of meager quantities of
> undependable crops that you spend 90% of your working life growing;

Around the baby boomer generation until people 20 or so years younger there
was a sweet spot where mass-produced food was available but more expensive
than more traditionally-prepared and traditionally-grown food. Also, people
spent a lot more time cooking (and less time watching cooking tv shows), which
helped create a relationship with food that wouldn't stand today's fast food
habits. At least here in Brazil.

> Facebook instead of being lonely and isolated in your suburban home, miles
> from any of your friends;

The solution to this existed before the suburbs (which are a post-ww2
phenomenon), and is called living in small cramped places in cities close to
where you work and to most people you will meet. Some people still live like
this, and enjoy it. Suburbs are soul crushing, but they are by no means
necessary.

> HD porn instead of unhealthy sexual relationships;

Well, not every sexual relationship is unhealthy, and if you ignore the
healthy ones this is vacuously good. The truth is, developing healthy sexual
habits is a difficult part of growing up, and keeping people in fantasy land
is not a solution to this anymore than giving everyone a government allowance
is a solution to the problem that it's hard to find fulfilling jobs.

The other points are less glaringly false, but have small subtleties that can
be teased out.

~~~
jacobolus
Which people in Brazil are we talking about, that had such better diets 50-60
years ago? In 1950, the life expectancy from birth in Brazil was 50 years (a
big improvement from before 1930 when life expectancy was about 33 years; by
1975 the life expectancy was about 60 years, and today it's about 73 years).
Part of this was high infant mortality and poor access to healthcare, but
another big part of it was that Brazil, like most of the world, mostly
consisted of chronically undernourished people.

(These data are eyeballed from <http://www.gapminder.org/world/>)

~~~
alextp
I mean my parents, my girlfriend's parents, my friends' parents, and almost
every middle-class to upper-class person my age's parents as well. Not our
grandparents, mind you.

~~~
jacobolus
> _almost every middle-class to upper-class person_

Okay. That is only a fraction of the population of Brazil, which has long had
one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world.

------
bokonist
_I worry we may be heading for a future in which only a few people plot their
own itinerary through no-land, while everyone else books a package tour._

That's been the case for the majority of human history. It's mostly the case
now. Most non-religious, progressive thinking people, don't actually think
through most issues for themselves. They believe in institutions - academia,
NPR, etc. Most people believe what they do about nutrition for instance, not
from reading studies themselves, but through accredited officials (PHD's) as
interpreted by the NYTimes.

~~~
NickPollard
I'm not sure whether you're particularly referring to media bias and dumbed-
down science journalism, which is certainly an issue, but the general practice
of 'trusting an expert' seems sound to me - the effort required to become an
expert yourself in every field that affects you would be incredible, whilst
trusting someone else who has that expert knowledge to translate into layman's
terms for you is more efficient.

This is essentially just society optimizing itself through specification -
just have 1 person become the nutrition expert and do all the tests and
experimentation, and then they can share that knowledge with the rest. Whilst
the nutritionist is busy, that leaves others free to invent fusion power and
quantum computing.

~~~
jacoblyles
This phenomenon, also called "rational ignorance" by economists, is a problem
for democracies. Not every person has the time to become an expert on
everything, but they still vote on it.

~~~
moultano
I wonder how many people would be happy to "delegate their vote" if there was
some officially supported way of doing it.

This would be an interesting way of reimagining representative democracy in
the digital age. Why should we bother limiting ourselves to a fixed number of
representatives? Let everyone vote on everything _but_ let people choose to
assign their vote to someone else.

Rather than electing representatives, I'd choose someone whose intellect and
experience I trust, and delegate my voting rights to them. They'd become my
representative. When someone accumulated enough other people's votes, they'd
reach the political stature of people like senators.

~~~
gaius
But that is how it works. I delegate my vote to my MP, and they vote on my
behalf in Parliament.

~~~
barry-cotter
Only if the candidate you voted for won. If they didn't they're still the
representative of your constituency, but not in any politically meaningful
sense _your representative_.

Something closer to moultano's proposal would be a running referendum on
everything, where you can choose to revocably delegate your vote (revocable as
in you can remove the delegation, not reverse the vote).

~~~
gaius
But even an MP I didn't vote for, I can still write to, or show up at their
constituents meeting or whatever. They're still going to pay attention, a)
they don't know how I voted anyway and b) they want my vote next time!

------
DenisM
_It will actually become a reasonable strategy (or a more reasonable strategy)
to suspect everything new._

No. The reasonable strategy is, and has always been, defining the positive
outcomes you want to reach rather than negative ones you want to avoid. The
opposite of "drunk" is not "he avoids drinking", it's "he lives a fulfilled
life without allowing alcohol to consume his existence".

The opposite of internet addict is not someone who abstains from internet, it
is someone who lives a balanced life with work and play in equal measures, and
play being divided amongst all the nature requires from us - exercise, family,
friends, sex, artistic self-expression, fooling around with no purpose etc.

The same is true for any other addiction.

~~~
abstractbill
_The same is true for any other addiction._

The internet, for me, has been different to any other addiction because it has
_changed_ so much as I've been using it (and very gradually, so I didn't
notice for a long time).

~~~
DenisM
but now you know, right?

------
michael_nielsen
The "Slow movement" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Movement> ) is an
interesting example of an attempt to create a mass movement that addresses
some of these issues, while not completely cutting off modern conveniences.

(I'm linking it not because I agree, but because it's an interesting example
of an attempt to collectively change people's response to modern technology.
Examples like the Amish are in a similar vein, but much more extreme.)

------
Harj
_You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't
think you're weird, you're living badly._

i've been surprised by just how true this statement is. i resolved to make
some lifestyle changes this year to be healthier (without being overly
zealous) and it's been amazing how reactions have made me feel like i'm
behaving strangely. especially regarding alcohol at social events.

~~~
robryan
This depends, if you flat refuse all alcohol I can see how this would come
across strange at social events. People that are drinking want everyone else
in their presence to be loosened up a little as well. I would imagine the
reaction would be different between I don't drink and I'm only having a
couple.

What is more interesting would be if your not drinking but are still relaxed
and are lively with other people present, whether you seem strange because
your not drinking or whether it's got to do with your interactions due to not
drinking.

I personally don't see anything wrong with not drinking unless your acting
condescending to those that have had a few.

~~~
greendestiny
I think you're onto to something there. People probably have good reasons to
try and avoid mismatches in levels of drinking at an event. Drinking breaks
down social barriers but in doing so it makes people vulnerable. Maybe if you
can sufficiently signal your commitment to the social situation without
drinking you'd do better - ie make a bit of a fool of yourself to show your
uninhibited state. As an experiment perhaps next party the grandparent
commenter goes to he can wear a ridiculous Hawaiian shirt or something.

