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."
dopamine squirt. that sounds naughty :)
Damn this is interesting! I must know more about it! More! More! And for some strange reason I want some twinkies.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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 stop anytime I want.
Hmm . . . you think that the test subjects being harvard geeks may have something to do with it. I bet that the guys at your local tech school do not have the same reaction.
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
for playing online at work? Americans with Disabilities Act protects us, eh? Kickass.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
I get that orgasmic feeling. I thought it was just for Taco's witty remarks...
Just wait until information is added to the list of forbidden substances, and included in the War on Drugs.
The pair have their own term for this condition: pseudo-attention deficit disorder. Its sufferers do not have actual A.D.D., but, influenced by technology and the pace of modern life, have developed shorter attention spans. They become frustrated with long-term projects, thrive on the stress of constant fixes of information, and physically crave the bursts of stimulation from checking e-mail or voice mail or answering the phone.
I wonder if these are the kind of managers who F-up a project just because they like the yelling and screeming associated with emergency efforts to get it back on track. They like the scenes of Trek where the captain is yelling at the engineers to fix something now else they will be vaperized.
Table-ized A.I.
So that is why I feel the urge to load Slashdot every 15 minutes! Come on, I KNOW I'm not the only one! ;)
Did anyone else read this instead?
Hate me!
..if I hadn't been so busy getting my fix of information, cyberpr0n and coffeine, I might even have read more than the first page.
Luckely, for other addictions there are tests to prove you're in the dangersone =P
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
You mean like checking /. every 5.67 minutes to see if there's some new story posted?
I mean, c'mon.... I need my fix this weekend, and the new stories have been slow. I'll just keep cliking the refresh button.
And this is the only story you have for me in the last what .. 45 minutes? I need a fix here, people!
Dave
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
John: Hi... I'm John.
ADDA Crowd: Hi, John!
John: And I'm a Salshdot addict...
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.
Seriously, though, to whatever extent this can be meaningfully described as an addiction, I think it might be better compared to over-eating disorders (bingeing) than to drug addictions, at least in terms of treatment.
With drug addictions, the idea is to minimize the dosage, hopefully to zero or at least to some very low "maintenance level". But with over-eating disorders, it's not just a matter of avoiding food, but eating healthy amounts of healthy food, and giving your body time to digest it properly. The analogy to treating a compulsive information disorder seems obvious. (Ob:IANAD.)
One could also make obvious comparisons to the ubiquity of unhealthy food in much of society and the ubiquity of bad information. Not just incorrect information, but badly prepared information from bad "ingredients", presented in ways that can't be meaningfully "digested".
Also, I bet there's an information-access disorder analogous to anorexia -- people who avoid as much information as they can.
No, the article is about being addicted to information. People who regularly read Slashdot are addicted to misinformation.
A person can have an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Such a person can be 'addicted' to just about anything. The question is whether the substance is medically recognized as "addictive". You can also replace "substance" with "activity" or whatever.
You're kidding, right? So it's more productive for me to track down that one last news story on an obscure subject then it would be to leave early and get more billable hours?
"The more information the better?"
Really?
Opportunity cost, my anonymous friend, opportunity cost.
Speaking as somebody with the email tag of "data omnivore", (used to be "Mycroft") I can assure you that while more information can be good, making money, dating, exercising, and a dozen other things, can be better.
"Hello everybody. My name is Rustin and I'm a dataholic."
Yeah, when you have an idle moment in the airport and you start reading the ingredient list on the granola bar because suddenly you care, then you know that the pursuit of data has passed beyond the rational and entered the, yes, that's right, addictive.
Rustin
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
In keeping with other 'Net trends, I propose that "pseudo-ADD" is an inferior name compared to "iADD". Thank you,
:w
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.
Presuming you're asking "Why do I hate school?":
It's because the information isn't coming at the rate you'd like, and you feel like you're wasting your time doing B.S. tasks (exams, papers, projects, etc.) which really mean nothing in a 'real world' context.
Sure, it sucks. I barely scraped by myself, but I kept at it because it's the only game in town and I knew that if I dropped out I'd be stuck flipping burgers for the rest of my life.
Hang in there. Once you're done, you can learn things at a rate you can only dream of now.
No need, they already prescribe public education to counteract knowledge.
