Slashdot Mirror
Addicted to Information?
SiMac writes "According to this New York Times article, two Harvard faculty members say that information causes a "dopamine squirt" in humans, a rush similar to that given by narcotics. Just as narcotics are addictive, information is as well. They've given the disorder of information addiction the name 'pseudo-ADD' because it tends to cause somewhat ADD-like symptoms."
What do I hate school!
This article essentially states that 'being connected' is distracting and shortens attention spans, and that it's also pleasurable. So far so good- but putting a new medical label on it seems akin to creating a 'eating cookies is pleasurable disorder' or 'loud sounds and flashing lights harm one's ability to focus disorder'. It's common sense. Medical science nowadays gets excited when they reinvent the wheel.
I can't see how this can be an addiction. Anything labelled an "addiction" means it is used to the detriment of important things in one's life. Honestly, the more information the better.
You may as well say people can get addicted to food and water.
At last I have a *medical* excuse for never leaving the computer.
I can certainly relate for the need for novelty, most web sites get pretty old after one read. S'why stuff like irc and irc are useful because you can your info buzz but it's mostly noise so it doesn't really take away from your concentration.
It's kind of a synthetic substitute for proper human contact. One satisfies the need for communication while getting on with something more important.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Just wait until information is added to the list of forbidden substances, and included in the War on Drugs.
So that is why I feel the urge to load Slashdot every 15 minutes! Come on, I KNOW I'm not the only one! ;)
The article doesn't say you get a shot of dopamine when you connect, it just quotes some psycologist saying it's *like* a dopamine squirt. Nowhere do they site research backing up that claim.
The whole article is really just a set of case studies of people who do many things at once all the time, and who find that makes them unhappy for one reason or another. Throw in a few off the cuff, baseless statements by shrinks, and the NYT has made a roll-your-own disorder: pseudo-ADD. It's not even it's own disorder, just a fake version of another hotly debated syndrome.
When I see real scientific data showing that A) there is an actual neurochemical response to data that can lead to addiction, B) that this addiction can and has happened in real people, and C) that it has caused these people's quality of life to be reduced, I'll believe it's a disorder. Right now, though, all we've got is some unhappy businessmen and a few shrinks looking to make a name for themselves.
Narrative
Curiosity
That's what it all boils down to. If it gives you pleasure or enjoyment, it is per se addictive. There is a direct correlation between the amount of pleasure X gives and the addictiveness of X. Getting information is enjoyable. Watching TV, eating twinkies, shooting heroin, and sex are all enjoyable, thus addictive. Some things (drugs) have physical means of causing addiction as well as the psychological one based on enjoyment, but the only difference is those things are harder to quit. Addiction is addiction. And there's nothing innately wrong with it, either. Problems only start when you can't get access to the addictor anymore.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
When will this pseudomedical crud cease? What this oh-so-genius has managed to discover is (1) humans like some stuff (2) humans tend to seek the things they like (3) if life currently sucks, many humans will use pleasurable actvities to prop them up and stave off depression (4) one of the many things that people like is finding out information, and this can be observed neurochemically.
From this the bozo pulls forth an addiction.
A pox on all these doctors and their phony diseases. A pox on all the "victims", who find the excuse for their hypocrisy convenient.
Addiction does not exist. Chemical withdrawal is no more painful than bad flu. Habits can be broken by choice - when you don't break them, it's because, on balance, you'd simply prefer not to.
...little research has been done into why some people are compulsively drawn to multitasking. But he theorizes that the allure has several layers. Multitasking offers a guise of productivity, a "macho" show of accomplishment, and similarities to a quick amphetamine rush.
I.E., I gotta be firstest (witness the "First Post" phenomenon here) no matter what it takes, otherwise I will lose face.
Far too much emphasis is placed on hype. In this computer age, speed tends to eclipse wisdom. By the time second thoughts distill, it's too late.
Man, more and more every personality trait is becoming a 'disease' complete with drugs to get rid of it. People talk about how this is caused by over psychologicalizing everything, but actually I think it has to do with our war on drugs. People think taking drugs for anything other then being sick is "wrong" so they convince themselves that they are "sick" in order to take drugs.
clearly, this is a disease. recreational pharmophobic syndrome, and should be cured by smoking liberal doses of pot.
Seriously though, if people want to take drugs to change parts of their psyche that they want changed, I say go for it. But I'd rather not see everything labeled as a 'disease' to be 'treated'
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"It takes the same pathway as our drugs of abuse and pleasure."