~~~
byw
I can see how it could put the drinker in a vulnerable position. Though what's
interesting is when I am around drunk people, my own inhibition naturally
drops even without drinking.

------
geebee
While everyone talks about the wired generation, I think that the ability to
focus on one thing for an extended period of time may become the killer mental
app of the future.

The long hikes that PG mentioned are a good idea. I've started to do things
that exercise my ability to focus. Reading challenging novels and writing are
good drills.

I've also started trying to recognize when I try to do two things at once and
look for opportunities to focus on only one thing. This can be trivial. I'll
fold laundry while watching a tennis match, but I avoid browsing the web. I've
noticed that if I do this while watching sports, I quickly lose track of
what's going on in the game.

Lastly, I'm more certain than ever that you really need to be engaged (maybe
even passionate) with your work to stand a chance against distraction. About 6
months ago, I was really enjoying my programming project, and focus came
easily. It took no motivation to get started. I did check HN, but I wasn't
killing time on it.

------
shadowsun7
I believe pg's contention of why more things become addictive is too
simplistic. Sure, we make more of what we want, but not everything we want is
addictive, and not everything we want has the capacity for becoming addictive.

While reading the article, I couldn't help but think back to a David Foster
Wallace essay (I think it was _E Unibus Pluram_ , on the nature of television)
that proposed the following definition of addictiveness:

Something is addictive in the worst way if it proposes itself as a solution to
the problems that the addiction itself creates.

For example: - I enjoy practicing Judo, but Judo isn't addictive. It isn't
because it isn't a solution to the problems associated with it (i.e.: I don't
play more Judo to elevate injuries). Whereas if I drink and feel guilty for
drinking, I can drink more to elevate the guilt, which just leads me to
feeling more guilty, and so then I drink some more, etc et all.

(Or if I feel guilty because I'm on the Internet so much, I can go find a game
or surf Facebook or do fake work to elevate the guilt - so I can 'worry about
it later', and this leads me down a vicious cycle of procrastination.)

The point I'm making here is that not everything we want will turn out
addictive - that is, not everything can propose itself as a solution to the
problems it creates. Those traits are limited to only a few kinds of things.

And so it would perhaps be better to say that addiction is accelerating
because accelerating technology allows us to create more things, and some of
these things are bound to have those addictive traits.

------
tmsh
The link to the Paleolithic diet made me think that one strategy against
increasing addition is to normalize for evolutionary time. Still requires a
lot of learned, subjective insight. But basically, anything that has proved
itself via evolution is more sturdy and is worth congregating around (these
include immediate things that affect the body, but also the evolution of
societies, etc.).

Bravo on another great essay though. This made me smile:

 _You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't
think you're weird, you're living badly._

~~~
xiaoma
The Paleolithic diet is one of the dumbest ideas I've encountered in my entire
life. Its followers tend to discount vast piles of medical research in favor
of tiny experiments that suggest what they hope to be true. This kind of
behavior is common for adherents of any fringe diet, but paleo goes a step
further.

Even its _concept_ is flawed. Some things it discards, such as wheat are
barely changed from what our ancestors were eating long before agriculture or
town settlements. One reason wheat was adopted so widely so early is that it
didn't need to change much to be domesticated (see _Guns Germs and Steel_ ).
Strawberries on the other hand, weren't domesticated until medieval times, and
the same is true of many nuts, most notably almonds. Cattle has also undergone
a far larger genetic transformation than many of our primary grain crops. Most
damning to the idea of a paleo diet is that we have, too.

Human evolution has clearly accelerated with population growth. According to
some anthropologists, modern humans differ more from those 5,000 years ago
than those humans differed from Neanderthal.

<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1043228620071210>

In short, the paleo diet rests on flawed assumptions about evolution, the
history of agriculture and ignores the main body of nutritional research and
is rightfully considered a fad diet by the NHS and similar organizations.

Edit: It's also horribly unsustainable. A hummer-driving vegan doesn't have
anywhere near the ecological footprint of a bicycle-riding "paleo" dieter.

~~~
tremendo
_> The Paleolithic diet is one of the dumbest ideas I've encountered in my
entire life. Its followers tend to discount vast piles of medical research in
favor of tiny experiments that suggest what they hope to be true. This kind of
behavior is common for adherents of any fringe diet, but paleo goes a step
further_

While there is indeed a paleo re-enactment fringe that tries to live as they
understand our ancient ancestors would, not just nutrition-wise, I find that
there's actually a good bit of research-based and evidence-based thinking
going over these "vast piles of medical research" you mention and finding that
they don't really support the current accepted dogma of nutritional
recommendations, and that indeed this research is pretty flimsy itself, if you
were to believe Taubes, Lustig, Cordain, Eades, others, and tellingly now
there is an alarming increase in obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases
as an apparently direct result of the public by-and-large complying with
common-wisdom "healthy" recommendations.

 _> Even its concept is flawed. Some things it discards, such as wheat are
barely changed from what our ancestors were eating long before agriculture or
town settlements_

Oh? Wheat requires several months from cultivation to being ready for
consumption. Perhaps it was consumed "long before agriculture or town
settlements" but then it seems quite implausible that it would amount to
anything significant in terms of nutrition, not to mention that it still
requires quite a bit of processing before it can be eaten so it isn't exactly
readily available nutrients.

But lets for a moment assume that yes, there have been many changes and
genetic transformations to fruits, nuts, the meats we consume and ourselves.
How is it unreasonable, given the catastrophic results of following current
nutritional dogma, to look into our over 2 Million- year evolutionary history
for clues on what we may be doing wrong, and noting that we've had agriculture
for only 0.5% of that time. Even if after agriculture our rate of change
multiplied 10-fold, we would still have a nutritional heritage of over 95% of
our history where we most likely did not consume, in general, 60-80% of our
nutrients from grains and certainly not from sugar, or refined vegetable oils.

That sounds like a pretty good clue to me.

 _> is rightfully considered a fad diet by the NHS and similar organizations_

And then people all over are giving these ideas a go, and lo! they're feeling
better, losing their excess weight, reversing chronic diseases, feeling
energetic, not having hunger ups-and-downs, not feeling bloated, etc.
(granted, this is all anecdotal evidence) And yet this is one of the dumbest
ideas you've encountered in your entire life? You must be pretty lucky having
a life of plentiful great ideas.

 _> It's also horribly unsustainable. A hummer-driving vegan..._

There was the shadow of a reasonable argument there. It is entirely possible
that given our current population of over 6 billion people, not all of us
could follow the exact same diet, then again, there's no reason why anyone
would suggest that. A good 1/5th of earth's population does not eat cattle for
cultural reasons, cattle is not the only meat, and it can be raised
sustainably (while being more nutritious), and there are other good sources of
the necessary nutrients from the paleo perpective, and the needs of a male
vary from those of a female, from a baby, from a child, from youth to middle
age to old age, from summer to winter, from health to injury to fertility vs
infertility, from athletes to sages, etc. There's plenty of wiggle room for me
to believe that it is indeed sustainable.

