But were they really?

The thing I'm no longer afraid to admit about myself - I don't enjoy such stuff. I don't derive much pleasure from views of nature, don't like typical tourist destinations (for instance, last year I went to Pripyat, and liked it much better than Lviv or Kiev). I don't enjoy eating local cousine, I prefer regular commercial-grade pizza, thank you. I tried pretending that I like "normal" things for a long time, but this cognitive dissonance isn't worth it.

I still agree with GP here - if the things you do are fulfilling, you'll be less inclined to pick up the phone. For me, it won't be France or Spain, but it will be a programming side project. It won't be hiking, but it will be going out with an air gun and shooting a bit. I don't feel an addiction to tech then, but get me back to the office, and suddenly the addiction is back too.

To be clear: I'm not discounting the addictiveness of consumer-oriented tech - but I do feel that it's often easier to break the feedback loop by fixing the other end of it.

I just disagree with this whole idea that there HAS to be some "missing hole" that phones fill. These apps are addictive, that's not really a secret they are designed to be by teams of brilliant people.

It's possible that many heroin addicts have "holes" in their life that they fill, but it's also pretty much a certainty that if you take a random person and unwittingly feed them heroin for awhile telling them it's harmless, they're going to have withdrawal symptoms if they stop.

I'm aware of the Rat Park study and it's interesting but it's pretty isolated and hasn't been replicated, and either way it's just one intriguing counterpoint, not dispositive.

It's often a misconception that 12 step programs talk about getting to "root causes" first. They do, to some extent, but they always focus immediately and completely on total abstinence until that has been achieved.

Then, the "root causes" stuff is really better described as picking up the pieces of a broken life, and specifically a ton of broken relationships, since the one thing all addicts have in common is a large number of close relationships with people that they have ruined.

Sobriety in that context really isn't about getting to and fixing "root causes" to be honest. It's more about setting up a set of current habits, and social support, that are based around non addictive behaviors.

What point are you even making here? You know there's a difference between physical dependence and addiction, right? Someone who isn't a heroin addict can easily stop taking it if they are weaned off. And heroin addicts relapse all the time after physical withdrawals have subsided.

That's a bit dubious as a blanket statement. Perhaps you're creating a distinction without a difference?

My point pretty much sums to "addictive things are addictive"

Yes, addiction is more nuanced than that, some people are exposed to addictive things and don't get hooked.

But it seems like people in this thread are trying to advance this idea:

addiction = addictive thing + preexisting problem

Therefore, the solution is to get rid of that preexisting problem and voila, addiction is fixed.

I'm not sure I buy that. I'm sticking with the idea that certain substances, or technologies, are inherently likely to create habits and dependency in most humans who are exposed to them.

I count social media and heroin in that category.

There is certainly a difference. Your body, physically, will be fine without heroin. But emotionally, you feel empty without it, and as soon as some emotional trauma - stress, sadness, fear or despair rears its head, you relapse. I guess you could argue that emotional need is no different than physical need, but I don't think that's quite the point you're trying to make

> I just disagree with this whole idea that there HAS to be some "missing hole" that phones fill.

I don't think there is one either. I think there's a general sense of ennui growing in our society that is partly responsible here.

Have you considered you like commercial grade food because of the possibly addictive ingredients they use, like excessive sugar and salt?

I realize now that using the phrase "commercial-grade" might have implied I mean stuff like frozen pizzas in grocery stores. I did not mean that, though there are some brands of frozen pizza that taste quite good when passed through oven.

When comparing natural and artificial stimuli I like to refer to this comic, which lays out the issue at hand beautifully: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/

You said: "but there are other people who need to take affirmative steps towards abstinence, and avoid certain people places and things, as they say."

To clarify, you each are saying two different things; with Bakery addressing the disease, and you common symptoms (of failed attempts at trying to cure symptoms).

For example, let's say you're an addict of some sort and you get "treatment" (e.g., 30 day detox). But the problem is, you drink because X happen to you as a child. You "addict" (so to speak) to mask that pain. But the detox treatment never addressed that root cause. Quitting the habit doesn't eliminate the need that created that habit.

After 30 day you check out. For a moment, you're clean. In your mind, you've got it beat. However, humans are also creature of habit, as well as creatures of conformity (i.e., we "default" to the norms around us). When it comes to basic behaviors context matters. A lot.

You return to your old neighborhood, old friends (likely some are also addicts), etc., old TV shows. More of less, the same routine. Keep in mind, you're not cured, only __temporarily__ clean. In no time at all you're off the wagon. Why? Because your root problem was never cured to begin with. And being human means you assume the "norms" around you.

Sure, you can abstain from your device. But you still haven't solved The Problem (upper T upper P intentional). You simply grabbed a balloon. The root cause is now likely to pop out somewhere else.

The device enables these things - take the device away and they will still exist - it does not create them.

It doesn't make sense to blame the device for what is ultimately a human behavior issue. The abuse of the device __is__ a red flag for "we have a problem here" and that problem is not the device. "Curing for the device" will not solve the root problem(s).

For those people, the device itself, and the relationship with the device, is the place to look when trying to improve the situation.

There is also an issue of practicality here. Even for people with significant issues that need to be addressed, it may be practical to do things like adjusting how one uses the phone, as a stepping stone to actually fixing the deeper issue.

Yes. But don't you see the irony in that statement? How "normal" can you be if a device and a few swipes "makes" you into something else? Sure, maybe without the device you could bottle it up? But for how long? And at what cost? Where does that "energy" go (to other bad habits)?

If what you said was true then EVERYONE would have this problem. As it is, that's just not true. In fact, the media often spins reports of those not on social media as being abnormal.

Don't get me wrong. We do have a collective problem. But it's bigger than just these devices, and simply blaming the devices is not going to help solve for the root.

Your depiction doesn't match common usage of smartphones -- people check them 150+ times per day, and saying "it's just a swipe" is meaningless. But regardless, why don't we sample the population and find out? It's my understanding that the current scientific consensus is that modern media and tech is having noticeable adverse effects on individual well-being and social relationships. If this is not the case, I would like to know!

I don't see any irony. There are inherent difficulties involved in being human... I wouldn't find it surprising if regular people are susceptible to sophisticated tech that takes advantage of cognitive characteristics to maximize time in app purely for advertising dollars, and that this may have adverse affects.

> If what you said was true then EVERYONE would have this problem.

This may be true, to varying degrees. This is something we need to research and take seriously.

I think there are many amazing, good things about modern technology and even social media. But we shouldn't turn a blind eye to potential negatives or blame completely normal individuals for being affected by these massive, unprecedented changes.

> But it's bigger than just these devices, and simply blaming the devices is not going to help solve for the root.

I agree there are many factors here, and I was not saying we should ignore all the other factors.

By the way, I'm not proposing any specific remedies, if you are worried about that. That is a different conversation.

When traveling, thus far I've skipped getting local service. At least where we've been, WiFi is scarce, and as a result the phone remains a valuable planning tool but becomes useless as a dopamine drip.

It's more like how I imagine a pocket computer "should" be- you can find WiFi & make a video call back home, you can look up information about the town, you can store maps and boarding passes, play music, snap reference photos of signboards, check in with your bank, etc. But 98% of the time it's slumbering in a corner of your luggage (and getting great battery life)

FWIW, this ultimately led me to a relatively low-data plan at home, 500MB/mo, both to save money as well as to slow the drip.