
Plato Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug - fern12
https://eidolon.pub/plato-would-have-wanted-you-to-unplug-712a908a16e0
======
davidscolgan
In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of
video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not
nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games.

Consider how some people get much more satisfaction out of being in a World of
Warcraft guild compared to going to their public school. There is nothing that
would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a
video game, and there are actually people I once met at the Game Developers
Conference (GDC) who are trying to do that.

On the other hand, from the perspective of evolution, the human brain did not
evolve in the presence of things like high fructose corn syrup and infinite
Facebook feeds, and so it can require unnatural efforts to use moderation,
especially if someone is predisposed to be particularly addicted to something.

So, maybe like most things, the issue is more nuanced than just "video games
are horrible" and "video games are completely good."

~~~
hnthrwawy566
The delay between the sacrifice and the gratification (and the corresponding
neurochemical responses) in real life is often on the order of years or even
decades.

In video games the delay is often on the order of minutes or hours.

The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes
cannot compete with broccoli.

~~~
deepnotderp
> The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that
> milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.

It's ironic that you bring this up because I actually quite like boiled
broccoli.

~~~
Larrikin
More than a milk shake?

~~~
MaulingMonkey
I average maybe a milk shake a month, but broccoli multiple times a week. And
I'm on the "eat whatever the hell I want at all times" diet. Broccoli out-
competes milkshakes for me. If I had to give up one or the other, I'd give up
milkshakes.

Don't get me wrong, the sugar in a milkshake is delicious, but it's just not
hearty and fulfilling like a good meal can be. Of course, this _is_ well after
I started cutting back on sugary drinks during meal times. Not for health
reasons mind you - I realized it was messing with my appetite, which in turn
was limiting my ability to fully enjoy the rest of my meal. That it's
healthier for me is a nice bonus.

------
dvt
> Studies have shown that psychological issues, often caused by pain or unmet
> needs in childhood, are far more likely to lead to an addiction to something
> than that something (whatever it is—heroin, sugar, sex) is likely to cause
> an addiction in a psychologically healthy, happy person who has the skills
> to cope with the stuff life constantly throws at us.

Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive (I
wonder why/if Dr. Andrew Doan would disagree).

With that said, I think the correct headline would have been " _Socrates_
Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug." And, because it's Socrates we're talking
about here, we can't _really_ take him seriously. I'm not sure about him being
the Ur-millennial, but he was certainly the Ur-troll. The author herself
admits she's being a bit facetious (w.r.t. books), but I think the distinction
is important.

> Plato probably would have approved of Waldorf- or oppressive-Religious-
> homeschooling-style extremism—hell, he kind of invented it—and if we want to
> follow in his great tradition we should not only ban all screens but also
> all forms of writing and most literature.

This is _really_ pushing it. Quoting from his "Republic" is kind of iffy
because it's hard to tell whether or not the book is meant to be serious,
sarcastic, taken literally, or taken in semi-jest. Interpretations vary
wildly.

Either way, the article was a great read and I wholeheartedly agree with the
conclusion that instead of demonizing substances (or video games), we need to
fix the underlying psychological issues.

~~~
jamesrcole
> Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive

It's more than nice. Studies have shown that many intuitive notions are wrong.
So it's really important to test the intuition.

------
icanhackit
A verbose way of saying _don 't blame the drug, blame the shortcomings or
trauma in one's life that created the impulse to abuse a drug_. The article
also touches on how something pleasurable doesn't become a _drug_ until it
becomes an unhealthy addiction - as long as it's used or enjoyed in
moderation/with restraint, it's a medicine or tool.

If I could write that well I'd probably flaunt it, so no disrespect to the
author.

------
xchip
Except that the guy in the picture of the article is Socrates.

------
kfk
_So far I’ve connected this blue-screens-of-death fear-mongering to
technophobia_

Writing style today in English speaking countries feels a bit baroque and
over-decorated.

------
hnthrwawy566
The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she
read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least
with the deeply held belief that they can't truly be taken seriously. That
belief is probably so deeply held that she's not even aware that she holds it.

I know that in my own experience I grew up thinking that way. When you truly
accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than
the people that came before us it opens your mind to the lessons of history in
a very real way.

>After all, if we cling to this primitive idea that an addictive substance
must be eradicated, and if we live in a world in which sex and food are
considered addictive, where does that leave us as a species?

Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again
among great thinkers and writers throughout human history _because_ there's
something to it? Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives
because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities
are uninhibited?

Why are you so sure?

~~~
projektir
I think this view is more problematic than the one you're critiquing...

I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume more modern people
(significantly more modern, even), are a bit more enlightened on some
subjects. At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK,
yet ancient people did, which indicates some significant gaps in their
philosophies and high influence from outside.

> Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again
> among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's
> something to it?

Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of
things, or the Zeitgeist of that time. Generally, a great thinker does not
transcend time and is somewhat locked into their time, in that only certain
strains of thought seem to exist during a time period and others do not, which
indicates that overall variety of thinking is just not very high, regardless
of how much of a "great thinker" you are.

This, of course, it true for our time as well. Very likely many things we
believe today are heavily influenced by whatever is, in a sense,
"fashionable". Some ideas are best left unstated.

The age, or lack of thereof, won't really tell you how accurate or useful
something is, you'll have to evaluate it on its own terms. I don't like terms
like "primitive" because they don't mean anything on their own, but that's a
different question.

~~~
hnthrwawy566
> At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK

No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder
is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement.

So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental
nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like
to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have
now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.

~~~
projektir
> No one has ever thought sexism is OK...

They have. Aristotle:

> "[T]he relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to
> inferior and ruler to ruled".

This is exactly what sexism is. It's perceiving women as inferior to men.
_Why_ one does so is beside the point. If one finds justifications for being
OK with sexism, such as sexism reflecting nature, that doesn't change the fact
that they're OK with sexism.

> just like no one has ever thought murder is OK.

Murder is definitely very OK in the natural world, so if that's your sticking
philosophy, it's pretty much a necessary requirement.

> there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and
> gender roles

I already addressed that this is one of the limiting factors on "great
thinkers" and why often their thought patterns are so similar:

> Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of
> things...

> If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the
> possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that
> nature, that is your prerogative.

Oh, I'm fully aware we're not fully keeping up with nature, and I consider
that a very good thing.

------
mrdirt
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk)

------
doctorstupid
So we should allow children addictive substances and blame them when unable to
control themselves?

------
danhess68
Plato was a fascist.