Sorry for the long post.

~~~
xiaoma
_I find that there's actually a good bit of research-based and evidence-based
thinking going over these "vast piles of medical research" you mention and
finding that they don't really support the current accepted dogma of
nutritional recommendations, and that indeed this research is pretty flimsy
itself, if you were to believe Taubes, Lustig, Cordain, Eades, others, and
tellingly now there is an alarming increase in obesity, diabetes and other
chronic diseases as an apparently direct result of the public by-and-large
complying with common-wisdom "healthy" recommendations._

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "current nutritional
dogma". What _I_ was talking about was the fact that the longest lived people
in the world eat rice as a primary nutritional staple, or a combination of
rice and wheat. All of the countries with the worst obesity and life-style
disease epidemics are countries which consume far more protein than necessary
and a great deal of meat in general. Not only that, but the proportion is
linear-- the US and Mexico consume the most animal products and have the worst
rates of lifestyle diseases, with Canada and the UK slightly behind that, and
so on all the way to the leanest and least "paleo" countries in eastern Asia.

Even in the healthiest of countries, i.e. Japan, S. Korea, etc, those people
who have adopted higher-protein western style diets are the same people
starting to manifest some of the same lifestyle diseases westerners have had
for decades. Those eating more traditional, mostly plant-based diets are not.

As someone who has lived in Asia for the most of my life it sickens me to see
fat people who eat too much meat grasp and Atkins, paleo and other fad diets
that involve eating even _more_ of what made them sick in the first place. I
know a lot of people who eat rice or noodles every single meal and not a
single one are as fat as the average person I see when I go back to visit the
US.

The avoidance of highly processed food is sound, but the overall diet is
anything but.

~~~
starkfist
I'm no paleo advocate, but your statistics are totally wrong.

Denmark is the world leader in per-capita meat consumption, followed by New
Zealand and Luxembourg. The USA is number 4. Canada is in the top 10, but the
UK and Mexico are not. Mexico isn't even in the top 30.

Likewise, consider two of the main diet-influenced lifestyle diseases: heart
disease and diabetes. Countries in Eastern Europe are all ahead of the US in
heart disease incidence and deaths per capita, as are Germany, Norway,
Ireland, the UK, New Zealand, Sweden and Australia. There is a higher
incidence of diabetes per capita in Germany, Argentina, South Korea, Spain,
Mexico and Puerto Rico vs. the US.

If you don't adjust per-capita, the countries with the most heart disease and
diabetes are China, India and Russia.

~~~
xiaoma
Looking at meat along (as opposed to animal products), Mexico doesn't make it
to the top, but it is still far above Asian levels (even China). The US is
cited as being at the top in many places, though it's possible Denmark is
ignored due to having a smaller population than some US cities.

 _United States Leads World Meat Stampede_
<http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1626>

It's also worth pointing out that S. Koreans have a longer life expectancy
than people in either the US or Denmark, despite being less economically
developed and have a much smaller social system. Note that the countries
topping the life expectancy rankings, Japan and HK are both big rice eaters,
and that #3, Iceland gets most its meat as fish.

That said, after reading your post and once again researching the statistics,
I'm absolutely shocked how quickly rich countries other than the US have been
increasing their meat consumption. I couldn't find lists that looked at total
consumption of animal products, but the rankings in terms of meat itself have
changed a lot. I'm still 100% sure that eating rice at breakfast, lunch and
dinner is part of the traditional Japanese diet, and that they out-live the
heavy meat/cheese/butter eaters in other rich countries.

------
sharpn
I agree with the main thrust of this essay, but there are nuances & counter-
examples that make me more optimistic: For example, a nuance: More people are
giving up television, magazines & newspapers than ever before - perhaps we (as
humans) have a finite need of/tolerance for distractions, and are satisfying
this need/reaching this tolerance more efficiently via the internet now? A
counter-example (on the increase in 'hardness' of society's addictions): The
Finns (and others) originally did not have practical access to alcohol, so
they took locally available hallucinogens (and saw santa!). Then vodka, and
later beer became affordable, so they now largely drink these instead - ie.
the move is not inevitably one-way (see also various temperance movements).
Also Hogarth chronicled Britain's descent into gin excess, but although this
seemed overwhelming and permanent at the time, it was relatively brief.

In short: humans have always adapted better than predicted to change - so far.

~~~
jimbokun
"More people are giving up television, magazines & newspapers than ever
before"

In many of the discussions about people giving up "TV," it turned out that
many just turned off their cable and consumed video through Hulu, Netflix and
other online sources.

So, put another way, do you think even people who have given up TV, etc. have,
on average, actually reduced their total amount of time consuming content of
one form or another, when Facebook and everything else on the Internet is
included?

~~~
pyre
I think that people tend to watch more TV with less enjoyment when it's just a
cable stream into your house. I think that people don't end up tending to
things like channel-surfing. It's hard to plop down on the couch and watch
whatever happens to be the 'best thing on' when the video is on-demand and you
have a choice in the matter. This is the same reason that so many people felt
liberated by things like TiVo. It allowed them to just tell TiVo what they
liked to watch, and they didn't have to worry about gathering around the TV
set at a time specified by a channel's scheduling selections.

~~~
alextp
Just another day it dawned on me that an important part of the overwhelming
success of television (specially cable television) is that it's another
unpredictable-rewards skinner box. There are the good shows you know and
expect (and their fixed schedule induces lots of tradeoffs, like "why get up
now if X is in half an hour") and the possibility of finding something nice
zapping is akin to a slot machine.

Video on demand makes it easier to watch a specific content, but harder to
just zone out in front of the tv, which is the most addictive and destructive
activity.

------
abstractbill
_Technological progress means making things do more of what we want._

There are two reasonably distinct categories of things I want. I don't have
good names for them, so I'll just label them A and B:

A is things like: Artificial organs, cheap clean energy, cheap clean and fast
transportation, robot house-cleaners, faster-and-faster computers.

B covers things like: When I was quitting smoking, I wanted more alcohol and
coffee. When I was doing a boring job, I wanted to browse the internet more.
When I was exhausted from a long commute I wanted more and more TV in the
evenings.

Category B is full of things I want, but which I don't _want_ to want. What I
_really_ want is all the stuff in category A. I only ever "wanted" each thing
in category B as a short-term quick fix to some other underlying problem in my
life.

Capitalism is great as far as it goes, but I don't believe it is able to
distinguish between these two senses of want. Perhaps it needs an upgrade?

~~~
guelo
_Artificial organs, cheap clean energy, cheap clean and fast transportation,
robot house-cleaners, faster-and-faster computers._

Rich people problems

~~~
gwern
What's your point?