By reading this comment, you immediately waive any and all rights regarding it.
this explains a few things for me... while i've just come home from spending an hour at the beach reading a book, these occasions of absense from the network of news and friends have become rare for me. i found relief in managing my news addiction in reading news with an RSS newsfeed reader that polls all the news sites automatically. This saves a lot of time -- i have no excuse any more to spend (probably hours each day)/a lots of time checking web sites like the BBC site, slashdot, macslash, versiontracker.... i welcome the productivity boost. let's see how long until my brain has increased the daily news volume...
A while back I couldn't stop reading stuff... I literally had to read something constantly or it would really annoy me... oh well :P
--
It's called obsessive compulsive disorder. All of the people in that article exhibited classic symptoms of it. Constantly checking one's email and constantly checking news are just another manifestation of it.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
...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.
Take two 2400bps modems and call me in the morning.
I watched a program on PBS some months back (NOVA, perhaps) that chronicled a series of scientific studies that demonstrated women exhibited a natural ability to work at multiple things at the same time ("multi-task"?), and men were able to accomplish successfully only one task at a time. The inference was that the natural talents women have for raising children and taking care of families lend themselves to being excellent secretaries (politically incorrect, perhaps, but a valid example of having to do multiple things at the same time).
In one of the videotaped studies, a man was shown trying to pull off the secretarial equivalent of walking while chewing gum -- he was given a series of tasks which included making sets of photocopies while being subjected to a repeated series of interruptions that included a ringing telephone. To sum up, he didn't perform any of his tasks very well, whereas the woman in the identical situation performed all of them efficiently.
I don't know what long-term effects of information overload are on men or women, but I do know that while parties are fun, trying to have a real conversation with someone at one is a waste of time. Then again, the same can be said of most parties. The distractions can be fun, but often a waste of time.
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
War on information?
Brought to you by Dick Cheney of the GWB Marionette Co. producing lifelike presidents for nearly four years.
"Both love the game, and it has an added benefit for Dad: he can play with one hand while using the other to talk on the phone or check e-mail."
An unfortunate turn of phrase considering that slashdot readers were all over the article...
graspee
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
We don't have to accept that euphemism. You cannot wage war on an inanimate object. Real people are the victims of this war, and we can help highlight that fact by calling it the War on Drug Users
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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 ?
I'm always telling people I dont watch TV as if that was some sort superior quality or something. But the truth is, I dont' watch TV because it's like breathing through a straw. I am completely addicted to information and the TV can't meet my dosage requirements.
Happily, age and information overload is taking its toll, and am now able to go camping (for example) with no source of information for days and not start sweating about what I'm missing. I think one day I will disconnect and never look back.
Not today though.
The articles analogy to "ADD" and many references to it within the slashdot article reminds me of a joke I heard recently I'd like to share.
Q: How many kids with ADD does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Hey! Wanna go ride bikes?!?
Beware blue cats moving at
Oxygen can give you a high feeling. I think I'm addicted to air...
I've noticed this at work. I'll be trying to do fifteen things at once, with at least a dozen windows on my taskbar. Other people just have one or two.
At home, I don't feel comfortable watching TV or movies. I need to be reading, writing, or playing a game as well.
I know several friends (all nerds/geeks/dorks) who feel the same way. They are bored by simply "chilling".
I definitely think this topic should be explored more, especially in the mental health field, since, said friends and myself, are all in counseling for depression among other things. It could be a coincidence, but it's strange that all of us are in it. No other click I've been in has such a high rate of depression
Here's the definition from the Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions:
Addiction is the compulsive use of a substance or activity resulting in physical, psychological, or social harm to the user; the user continues in this pattern of behavior despite the harms that result. Addiction is differentiated from psychological dependence and physical dependence. Psychological dependence is the feeling that someone has when they think that drugs or activities are necessary to achieve a feeling of well-being. Physical dependence is marked by the development of tolerance to a drug or activity's effects so that increased amounts of a drug or activity are needed to obtain the desired effect. Tolerance also reveals its presence by the development of withdrawal symptoms when the drug or activity is stopped for a sufficient time. These matters are more complex than often thought.
And here's the definition of addiction from the National Institutes of Health's MedLine.