Pleasure is not a disorder.
Love is not a disorder.
Feeling joy, experiencing satisfaction, the simplicity of happiness is not a disease to be stamped out, stressed over, or guilt tripped.
And the talents of others are not to be ridiculed, for all of our talents are ultimately meaningless by some standard.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http;//www.doxpara.com
any excess will soon become a vice. This applies to anything. Sorry I am not terribly impressed with this study. Anything can become a mental addiction.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
Good thing that's not what science is about.
Although disorders like this have, at least in some cases, definite biochemical causes, we don't just say "Paranoid" "Not paranoid" "Schizophrenic" "Not schizophrenic" "ADD" "NOT ADD"
All of these are just tools to help us understand. If we show that there is a link between people with attention span problems, and the way their brains react to new information, how is that not science, or not important?
Some people are taller than others. Some people have dark skin. When you drop a hammer it falls. If we don't investigate why, and always look for a deeper understanding of what's going on.. what's the point ?
yes I believe this...
... almost done..... just finish up this function.. argh, a bug.... just fire up debugger...NOOOOO I have to refactor this into two new objects...what's that ringing sound? never mind, tune it out. ... damn cleaning lady, turn the lights back on... argh... well day's over, I'll get to the boss' request tomorrow...
... holding a baby, talking on the phone, making dinner, etc.....
... you have to have all four burners going, oven, microwave, stir this, flip that, multiple timers going off, etc., etc., quite taxing on the ol' pre-emptive multitasker!!!!!!!!!
most men I know (including myself) like to finish one thing before they begin another. Not because they aren't capable of multitasking per se but because there is something weird about leaving one thing unfinished when you're "almost done".
Anybody else have that feeling? Like I'm working on a program. I get an email from the boss asking to "take care" of a little problem. In the space of time it took to finish reading his email, I already have the problem solved in my head, all I have to do is stand up and do it. But... can't... leave... program.... must...finish
women on the other hand (my mom was the best example of this) have no problem jumping from task to task (and usually leaving it half-finished for the MAN to finish up, grumble grumble)
though if any of you guys want to practice your multi-tasking, try cooking an entire dinner at once
Is it just me, or does the medical seem bent on clasifying every human trait as a dissorder?
What I find amusing is the obsession of modern medical, particularly psychiatric/psychological, science with the term "disorder".
I don't know, but when I read about behavior that doesn't seem pathological, the "dis" seems out of place. Maybe they should be talking about "phenomenon", "behavior", or something like that.
This case in particular seems quite silly. They're saying these people have a disorder because they are multitaskers. I'm sure they'll have a disorder for single-taskers as well. Yet the only reason they seem to have to believe "they have a condition" is that "it's hard to concentrate on one thing". Wow. Now, that's pathological.
I've had the behavior discussed in the article. I have paid for a lot of college classes, seminars, conferences, etc. only to grow bored out of my mind and engaging into high-tech and low-tech "instant messaging", doodling on notebooks, etc. When I was smart or lucky enough to bring a totally unrelated book, my ADD was suddenly cured because I ended up reading for a couple of hours.
It's not called ADD. It's called being bored. And if you're constantly being bored by what you do, it usually is because whatever you're doing is boring to you. Just because you don't find your current task enthralling doesn't mean you cannot pay attention at all.
Go do something else. Switch careers. Get a hobby.
If they come up with a battery of tests proving these people are completely unable to pay attention more than X seconds/minutes to anything, including human-to-human threads of conversation, I'll start believing there is meat to this. But there is no such thing.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
There are only two industries that call their customers "users".
No, an "excuse" to say it isn't their fault.
That pretty much describes me.
I study 101 different subjects at a time, and remember most of what I learn. However, because I thrive on new subjects and variety I end up knowing lots about lots of subjects, but I'm not really an expert in any of them.
I can write a compiler, an operating system, a debugger, fix a car, write press releases, illustrate, do all of my own accounts, defend myself in a court of law.. yet I am almost unemployable by normal benchmarks because I can't say.. "OK, I'm the absolute best at doing X."
But as I've learnt, there are a lot of us 'generalists' about, and we tend to do better being self-employed or as consultants in our various fields.. and I'm doing okay. I am not sure if this is some sort of mental flaw, or just an aspect of my personality. I get bored easily.. and why shouldn't I?
> There's a lot more girls who like school (and smart guys) than baseball
Yes, girls like smart guys more than baseball, but girls like stupid jocks (who love baseball) more than smart guys.