The Acceleration of Addictiveness - <AUTHOR> http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html <comment><USER5> 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?

<comment><USER6> _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.

<comment><USER7> 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.

<comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER9> I don't know about that, nethack is habit-forming in its own ways.

<comment><USER8> I know that all too well. But it gives you geek-cred.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

<comment><USER10> 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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

<comment><USER10> 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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 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.

<comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER15> 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/>)

<comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER15> > _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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _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.

<comment><USER17> 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.

<comment><USER18> 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.

<comment><USER19> 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.

<comment><USER20> But that is how it works. I delegate my vote to my MP, and they vote on my behalf in Parliament.

<comment> 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).

<comment><USER20> 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!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _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.

<comment><USER21> _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).

<comment><USER6> but now you know, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 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.)

</comment><comment><USER23> _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.

<comment><USER24> 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.

<comment><USER25> 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.

<comment><USER26> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 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.

</comment><comment><USER28> 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.

</comment><comment><USER29> 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._

<comment><USER30> 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.

<comment><USER31> _> 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.

<comment><USER30> _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.

<comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER30> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 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.

<comment><USER34> "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?

<comment><USER35> 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.

<comment><USER14> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _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?

<comment><USER36> _Artificial organs, cheap clean energy, cheap clean and fast transportation, robot house-cleaners, faster-and-faster computers._

Rich people problems

<comment><USER37> 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'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> 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.

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER38> 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?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> _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.

<comment><USER40> > _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.

<comment><USER39> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 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.

<comment><USER42> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> 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.

<comment><USER44> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> 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.

<comment><USER46> 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>

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> "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.)

<comment><USER42> While we're nitpicking, I'm not convinced that hard alcohol is actually more addictive than beer or wine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> 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.

<comment><USER7> If you don't spread the word about internet addiction on Hacker News, how are the internet addicts going to find it?

<comment><USER49> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> 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.

<comment><USER51> _"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.

<comment><USER50> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> 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.

<comment><USER14> 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?).

<comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER14> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> 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.

</comment><comment><USER55> 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>

<comment><USER56> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> It is somehow comforting to know that PG is struggling with the same addiction I am.

</comment><comment><USER58> 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.

</comment><comment><USER59> 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.

</comment><comment><USER60> 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 - <USER3> 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.

</comment><comment><USER61> "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.

</comment><comment><USER62> 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.

</comment><comment><USER63> 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?

</comment><comment><USER64> 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.

</comment><comment><USER42> 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.

</comment><comment><USER65> 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.

</comment><comment><USER66> 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.

</comment><comment><USER67> 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.

<comment><USER68> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> 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?

<comment><USER70> 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.

<comment><USER69> 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.

<comment><USER70> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> 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.

</comment><comment><USER72> 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.

</comment><comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER73> 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).

<comment><USER6> 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>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> 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.

</comment><comment><USER75> _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.

</comment><comment><USER76> 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.

</comment><comment><USER77> The iphone is definitely a hip flask for internet addicts.

<comment><USER7> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> 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.

</comment><comment><USER79> 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 - <USER3> 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.

<comment><USER40> > _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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> 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.

</comment><comment><USER81> 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 ?

</comment><comment><USER82> 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>

</comment><comment><USER83> 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.

</comment><comment><USER84> 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."

</comment><comment><USER85> 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.

</comment><comment><USER86> 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.

</comment><comment><USER87> "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.

</comment><comment><USER88> 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.

</comment><comment><USER40> > _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.

</comment><comment><USER89> 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)!

</comment><comment><USER90> 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.

</comment><comment><USER91> 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.

</comment><comment><USER92> 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.

</comment><comment><USER69> 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?

<comment><USER6> I answered here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1549691> and here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1549734>

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> 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.

</comment><comment><USER94> 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.

</comment><comment><USER95> 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...

</comment><comment><USER96> 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.

</comment><comment><USER97> _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>

</comment><comment><USER98> I get more dopamine from HN than from any other substance yet discovered.

</comment><comment><USER99> another golden essay. i love the concise writing style.

</comment><comment><USER100> To PG:

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

</comment><comment><USER101> Very insightful. I'll look for you on the trail :)

</comment><comment><USER102> Perhaps the only thing saving us from enslavement to superstimulus is the hedonic treadmill.

And vice-versa.

