When Does Technolust Become An Addiction?

An anonymous reader writes "According to a CNet article, an incredible one in three people aged 16 to 24 in the UK would not give up their mobile phone for a million pounds. 'The phone-centric survey, called Mobile Life, was carried out across the UK and questioned 1,256 people aged 16 to 64 on a variety of topics ... So young people really like having a mobile phone and we all love buying gadgets. But before you dismiss this research as stating the bleeding obvious, think about this -- if someone had told you even ten years ago that people would be taking out second mortgages to buy flat screen TVs, would you have believed it?' Is this just the result of deliberately skewed marketing dressed up as research, or is this another indication of western culture's obsession with communication and technology? How much is too much tech?"

Comments

Re:These surveys are bullshit

[jimstapleton]

I'd grab the briefcase, throw my phone at them, and run before they could change their minds!

I hope they'd find that a sufficient answer.

Re:When?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's not only just a phone, at least 3 other operating systems and 20 other manufacturers have delivered EXACTLY the same functionality in their high end phones over the last 5 years. I would not want to go without mine, even on vacation, but then again I actually USE mine on vacation (as I've got a bluetooth GPS module and iNavigator installed on my Windows Mobile Smart Phone- it's amazing what that database calls a "Point of Interest" under Entertainment). Some of my best stops and side trips have come from that.

To answer the question in TFA (which is just a repeat of the Register's finding that teenagers would rather give up SEX than their phone for a month) is when you are with another human being and fail to put the phone on vibrate/let everything go to voice mail. Voice Mail, SMS, and E-mail are SUPPOSED to be asynchronous forms of communication- that means you can put the phone down and drive, or actually talk to other people once in a while. USE the technology, don't let the technology ABUSE you.

I doubt it

[localman]

I think it's pretty easy to say "no" to a million pounds when you know there's no chance you'll actually get it. If they really had a million pounds right there and the paperwork was ready I bet more than a few of the people who said "no" would say "yes".

That said, I wouldn't give mine up ;)

Re:second mortgage?

[porcupine8]

If it was meant as a figure of speech or exagerration, it was a terrible context to use one in. The entire point of the article is "Wow, people are going to extreme lengths for their gadgets, lengths no one would have believed a few years ago!" Proceeding to give an example that is unbelievable seems like the thing to do - but it's only effective if it's also true. Otherwise, you're not demonstrating that people are doing unbelievable things, you're demonstrating that unbelievable things are still not to be believed.

Re:hmmm

[yali]

maybe they value communication with their friends and family more than money...

I initially expected just to agree with "this is deliberately skewed marketing dressed up as research," but that's actually an interesting point when you think about it. The survey asked people aged 16-24 "whether or not they would sacrifice being able to own or use a mobile phone ever again" according to TFA. If you are 16-24, then probably all of your friends communicate with each other by cell phone. By not having a phone, you'd miss out on a lot of social life. People are going to the movies? Oops, couldn't reach you, maybe next time. Meet a cute girl or boy? Give 'em your landline and hope they call when you're at home (and your parents don't answer and embarrass you, or your stoner roommate doesn't answer and forget to take a message). Hey, guys, what's everybody laughing about? What are you texting each other about? Etc.

Maybe the bigger surprise is that supposedly materialistic youngsters actually recognized the value of friendship over money.

Re:When?

[Sylver Dragon]

I'll agree that having GPS is nice on vacation, especially to be able to map your hiking routes before hand, and see where you actually went afterwards. But the cell phone, not so much. I do carry it on vacation, especially when out hiking or camping. It's rather amazing how many out of the way places get good signal. And in an emergency, that phone could be a life saver. Still, I don't exactly cry (or notice even) when I'm in a place without signal. I just turn it off, and throw is somewhere (lakes are especially tempting).
And the rest of the gadgets? Leave 'em at home. Now, part of this is that most of my vacations involve camping (drive up camping, I'm too fat and lazy to backpack anymore, and the only one of the people I go with who would consider doing it); and the last thing I need, when I am trying to get away from civilization, is some idiot blaring a reminder of that crap a few hundred feet away. The forest/desert have very nice and interesting sounds if you just stop and listen to them. And anyone bringing a laptop/TV/DVD player deserves a beating with a stick. I enjoy sitting around a camp fire watching the flames and hearing the sounds of the sap popping and good conversation with friends, music detracts from that.