I could characterize nutritionally-void foodstuffs like coffee or tea, or
expensive entertainment like TV or the Internet, as 'rich people stuff' too.
If you're in the West, you're 'rich people'.

------
cageface
It's hard to escape the irony of the situation of the typical programmer.
Programming requires extended periods of focus and deep concentration but the
very medium in which most of us work is a firestorm of distractions. How can
you be an effective mobile app developer if you don't immerse yourself in the
experience of mobile media? We're like the crack dealer that has to constantly
sample his wares.

Like PG and others in this thread I've tried to combat these distractions by
limiting email and internet time, leaving the mobile phone off, and
deliberately spending free time doing things like reading books and going on
long hikes out in the woods. It's hard not to feel a bit at odds with my
profession though.

~~~
DenisM
Concentrate of fostering positive outcomes instead of fighting the negative
ones. What do you want to accomplish?

Say, you want to write a new mobile app. Your desire itself will consist of
rational analysis and emotional drive, the former being required to make it a
sound business and the latter required to plow through to the finish line.
Before you start, ask yourself - how much will this project take? one month?
Let's make it three months - a good estimate for overruns. Do you have enough
drive to plow through it without distraction? If the answer is a resounding,
enthusiastic form-the-top-of-your-lungs yes, go right ahead - you will not be
distracted because the shining beacon of the goal will pull you in the right
direction.

If the answer came up short of "super yes", you need to plan a set of
activities that will replenish your enthusiasm. Early user feedback works best
for me (and if you can't get it your business itself is iffy). Peer
encouragement is second best, if you can get it(that's a good reason to apply
to YC). Quality business metrics themselves are motivating in an addictive
way, just make sure to get addicted to the right metrics. Lastly, try
something that your family and non-techie friend can relate to. If you keep
telling everyone in your social circle what you do and they keep staring blank
in return it will get to you one day, underminign your motivation. Plan ahead
and don't let that happen.

And finally, remember back to what motivated you in the past and do more of
that. When you sit right now in front of the computer reading this post you
might not remember much right away, but as you spend more time thinking about
"what really gets me going" in the coming days, things will start coming to
the surface. Write them down as they do.

~~~
cageface
I think your suggestion to reframe this in a positive way is a good one but
the dilemma remains to some degree. For instance, I've cut out Facebook,
Twitter and TV and cut my time spent on various online forums down to a bare
minimum. This has certainly helped my concentration but I also feel less in
the loop wrt web development as a result.

But it's better to be building the next bandwagon than jumping on the last,
right?

------
cousin_it
_Alcohol is a dangerous drug, but I'd rather live in a world with wine than
one without._

I don't believe PG has properly thought this statement through. It's
extremely, unbelievably selfish. I like wine myself, but alcohol brings so
much misery to the world! If I were offered a reliable method to make our
Earth a world without alcohol (say, by tweaking the machinery of the human
brain ever-so-subtly so that alcohol no longer works), but it entailed killing
a random person in the street, I'd do it without a second thought.

~~~
cabalamat
> _It's extremely, unbelievably selfish. I like wine myself, but alcohol
> brings so much misery to the world!_

And so much happiness! I'm more of a beer man myself, but drinking alcohol in
good company is something millions (billions?) of people get pleasure out of.
Only a small proportion of alcohol users harm themselves or others through it.

~~~
cousin_it
Oh, I'm completely on board with the happiness! Sometime ago I quoted "loud
music, alcohol and girls" as the closest thing to "eternal values" or "meaning
of life" that I have :-) But I live in Russia and can see the misery of
others, because I'm not blind. Alcoholism is a huge problem here.

------
dmoney
Internet use seems to be my "ground state", what I fall into when I'm done
with the stuff I have to do. But recently I've realized that, even though it's
addictive, I don't really find it all that relaxing. So I've been trying to
reclaim my old ground state of reading books. The internet for me is like the
concentrated form of reading a book: you don't have to stay with any one topic
longer than it holds your interest. You can move from interesting factoid to
personal anecdote to hilarious cat macro without "wasting" any time on
background or depth.

I think the counter-addiction technology will have to be psychological.
Perhaps research could determine if certain practices make people more
resistant to addictive things, and it could become customary to have such a
practice. Meditation, self-hypnosis, ritual, counseling, introspection. Maybe
just doing things that are hard. I suppose there is a danger that any of those
could become addictive. Maybe the best you can hope for is to have a choice of
what you're addicted to.

~~~
hugh3
Y'know, yesterday I declared it "internet-free Sunday" and just turned my
internet connection off. I was amazed by how many hours there were in the day.
I did some exercise, read some books, went shopping, read some more books,
fixed some things around the house I'd been meaning to fix, did some writing,
and watched a movie I'd been meaning to watch. I was sad when it came around
to Monday and I had to sit in front of a computer again.

Internet usage is a crappy ground state. You can easily do six things at once,
all borderline-interesting, none useful. I think I'll make internet-free
Sunday a weekly event.

------
sendos
One problem that people who work with computers for a living have versus
people who don't, is that, if you are an internet addict and you are, e.g. a
nurse, you can always just avoid computers altogether for, say a week or a
month, if your addiction gets out of hand.

But for people who work with a computer for their day job, avoiding the cause
of the addiction is much tougher.

It's like if a TV critic had a TV addiction. He/She couldn't just stop
watching TV altogether to defeat the addiction.

Sometimes I think the only solution for extreme cases is to take a sabbatical
from work and become something like a waiter for a few months. No computers
needed and lots of human interaction.

~~~
wmf
A while back PG said that he has a separate work computer that's not connected
to the Internet. RMS goes even farther, only interacting with the Net via
email.

------
queensnake
Of course, the Amish are way ahead of everyone there. Choosing for slowness,
and especially, thinking about what they're willing to take on or not, and
where and how (eg computer at the office but not at home). It probably helps
to have a community around you, both to support the 'privations' and, to
lessen the need for addictants.

~~~
username3
Amish Hackers: How the Amish actually use and build their own tech (kk.org)

86 points by whatusername 196 days ago

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1046378>

------
Alex3917
"heroin, and crack have in common is that they're all more concentrated forms
of less addictive predecessors."

Heroin and crack aren't more concentrated, they just get absorbed faster into
the brain. For whatever reason the faster a substance gets absorbed the more
likely you are to get addicted to it. For any given drug smoking it is the
most likely to lead to addiction, followed by injection, snorting, sublingual,
and eating in that order. Obviously this doesn't change your point at all, but
I only mention it because it stands to reason that the addictiveness of other
things works the same way. (For example, you might be able to keep HN equally
useful but make it less addictive if there were a way to slow down the rate of
gratification.)

~~~
hugh3
While we're nitpicking, I'm not convinced that hard alcohol is actually more
addictive than beer or wine.

------
johnfn
Just like PG's last article, there is an inherent irony in finding this on
Hacker News.