</comment><comment><USER103> 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)

</comment><comment><USER104> I'm glad I got a new fix of PG essays. I was starting to experience withdrawal symptoms. ;)

</comment><comment><USER105> 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 - <USER4> painter or junkie hacker it seems.

</comment><comment><USER106> 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.

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER106> 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.

<comment><USER6> Keep being defensive and you will receive no more advice - accurate or not.

<comment><USER106> Excuse me but I didn't ask for advise. I though we were having a debate.

<comment><USER6> fair enough.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there an iOS HN client without front page infinite scroll? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for an HN client but every app I've looked at has infinite scroll for the front page.<p>Anyone know of a client that does manual pagination? I like that the front page is limited on HN. <comment><USER2> I use Hacker News (YC) by Dharmesh Patel. There's a 'load more' button at the end of the frontpage, so the scrolling is not automatic.

[https://github.com/cheeaun/awesome-hacker- news#ios](https://github.com/cheeaun/awesome-hacker-news#ios)</comment>


I built a tiny device for displaying Twitter updates on my table-top. - <AUTHOR> http://www.paramaggarwal.com/post/28330849923/scrolling-tweets-a-tiny-display-for-the-latest-news A scrolling text display that shows me the latest tweets from the @verge account.
Completely wireless via WiFi and uses a Heroku backend to get the tweets from the Twitter API. Built on the Arduino platform.
Check the full code and video on the link. <comment><AUTHOR> A scrolling text display that shows me the latest tweets from the @verge account.

Completely wireless via WiFi and uses a Heroku backend to get the tweets from the Twitter API. Built on the Arduino platform.

I have open-sourced all the code for the Arduino as well as the Node.js application.

</comment><comment><USER2> Cool idea! Is it possible to scale this with a bigger matrix display?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup! Of course! Used a smaller one for reduced complexity right now.</comment></comment>


"Suicide Prices" (and the Coming Crisis) at Big Law Firms - <AUTHOR> http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/10/suicide-prices-the-coming-crisis-at-big-law-firms/

<comment><USER2> _Those firms may be training clients, like department stores have done with their customers, only to buy when prices are discounted, which could lead to more major firms going out of business_

Doesn't this sentence indicate a basic misunderstanding of market economics? "Prices are what you train your customers to want". Really? I'll bet that's not what the partners say to each other when they're buying IT services or xerox machine paper or office supplies or hiring paralegals.

Besides that, what if a bunch of law firms go out of business? It's kind of hard to see that as a detriment to society as a whole, although I'm sure some divorces, hardships and personal catastrophes would come from it.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the same complaint newspapers had when consumers pulled out the rug from under them. They felt entitled.

You are worth what someone is willing to pay. With a massive talent dump of new lawyers out there, supply is far outstripping demand.

</comment><comment><USER4> And _Pro Bono_ work isn't on the table because...?</comment>


Real-time javascript error logging using Mixpanel - <AUTHOR> http://n3rds.posterous.com/using-mixpanel-to-log-client-side-error-javas

<comment><USER2> At Mixpanel, we use <http://www.exceptionhub.com/>. Much better tracebacks and filtering of useless errors. Tracking of related errors and of browser, referrer, etc. window.onerror is unfortunately lacking in the information it provides. On the other hand, EH is not a free service and it's cool to see creative uses for Mixpanel :D.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great idea to use Mixpanel events for implementation. Much easier and quicker to implement for the majority of sites.</comment>


The Dutch boy mopping up a sea of plastic - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29631332 <comment><USER2> It's a tad depressing that some scientists are telling him he's doing it wrong, and should instead be doing something else, like working to prevent plastics from entering the oceans in the first place. That is a vastly harder problem because plastics enter the oceans through many paths, from falling off container ships to washing down rivers to being carried out by the winds or falling off pleasure craft (I myself used to have several spare bumpers for my boat, donated by what I like to think of as "The Society for Mariners Who Aren't Very Good at Tying Knots").

We don't have particularly good data on which paths account for how much: [http://www.sea.edu/plastics/frequently_asked_questions](http://www.sea.edu/plastics/frequently_asked_questions)

Easy solutions, like anti-dumping treaties, are already in place. A relatively cheap means of removing plastic may not be a bad next step.

Citizens willing to put time, effort and money into investigating practical engineering solutions to these problems should be encouraged, not dismissed. Particularly by people who are not themselves working on the alternative solutions they claim would be superior.

<comment><USER3> > It's a tad depressing that some scientists are telling him he's doing it > wrong

They should lie to him because he's just a child?