Lastly: teenagers would rather give up SEX than their phone for a month
Either they aren't getting it anyway, so it's not a loss for them; or they only asked prudes. If my choice in High School had been talking on the phone or sex, I'd have been pants-less before they finished asking the question.

What Addiction Is

[Doc Ruby]

Addiction is not just some extra degree of "lust". It's a compulsion that one cannot resist. Not just that one dislikes to resist. And not just a compulsion to do something bad.

Alcohol addiction is the classic: alcoholism. It's not just that one "drinks too much". Or too often, or the wrong stuff. Those are ways to tell someone is an alcohol addict. The alcoholic does not have self control over their drinking. Perhaps they need a drink to destroy their limits, or perhaps there is no initial barrier. Even recovering alcoholics cannot take a single drink, because the effect of that drink on their self control leaves them with no resistance - or is so likely to that they cannot take the chance. But even those not taking any drinks are still alcoholics, because they lack self control over taking it. They are behaving like they have some self control, but it's really gained by a huge, constant effort plugged into social structures, including regular meetings, and lots of conscious training, like 12 step programs.

Techno addiction is rarer, but still happens. There are compulsive shoppers to whom technology, especially media devices, have a stronger appeal than their own best interest. You can tell when people are addicts because they miss rent or meals, but have every new game.

These are all consumption disorders. Americans have them in epidemic proportions. Partly because we consume alcohol, drugs, toys, clothing, food and everything else to feed a desire really created by something else. Usually "spiritual", but most often caused by a family problem, especially early in life. And, as a buddhist will tell you, feeding the desire just makes it stronger. The resulting attachment to the material forces us further from the spiritual, which increases the desire, more consumption - the Wheel of Living.

Re:hmmm

[1u3hr]

Maybe they realised it was an idiotic question, that no one would give them a penny to give up their phone, let alone a million pounds, so they gave whatever answer seemed more amusing.

Re:Hardly surprising

[plover]

Yes, the surveys have value -- to the survey-taking firms. That's their bread and butter, and it's vitally important for a survey firm to maintain the fiction of their value to their customers, otherwise they'll quickly go out of business.

However, surveys are far from scientific studies, and should never be accorded the same respect.

First, there is no trusting the actual source of the data. Humans lie for amusement. Humans lie for profit. Humans lie because they're lazy. Humans lie to computers because computers don't know the difference. When taking a survey, some people I know answer "C.", because we all learned in school that C is usually the right answer. Others pick the most outlandish answer. Look at the 2001 New Zealand census -- 1.5% of all New Zealanders are practicing Jedi. (OK, some of them are Reformed Jedi.) Does that mean you throw away those 1.5% from your data? Does that mean the other 98.5% are telling the truth? Did the Jedi answer other questions faithfully? Strangely enough, the New Zealand census removed all references to Jedi from their published figures, masking the very existence of the false data and making it that much harder to understand.

Second, the source of data is skewed. You may think it's a random sampling of the population, but there is an increasingly large percent of well educated, affluent people who have demanded to be added to "do not call" lists. They have neither the time nor the inclination to answer some random series of questions, and so have removed themselves voluntarily from the pool. That's going to skew answers in the direction of the uneducated poorer segments of society. Are the surveys adjusted for shifts like these? Hardly, as advertisers typically aim "low", and these skewed surveys provide only confirmations of the answers they want to hear, rather than the data they deserve. The answers might be fine if you're researching whether you really need Clydesdales to sell Budweiser or if you could get away with airbrushed appaloosas, but might be horribly misleading if you're selling Lexuses (Lexii?)

Science is about observation. Surveys are about asking opinions. Statistics are used to try to give surveys the air of science, but they're still originated on false premises.

Re:Well.

[misanthrope101]

When people have more money than they need to survive, they buy stuff they don't need. Many save money, but not all of it. Before we had tech toys people bought other stuff--nicer furniture, more expensive watches, and so on. That stuff is still around, but now tech stuff competes with it for our money.

I know someone who makes less than $30K a year yet saw fit to buy a $4K bed. We don't say people have an "expensive furniture addiction." I've met non-rich guys whose car rims cost $1.5K each. Why is this any different than with plasma screens or cellphones? We all buy what we want, and beyond food/shelter/clothing/medicine, almost all of it is luxury.