PG _is_ right though, the internet _is_ addictive. The question of what to do
about it is still left open, though. For now, I'm going to disconnect for a
few hours. Hopefully when I get back on I'll have something productive to show
for it.

~~~
philwelch
If you don't spread the word about internet addiction on Hacker News, how are
the internet addicts going to find it?

~~~
sp332
It's a bit like putting cancer warnings on cigarette packs. Sure it educates
the target demographic, but it's not going to solve their problem.

------
philwelch
I actually _want_ to get an iPad just to quarantine my internet addiction. If
I treat my computer purely as a workspace I'll get more done while at my
computer; if I've got an iPad for other things, I won't go through Hacker News
withdrawals.

This was inspired by something PG said in another essay--that he deals with
internet addiction by using separate computers for work and internet. The iPad
is just a purpose built machine for that, in my view.

~~~
pg
It didn't work though. I always ended up slipping into using the Internet on
my work computer. Even after I bought a new computer, nicer than my work
computer, for using the Internet. So now I've gone back to one computer, which
I basically treat as radioactive and have exiled to a corner of the room. I
should add a warning notice to that essay.

Edit: Added one.

------
Tycho
Internet addiction seems to be the elephant in the room of modern culture.
Whole families are addicted, but it's not talked about. Not to mention the
more, shall we say, illicit side of the 'net.

That said, TV and newspapers are arguably just as bad (or worse) and they've
been around for ages. So that's... reassuring.

However I think the iPad an iPhone are good in the sense that they remove the
social isolation involved with logging onto the net.

~~~
patrickk
_"That said, TV and newspapers are arguably just as bad (or worse)....."_

How are newspapers as bad or worse than internet addiction? You don't have
most of the members of a family going off to read newspapers in different
parts of the house.

~~~
Tycho
Newspapers are like the internet in that every single day people waste an hour
or more of their life reading them. They also clutter your living room and
raise your carbon footprint. And also... reading the Daily Mail or The
Guardian everyday _can't_ be good for you! Realistically they're not as bad as
TV or the net though.

------
portman
I remember, many years ago (mid-to-late 90s), being afraid that I had grown
addicted to computer games. Between Command & Conquer (over peer-to-peer dial-
up!), Quake Team Fortress, Civilization II, and a few others, I was playing
30-40 hours of PC games per week.

I eventually grew out of the habit, and now don't find PC or console games
appealing anymore. The fact that I naturally gave it up without any
intervention means it wasn't an addiction.

Most other computer enthusiasts that I know or work with have a similar story
of "growing out of" their addiction to computer games. I imagine many on HN
have similar stories to tell.

I think the examples in PG's essay are "phases", not addictions.

And I predict that most of the people PG knows who self-identify as Internet
addicts will eventually out-grow their compulsion.

~~~
alextp
You have a point, but I don't think it's that simple. With things like hard
liquor, heroin, cocaine, and other generally accepted to be addictive things,
a lot more people go through "phases" of the stuff than actually waste their
entire lives on it. We've all seen slightly depressed people binging self-
destructively on alcohol, and some of my more outgoing friends have done the
same with cocaine when they were younger, and today live perfectly normal,
healthy lives.

Being "just a phase" for a lot of people (myself included) doesn't make it
less likely for it to be an addictive thing, makes it more (how many healthy
normal non-addictive activities are considered "phases" by some people but end
up eating out entire lives?).

~~~
memetichazard
Dieting - becoming vegetarian, vegan, etc.

Job aspirations - granted, this is usually children and teenagers.

Religious or Political ideologies. For instance, as a highschooler I was
convinced that Socialism was the best system - so long as you could do it
Right. I have since become more cynical.

~~~
alextp
It is arguable that some people develop addictive relationships with their
religious and/or political views, seeking reinforcement like an addict seeks a
drug.

But, yeah, the other examples qualify as phases without being as toxic as
drugs.

------
kylemathews
The OP seems related to Clay Shirky's argument about "cognitive surpluses" See
[http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Surplus-Creativity-
Generosit...](http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Surplus-Creativity-Generosity-
Connected/dp/1594202532)

His argument is roughly that strongly addictive behaviors arise to soak up
spare time created by technological advances, e.g. gin halls in the 17th
century england as a response to the industrial revolution and TV/Radio/Etc in
response to the dramatic drop in hours worked per week in the 20th century.

Hopefully our society will create new ways to use time in productive ways (a
challenge especially appropriate to those of us on HN) pulling many, otherwise
unsuspecting, away from worthless addictive pursuits.

------
andreyf
Sounds familiar:

 _Anathem is set on and around the planet Arbre. Thousands of years prior to
the events in the novel, society was on the verge of collapse. Intellectuals
entered concents, much like monastic communities but without the religious
elements. Here, the avout—a term for intellectuals living under vows and
separated from saecular society [...]—retain only limited access to tools and
technology and are watched over by officials answering to the outside world
(known as the Sæcular Power)._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathem>

~~~
thisrod
That's different. In _Anathem_ , the world suffered one Manhatten project too
many. Governments isolated the geeks and confiscated their toys as a survival
measure.

------
hristov
It is somehow comforting to know that PG is struggling with the same addiction
I am.

------
adamc
I think PG makes a good point, but I hesitate to call some of these things
addictions, because many typical people get over them. I watched a lot of TV
when I was a little kid, but practically none once I was past twelve. I
watched my daughter do the same switch, but even more rapidly. I found MMOGs
incredibly attractive when they first came out, but much, much less attractive
by a few years later (as measured by no subscriptions). A lot of things people
call addictive are qualitatively different from an addition to opiates, say.

Still, he's definitely right that the world is getting more addictive.

------
thingsilearned
I noticed the internet becoming especially addicting to me with the addition
of HULU to the internet.

Before HULU it was very easy to keep myself from wasting the US average of
4.5hrs of TV watching a day. I just gave away my TV. During that period I had
a lot more time to work, enjoy books, friends, the outdoors or other more
enjoyable but less addicting activities.

Now however TV is a part of the internet and I have difficulty blocking it.
I've tried editing hosts files, rescuetime, and even made my own app (8aweek
YC W08). But I'm on a losing battle with this addiction so far.

------
smakz
Very interesting essay. Internet addiction is in my opinion spreading like
wildfire, spreading well beyond procrastination as Paul Graham said and
actually impacting workspace and home environments extremely negatively - the
analogy to alcohol is spot on. You aren't procrastinating, you are the
equivalent of drunk.

Introspectively, the problem with my addiction lies in the acceleration of
production as well as distribution. There are more movies being produced, more
novels being written, and more content in general to consume. Technology has
been making producing these mediums easier and easier. Musicians used to have
to write down lyrics and notes on paper - now there are programs which can
practically generate a whole song for them. News can be written by your
friends who just got the latest scoop at a major conference. Producing content
has never been easier.

At the same time on the distribution side, the internet has made all this
content available at your finger tips instantly. As bandwidth increased, it
became almost too easy to spend 10 minutes watching news or entertaining on
YouTube or a myriad of other free media streaming sites.

These processes will only get more efficient and more effective. As a
corollary, the media which seems highly targeted and interesting to you will
become increasingly prevalent.

There are no easy answers, and I for one am taking the issue relatively
seriously. Getting away for extended periods of time without internet is vital
- which is also why I don't own a smart phone.

------
amalcon
"Liking something too much" is perhaps too weak a definition for addiction.
You're addicted to something if you don't genuinely need it, but it's
uncomfortable to seriously contemplate giving it up. I _like_ watching
television too much, in the sense that I would prefer to like it less, but I
haven't watched any in months, and this does not seem problematic.

I have to agree with the main thesis, though: however you define it, things
are getting more addictive. That seems like an almost necessary consequence of
capitalism. If your product or service is addictive, you can cause much more
discomfort to your customers without losing them. Almost every way of
improving the bottom line without improving the product involves causing
discomfort to your customers (the only exception being "get more customers"),
and any of those things can be done at the same time as improving the product.
Just look at credit cards: everybody hates them, their policies are extremely
abusive, but people are addicted to the convenience they provide. It's not
worth giving up capitalism for (it's still the worst economic system except
all the others, with posthumous apologies to Churchill).

I think there's perhaps a business model in managing the increasing
addictiveness of the world around us. I'm not sure where, but it's such a
potential value that there must be one.

------
mlinsey
The answer is clearly to rely less on social antibodies to specific addictions
and more on recognizing and fighting the general pattern of addictiveness, an
effort that this essay itself is a part of. The more we learn about the
generic properties of addiction, the more we can not only recognize addictive
and harmful things earlier, but also deliberately make worthwhile tasks
addictive as well, such as exercise as an obvious example.

------
dunstad
It appears to me that you publish your essays in bursts. Coincidence, or the
result of something else, such as working on multiple essays in parallel?

------
Mod_daniel
I wish I were kidding when I say that I had sworn off HN for a few weeks to
make sure i sufficiently devoted myself to a project. I lasted 2 days and the
first thing I see back is this essay at the top of the front page.

------
hugh3
I once read the suggestion (I can't remember where, but it was on the internet
somewhere, so if this is you then speak up) that the real reason that we
haven't been contacted by space probes from any other civilization is that all
civilizations eventually invent a MMORPG that is so enthralling they lose
interest in boring things like interstellar travel.

------
ziadbc
The easiest thing I've found to get over the internet addiction is to have a
critical amount of shit that is more mentally engaging around. I have a bunch
of MIT lectures on my iPhone, and I have several highly interesting books
around. I know those are usually more valuable to me than the blog du jour, so
if I feel that I've spent too much time on reddit or whatever I just pick up
the book, or go back to watching an algorithms course for awhile. Eventually
the mind gets quieter and its easier to focus more on the task at hand. Also,
use the internet for actions, rather than consumption. If you haven't produced
at least one blog post or comment for every ten you've read, go comment
somewhere or write a blog post. Produce based on what you consume, otherwise
you're just piling up mental debt.

------
jmatt
There is a broader underlying cause for these addictions. We can't adapt our
culture fast enough to address technological change. What applies to these new
addictions equally applies to our laws and other social customs. And through
other parts of science. Cloning, Stem cells, privacy laws, DRM etc. In the
broader context these are all unsettled ideas for our civilization. Example of
settled areas from an ethics standpoint - slaves, civil rights, women's right,
property ownership, etc.

I remember a philosophy professor discussing this a decade ago. And as time
has gone by what she said has made more and more sense. Maybe because
technology continues to accelerate while relatively speaking our social
customs stay (nearly) the same.

EDIT: added to it. Clarified.

------
jseliger
This: "I worry we may be heading for a future in which only a few people plot
their own itinerary through no-land, while everyone else books a package tour.
Or worse still, has one booked for them by the government.

Sounds very similar to much of Neal Stephenson's work, especially _Anathem_ ,
where the Avout plot their own way and everyone else is merely addicted to the
world. _Snow Crash_ also has aspects of what the world is starting to look
like, and I wonder if Stephenson is particularly well-placed to look at some
of these trends because he's got a lot of the hacker ethos and yet makes his
living by writing very long, very detailed books that demand attention if
they're going to be read and digested.

~~~
neilk
Not everyone else -- there are artists, the religious, the geographically
isolated, the military, martial arts devotees, and those who are just too down
and out to participate. Come to think of it, Anathem includes almost all of
them in the story and leaves the normals out of the picture entirely.

------
nickpp
Didn't quite get the Paleo diet reference: are you viewing it as a new (and
thus suspicious) fad or as an old, safe and proven way of eating?

~~~
kilian
This confused me as well, seeing how it's _both_ at the same time. :)

With regards to the diet itself though: works for me, so I'm happy with it.

~~~
nickpp
I happen to follow a rather different, mostly vegan, diet: Fuhrman. It also
works very well for me.

But I would like to educate myself about paleo, especially since it provides
some compelling arguments while sounding yummy.

~~~
kilian
I started eating primal/paleo/low carb (I prefer the latter) after reading
'good calories, bad calories' by Gary Taubes. I've been linking people to
these notes for a while now: [http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-
good-calories-ba...](http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-
calories-bad-calories/) you miss some nuances, explainations and a boatload of
references from the book, but it's a nice intro.

As far as being vegan goes, check out 'the vegetarian myth' by Leirre Keith,
I've been reading parts of it and it's both entertaining and it really gets
under your skin.

------
maximumwage
Why not just give in to information addiction? Unlike many other addictions,
there's the possibility that the knowledge gained from it could lead to
beneficial outcomes. As the book "Ambient Findability" says: what we find
changes who we become.

------
warwick
It's interesting that the article talks about avoiding addictions, rather than
making beneficial things more addictive. If we're in some sort of addictions
arms race, we need to strive for balance, not isolation.

------
mechanical_fish
This is a nitpick _and_ an aside, but this sentence:

 _When cigarettes first appeared, they spread the way an infectious disease
spreads through a previously isolated population._

...is not literally true. Cigarettes are hundreds of years old. They were
apparently being manufactured in Europe in the 1830s.

Of course, this doesn't affect PG's point in the slightest; he's remarking on
how the smoking boom _stopped_ , not how it started.

I wonder why cigarettes went through such a huge boom in the mid-20th century.
Perhaps it's simply a matter of better manufacturing techniques leading to a
decline in costs.

~~~
jleader
Better (more efficient/effective) manufacturing techniques? Or more
efficient/effective marketing techniques?