<comment><USER4> They should be more hesitant to give him advice that may discourage him from trying. There's not enough data to warrant it, it's not a simple math problem that he's calculating wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The most interesting part of this story is that scientist can't seem to find this plastic. It's missing: [http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/06/ninety- nine-p...](http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/06/ninety-nine-percent- oceans-plastic-missing)

<comment><USER6> Plastic eating bacteria? [http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/gulf- oil-eating-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/gulf-oil-eating- microbes-slide-show/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Saw his TedX talk in Delft; inspirational! Although there are plenty of challenges ahead, he proved that strong will gets you far. His crowd-funding campaign was a blitz from what I remember.

The technology needs a lot more investment than he raised for large-scale deployment, but I think he shook people awake at the very least.

I think he also made a wise choice of staying in The Netherlands. Water management is definitely a forte, especially in Delft. The marine technology department is attached to mechanical engineering.

Will be interesting to see what the real tipping point will be for this concept to experience another 10x jump.

</comment><comment><USER8> Found a new interview with him from September 2014 here, just raised 2 million via crowd funding, if it works it would be astonishing...big ask but [http://www.globalinnovationmagazine.com/issues/oct2014/#26-2...](http://www.globalinnovationmagazine.com/issues/oct2014/#26-27)</comment>


Russian Duma adopts 'site blacklist' bill - <AUTHOR> http://www.rt.com/news/wikipedia-yandex-censorship-bill-936/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's also interesting to note that Elena Mizulina, one of the people behind the bill, called Wikipedia "pedophile lobbyists" after they went blank to attract attention to this bill.

Source: Interview [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fslon.ru%2Frussia%2Felena_mizulina_vikipediya_prikrytie_pedofilskogo_lobbi-809860.xhtml&act=url)

</comment><comment><USER2> > ... _the list of reasons for which the government will be allowed to shut > down a site is now strictly defined ... (and) ... includes web pages which > advocate suicide, substance abuse, excessively risky behavior, and child > pornography._

Isn't this pretty much the same as they have in Australia and France?

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_France>

<comment><USER3> Similar, yes, but the key distinction is that neither Australia nor France are governed by an autocratic regime with a history of using such laws to exert political control.

For example, let's say a group is organizing and advertising a demonstration on a social network, and the odds are good that the protest will result in a police crackdown. Might this be excessively risky behavior? The Kremlin's answer would likely depend on the group, and whether the ruling party has a political interest to clamp down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If your government shuts down the internet, shut down your government!

</comment><comment><USER5> At least, the public outrage led to the exclusion of several extremely vague terms from the bill, like "information that might be harmful for children", so wikipedia blackout wasn't in vain, after all.

However, this showed us, once again, how incompetent our deputies are, when it comes to internet and technical stuff.

</comment><comment><USER6> Let the war begin! There will be a revolution by Autumn!

<comment><USER7> Revolution's chances are slim. Brain drain will definitely accelerate.</comment></comment>


Why the Raspberry Pi won't ship in kit form - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/why-the-raspberry-pi-wont-ship-in-kit-form-20120131/ <comment><USER2> To be honest, I just wish it would ship, period.

The more hype and press I hear, the more I think it's likely it 1) won't ever see the light of day (ala CrunchPad) or 2) won't arrive anywhere near the claimed price point.

I guess the saving grace is that some of the people working on the project have mentioned on the site that they work for Broadcom (who's CPU is being used in the project) as their day job. So this would seem to indicate a level of unofficial blessing from Qualcomm.

<comment><USER3> We'll definitely be shipping, and it'll definitely be at the price we've been talking about all along. At the moment we're waiting for the factory to send the finished units back to us (things slowed down for Chinese New Year); we don't have a definite date from them yet, but I'd expect us to be shipping in the next 2-3 weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Talk about lifting content:

<http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/592></comment>


Bringing back the draft - <AUTHOR> http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2017/07/25/bringing-back-the-draft/ <comment><USER2> If the military personnel are stretched so thin that the only solution is to bring back the draft, then perhaps the government needs to re-think it's foreign policy... As an alternate less-ideal solution, how about raising the financial compensation for soldiers so more people are willing to sign up?

</comment><comment><USER3> Its interesting seeing the poll and the comments on that site. The poll was divided 49 to 51% in favor of not re-instating the draft, and the comments seemed similar.</comment>