Drug dependence (addiction) is compulsive use of a substance despite negative consequences which can be severe; drug abuse is simply excessive use of a drug or use of a drug for purposes for which it was not medically intended. Physical dependence on a substance (needing a drug to function) is not necessary or sufficient to define addiction. There are some substances which don't cause addiction but do cause physical dependence (for example, some blood pressure medications) and substances which cause addiction but not classic physical dependence (cocaine withdrawal, for example, doesn't have symptoms like vomiting and chills; it is mainly characterized by depression).
What you described is a voluntary lack of self-control. I think that's called gluttony.
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.h
I draw an analogy to food. Human beings evolved in a calorie-poor environment. The optimal survival strategy was to scarf all the available calories and store as much fat as possible.
Now the human beings around me, at least, live in a calorie-rich environment. I've had to develop an entirely different way of looking at calories.
Similarly, within my lifetime, my environment has changed from data-poor to data-rich. I used to be able to read every bit of information about certain topics of interest to me. But now, I have to choose how to allocate my information-intake time, just as I have to choose how to allocate my calorie budget.
I loved to buy a few magazines and sit in a cafe and read them and write in my journal or sketch someone. People talked to people that they didn't know in public places. Now I choose my cafes according to the speed and expense of their WiFi connections and the top floor of my favorite cafe in Seattle resembles a computer lab. I don't often buy magazines as I usually already read the content online.
The last time I tried to spend an afternoon in a cafe without my laptop and a good book by an author I enjoyed, I found myself quickly getting very bored and cut the afternoon short. You can't go back I guess.
Slashdot itself is a perfect example of pseudo-attention deficit disorder. As I often post comments to stories late in the life of the story, I rarely think that many people read what I have to write as their focus has already passed on to the newer story. You can see it in how quickly people scramble to post their half-formed thoughts... which often get modded up higher than they deserve by virtue of being there first.
That's not a dig... just an observation.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me."
Sometimes medicine can be a Bad Thing; if it doesn't have its desired effect, it probably isn't doing anything good and most likely is ruining you...
I stopped taking Prozac and refused to take Zyprexa when prescribed for that reason. It turned out my problem (depression) was a product of environment. When I could afford to get out and *do* stuff - go to the mall, watch movies, buy new clothes - I was no longer depressed.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
This is simply how we study things. We now know that there are groups of people who react "differently" to certain sets of stimuli, and we have studied the phenomenon enough to have come to a general, but highly contested decision to treat such people with stimulants of various sorts. w00t. What now? Well, while certain researchers delve into the biochemical, genetic, physiological details of this condition, others will subspecialize in particular demographic slices of the group.
That's what grad school is for, isn't it? "Oh, oh, find something that noone else has really put too much time into and go write up a really long paper and come back in a few years so we can yell at you for a few hours".
Even outside of academia, the mentality is pervasive. This is why there's an aisle in stores for "cleaners". There are cleaning products for every imaginable material, for variants of materials. For vinyl, acrylic, plastics, laminates, polished surfaces, glass, concrete, stainless steel, silver, marble, stained wood, unstained wood, painted surfaces, etc... if we really didn't think that way, all we'd have is soap and water.
In any case, I'm glad we do these things. Of course, I am currently being strongly swayed by the prescribed afternoon dose of methylphenidate which is just now (aaah) breaking the blood-brain-barrier. Without people digging frantically into statistical data concerning behavior patterns, I wouldn't have my Ritalin.
The summary presented here is misleading - it seizes upon one small aspect of the article and makes it out to be the focus of the entire thing. It completely ignores the social aspects of the subculture surrounding technology. Here's my capsule summary of the article:
Always On: Is Multi-tasking Addictive?
The NY Times has a long and detailed article about multi-tasking in a communications technology-infused lifestyle. The fundamental questions it is trying to address is whether or not these technologies are addictive, do they tap into an underlying pathology or personality type, or are they causing shorter attention spans and reduced productivity? Ubiquitous and wireless technology have created an ''Always On'' subculture that may have given rise to pseudo-attention deficit disorder or online compulsive disorder, according to doctors and psychchiatrists referenced in the article, but technology executives and some users argue that conclusion is dead wrong. It's a thought-provoking read and it may spur some Slashdotters to examine how reliant you have become on mobile phones, pagers, instant messaging, wireless networks, powerful computing and broadband Internet, or how entrenched these communications technologies are in your own lives.