(I had a little trouble there with the adjective "better" applied to Madison
Avenue's promotion of cigarettes).

~~~
DenisM
I vaguely remember that potassium nitrate speeds up the absorption, giving
cigarettes more of a "kick", thus making them more addictive. When I used to
smoke (5 years since I kicked the habit, yay!) chemical-free tobacco felt less
addictive.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_nitrate>

------
joshcrews
Letting others be the canaries in the coalmine is a great strategy. This is
what the Amish have been doing.

150 years ago, they were not that different from the surrounding culture. They
became distinct as the pace of innovation took off.

As new innovations come, they allow a whole generation to consume it on the
outside, then consider adopting it only after it's been out for decades.

They seem kinda weird to us, but its a very wise strategy. Just because its
shiny doesn't mean its helpful for human living.

------
statictype
_You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't
think you're weird, you're living badly._

This is a great line. Never seen it articulated quite as well.

------
maukdaddy
Agree completely about long hikes. Sadly I was posting pictures from a hike in
the Tetons this summer. Not sure what that has to say about Internet
addiction.

------
blackguardx
The iphone is definitely a hip flask for internet addicts.

~~~
philwelch
I don't know about that. It's more frustrating to use long-term than a full
fledged browser, so while it gets the job done for utilitarian fact-finding
while on the go, it can't feed an unfocused addiction. At least not in my
case.

------
DanielBMarkham
Paul I've never been much on flattering you for your essays. You're a great
writer, but sadly none of them did much for me -- and you've got a willing
audience, so it didn't seem necessary.

This time, however, you wrote a good essay. Broadly-scoped, yet with enough
cogent sparkles to make it a worthwhile read.

Glad to see you continuing to engage on this.

My hope is that we're going to develop new social norms for what is "normal"
-- best operating range. This time in our evolution might be like when heroin
first was introduced. For a time, normal as in "regular people" were people
who used drugs. Normal as in best operating range were people who abstained.
They were probably pretty boring people, actually. Here's hoping the boring
people save the day.

Heard a new phrase last week, "digital drugs". I like it. Seems to fit.

Also, for more reading, here's a shameless plug for "Technology is Heroin"
which I wrote a year and a half ago on the same topic
[http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/02/technology_is...](http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/02/technology_is_h.php)
You said at the time you wanted to address this issue, and I'm glad it's still
on your radar.

------
johnrob
It might be too broad to refer to the internet as a single entity. Those of us
with internet addiction are actually addicted to specific things online - the
internet is just the medium.

In the case of hacker news, what we're addicted to is startup news and gossip.
It's ironic that this very morning I was thinking about how to produce some
sort of audio version of HN for my daily commute.

~~~
cabalamat
> _In the case of hacker news, what we're addicted to is startup news and
> gossip._

Not me. I'm more interested in programming technology and understanding how
trends in technology shape society -- and reading PG's essay has helped me do
this.

------
mark_l_watson
That is a great writeup. Hits home also: my wife and I had decided a while ago
to not have liquor in the house - just wine. I also hike a lot (live in the
mountains of Central Arizona (Sedona)) and my wife and I additionally try to
walk every day on easy trails. Getting away from computers for long break is
good in so many ways I'll not try to enumerate them.

------
dman
Ive been thinking about the addictiveness of information a fair bunch lately.
I would be interested in hearing from people about the following few questions
a) Is this just a geek thing ? Many applications we work on utilise existing
data, our tools are changing constantly, there are sage geeks sharing their
hard earned wisdom. To keep up with all the above we consume a lot of
information on a daily basis. A conversation with my dentist and a few doctor
friends were mostly replied with - "How do you get time to read on the
internet on a daily basis?". My dentist also pointed out that in his field
developments are few and far between so once hes out of the office at 5, its
no books or reading for him. b) I would also be interested in hearing from
some people who were born post 1995, or from a time when internet connectivity
was already pervasive. Do they look at the internet with the same eyes of
enchanted addictiveness or do they take it for granted ?

------
orionlogic
Most of the time we don't see surfing as pure procrastination that's why after
spending too many hours we don't feel guilty. We are expecting the indirect
returns of reading this or that, in the back of our minds.

Actually, iPhone is really useful location & time specific information
gathering device. If you dont put your tweet,rss or any push notification apps
(facebook included), than it realy enhance the way of life. I found it several
times useful when i am looking for a book at bookstore and get very quick
facts about the book.

The real dangerous device is iPad. From the day i have, i could not put it
away. Its really content consuming device. My nights in my bed are no longer
have the serenity of reading books but frenzy of consuming content channels.

Sometimes Gladwell's words keep coming to me: clearing big spaces of time.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6058607n>

------
tezza
As a possible weakening of the addiction classification, I'd hazard that what
may seem as Addiction is actually just Fashion.

Both Addiction and Fashion can be harmful... anorexia(addiction) and size-
zero(fashion), but they are different.

Fashions may be all consuming for a long period, but then they change, often
swiftly and brutally. A shift in customs (large,lengthy) is not required for a
shift in Fashion.

Fashion and addiction can co-exist, and I'll offer an anecdote. The Dance
Music scene in 1999.

.

Here there was some people with a bona-fide addiction to dance party drugs
(real addicts) co-existing with those who indulged in light drug taking in the
fashion for dance parties. Dance parties grew to quite an peak and the
associated drug intake too. But when the dance music scene burnt out in favour
of rock... the fashion drug element receded with it.

------
vegashacker
PG, would you say your long hikes are something like extended versions of the
shower thinking of "The Top Idea in Your Mind", or are they more directed
thinking--as in, "I want to think hard about this particular problem, so I'll
go on a hike to accomplish that."

------
natfriedman
This is what happens when our technology outpaces our culture and becomes a
danger to us.

I'm reminded of the atomic bomb: we had the technology to destroy ourselves
before (we feared) we had the emotional and cultural institutions to show
restraint.

In this case, what's become dangerous is the technology of satisfying human
desire.

We see this in pretty much every designed human experience, to varying
degrees. Yes, it's in World of Warcraft and Twitter on your iPhone and crystal
meth. But it's also in game mechanics in your hybrid car's display, airline
loyalty programs, and summer camp rituals that keep campers coming back every
year.

All the things in your life that know how to push the happy button.

Very thought-provoking essay.

------
rtrunck
If one has to abstain from society's norms to live appropriately, then I
imagine it'll be increasingly difficult to make a living for one that
abstains, at least in any area based on technological change. E.g., Paul would
have a harder time conducting an effective business (or even perhaps being as
well informed as an investor) involved with iPhone Apps. Not to say one must
make a living on the technological fringes (that become the societal norms),
however, such a course is limiting for the abstainer, for better or worse.

------
astrofinch
"You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't
think you're weird, you're living badly."

Based on available statistics, middle schoolers and high schoolers spend 4-5
hours a day watching TV. But in middle school and high school, I heard my
classmates discussing television fairly infrequently, presumably because TV is
not a very cool subject to discuss. So the guy who didn't watch any TV (me)
didn't seem weird--for that reason, at least.

------
HNer
Mobile phones have always scared me, these are no doubt addictive and possibly
very bad for ones health. In the sense that one is putting a transmitter which
is outputting up to half a watt right up to your head. As a electrical
engineer this was instinctively insane to me. We have long since forgotten the
alarm bells which some sounded about this process, I only hope that we don't
see a major backlash, like we did with asbestos etc etc.

------
cabalamat
> _I suspect the recent resurgence of evangelical Christianity in the US is
> partly a reaction to drugs._

I think it's wider than that: religious fundamentalism is a response to the
future shock Alvin Toffler wrote about. Christian (and Muslim) fundamentalists
find the world a scary place and want to retreat into a mythical past that has
more certainty in it.

------
domador
I'm glad Paul Graham doesn't write new essays very often. Constantly checking
his website for new ones is a bad enough addiction as it is. Reading and
discussing a new one every day would keep me from getting much work done. So
far, though, it's been a very helpful "addiction". Keep the essays coming (but
not too quickly)!

------
sliverstorm
It's funny; I have always had what I considered an addictive personality.

Yet, neither cigarettes nor hard liquor have managed to snare me, and I gave
both quite a fair shot. Nor has WoW wrapped me in it's tendrils.

The ironic thing is I definitely have fixations and addictions, but they are
to stupid things you never would have thought you could be addicted to.

------
nevinera
Using the word 'addiction' to refer to things that are not physically
addictive is one of my pet peeves. He addresses this point somewhat and I
realize that it is a very common colloquial use, but it shouldn't be. It
strongly conflates the two problems when in reality they are orthogonal
concepts that interact.

------
wazoox
The delay to switch from "everybody's smoking" and "only losers smoke" seems
much shorter to me. Simply see any 80's movie (Terminator, for instance):
everybody's smoking (cops, thieves, etc). 15 years later smoking in San
Francisco was enough to get angry looks.

------
nickpp
Thanks for this excellent essay. In my case, it describes a painfully current
issue.

I am looking for strategies on how to deal with this addiction. How to start?
Where to get help? Where to find the force to escape? How to convince myself
that I want to change and WHY?