I dropped out of school because of it. I would spend 3-4 hours checking slashdot and browsing the web at a time! After I post messages like this I somehow have to check them every few hours.
I saw a phsycologist who specializes in disabilities because my ADHD was alot worse and I began to show signs of lethargic-ness.( If there is such a word ). Nothing interested me anymore and I could not focus.
Eventually I unplugged from the net and went through withdrawl symptoms. I got a shitty job since I no longer was in school and the economy went into the crapper. I had trouble at first but my attention span improved.
You made a reference to white Castle (which has shitty burgers by the way) and food addiction. In some people who are severely depressed it can effect their lives and jobs just like Internet addiction. Some people are move vulnerable then others. But yes they can be serious depending on the individuals genetic makeup to dopamine overload. I come from a family who has a few alcoholics. In my case I am susceptible because of the way my brain is wired from my genes.
http://saveie6.com/
...and you know, love is like oxygen. You get too much, you get too high, not enough and you're gonna die.
BTW--the word you're looking for is 'lethargy'. I'm sorry to hear that.
:) as well. I personally can *see* how my sometimes short attention span can take control and screw me up.
I fear the I may be mildly ADD (though not ADHD, as anyone who has met me will know, I'm anything but hyper.
OTOH, look at my vantage point. Since I'm able to control it, and sometimes even use it to my own benefit (when working, as someone on the ADHD story said, I, too, am able to call upon my 'inner spaz' so to speak to get major productivity benefit). A large percentage of the hacker/geek culture would probably meet the DSM-IV criteria for ADD and/or ADHD. Yet, it seems that most of us are able to function perfectly well in society.
Does this mean that we ALL have a disorder, or does it mean that this is just another one of the standard personality variations found in differing inviduals.
At what point is it a 'disorder' vs. a 'personality type'. Do you see what I'm getting at?
My journal has hot
Is it just me, or does the medical seem bent on clasifying every human trait as a dissorder?
And needless to say, the Internet is a joy for me. I'll have multiple windows open, be chatting with a couple other people, doing various other things, and my attention is *completely* occupied. This isn't a lack of attention span - I'm doing more things simultaneously than anyone with an exclusive focus could dream of pulling off. This isn't a disease - it's a boon.
I suspect that in all these "information addict" examples, if they were to dig into their childhood and psychology, they'd find these people are naturally ADD. Or, as I prefer to put it, naturally able to multitask. God help them if the psychiatrists ever "cure" their "disease" - they'd lose one of the greatest skills they have.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Chocolate contains tryptophan, a seratonin precursor.
Seratonin is connected with depression, boosting it seems to make people happier.
My Journal
Interesting to that the war on drugs goes after people who are not in the pharmacudacle industry. At the same time, the pharmacudacle industry is finding its own ways to push its legal drugs on the population.
"You have [insert disorder hear]. Take these drugs daily. Do not miss a hit, i mean dosage. Do not miss a dosage. You may feel strange at first. Don't worry, that'll go away once your body becomes dependent on it, I mean, gets used to it. It'll go away once your body gets used to it."
I agree there's a tendency to label personality types as disorders. I'm not saying there is no such thing as ADD/ADHD, but it's not as prevalent as some would think (IMHO).
Just as Billy Gates said, I can check Slashdot incessantly (along with several other *news* sites I frequent), if I don't check myself. I made it through engineering school with DSL & cable, but it wasn't without some very strong discipline. It also "helped" that I picked up another addiction - smoking (which I have now quit).
In the end, I think self control, discipline, and an organized schedule are the best ways to combat "info addiction."
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
I better turn my threshold down to -1 to read all about it!
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...
Oh No! You mean /. is my Sugar Daddy? Sheeeet!
;-)
Anyone else get the visual of Cowboy Neal in a Pimp hat? Evil, ain't it
There are only two industries that call their customers "users".
No, an "excuse" to say it isn't their fault.
Do a web search on Asperger's Syndrome. There was a Slashdot article on it recently as well as a Wired story from a few years back.
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?
new guy: Hi, my name is Dave. I am a Slashdot addict too. But I just visit because everyone there is obsessed with me.
Facilitator: What do you mean?
Dave: Let me show you... [Dave gets up, drops pants, turns around, bends over, and grabs two handfuls]
[The facilitator vomits while the rest of the group cheers]
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
> 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.