~~~
DenisM
I answered here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1549691> and here
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1549734>

------
astartup1
Life is Addiction.

It is because same instinct that keeps us alive works when we get addicted.

Addiction is fun some time but painful at times. Just like life. We are rarely
happy still everyone wants to live. Then everyone is in same boat, we all are
addicted.

------
fragmede
People can already be defined by what they say no (or yes) to. Amish? No
Technology. Republicans? No to government assistance. Democrats? No to big
business. On a more personal level, do you drink? do you do drugs? And so on.

------
Tichy
Great essay, but the responses here make me want to say: let's not forget that
some of these bad addictive things also have their good sides.

A lot of the articles on HN are inspiring.

Sometimes it is good to switch off and relax with a movie or a computer game.

And so on...

------
discreteevent
Coincidentally I just came back from camping. No tv, no phone etc. No matter
what else I have tried it just won't give me the perspective I have now. I'm
outside looking in - Freedom but also total control actually.

------
revorad
_We'll increasingly be defined by what we say no to._

Does that make it harder or easier to keep one's identity small? -
<http://paulgraham.com/identity.html>

------
grandalf
I get more dopamine from HN than from any other substance yet discovered.

------
th5
another golden essay. i love the concise writing style.

------
Cantdog
To PG:

If you were doing a startup right now, would you get an iphone?

------
whyenot
Very insightful. I'll look for you on the trail :)

------
gojomo
Perhaps the only thing saving us from enslavement to superstimulus is the
hedonic treadmill.

And vice-versa.

------
zyfo
For technological addiction, here's the system the Amish people use to adopt
to something unknown:

 _... he goes to his bishop with this proposal: "I like to try this out."
Bishop says to Ivan, "Okay Ivan, do whatever you want with this. But you have
to be ready to give it up, if we decide it is not helping you or hurting
others." So Ivan acquires the tech and ramps it up, while his neighbors,
family, and bishops watch intently. They weigh the benefits and drawbacks.
What is it doing to the community? ..._ [1]

Inertia and a cost/benefit calculation, two things that are often absent in
the normal Addictive iGadget buying process.

[1]
[http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/amish_hackers...](http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/amish_hackers_a.php)

------
mkramlich
I'm glad I got a new fix of PG essays. I was starting to experience withdrawal
symptoms. ;)

------
gigafemtonano
I'm making an attempt at trying to establish myself online to catch the
attention of VCs and angels now that I've moved to the bay area, but the
result has been a constant urge to monitor everything. Buried within PG's
essay is a hint that maybe he thinks it's not worth it in retrospect - zen
painter or junkie hacker it seems.

------
fmora
Being addicted to cigarrettes is one thing. They are bad but not as bad as
drugs like Marijuana (Maybe, don't know, I don't smoke). It seems that for a
lot of people that do Marijuana it eventually becomes too mild for them. Also,
once they are using drugs, using more potent ones doesn't seem like a big
deal.

This is only an anecdote: I had a friend who started using Marijuana. He said
he only used it once in a while and it was no big deal. That it wasn't that
bad really because he didn't use any of the more potent stuff like cocaine as
other guys did. In his mind I supposed he was convincing himself that the
really bad guys are using cocaine. According to him using Marijuana is no big
deal. Two years latter I had a conversation with him and he tells me he was
arrested for using cocaine while driving. He tells me it is no big deal
because he only uses it every once in a while and that he is not like other
guys that use more potent drugs. No big deal really.

It seems to me that starting with a mild drug can lead to using more dangerous
drugs. And yet every once in a while I read somebody saying that you should
use Marijuana or that Marijuana is no big deal.

No point really, just ranting a little. I guess I would like to tell you
Marijuana users that if you like it don't try to convince the rest of us into
thinking it is no big deal. Go ahead and use your crap if you want but don't
advertise it to the rest of us as if it is no big deal.

~~~
DenisM
You have a problem with logical reasoning.

First, there are at least two possible explanations for the the even you
witnessed - one that marijuana was a gateway drug for your friend, and the
other is that your friend was simply fucked up to start with and found his
solace in drugs. You have dismissed one of the options and then concluded the
truthfulness of the other (which is a serious defect of cognition).

Your second problem is that you are treating an anecdote as data. It ain't.

~~~
fmora
That is why I called it an anecdote to begin with. It is a serious defect in
cognition that you did not realize that this is why I spelled it out as such.
I knew him during high school. From what I know about him I think he just gave
in to peer pressure as many do.

~~~
DenisM
Keep being defensive and you will receive no more advice - accurate or not.

~~~
fmora
Excuse me but I didn't ask for advise. I though we were having a debate.

~~~
DenisM
fair enough.

