[chess93]

I can't help but think I would be much happier if I had never seen a computer or cell phone in my life. Maybe its just my personality type. Maybe its because I started at a very young age. It could be anything but I am fairly certain that the constant stream of stimulation to my brain has done plenty of damage.

This article seems analogous [1] to an article that states "I use hard drugs and I'm not ashamed" authored by someone who manages to keep their use under control. Sure, it works for them. Great, but they are not the failure mode of drug use.

[dondawest]

IMO, the constant stream of stimulation happens one way or another. If you were born 50 years before , you could get overstimulated by TV. 50 years before that, and you could be overstimulated by books. Maybe my life would be better if I’d never read a book or seen a cell phone — but I doubt it: I’d probably have just sought out whatever the next-most-stimulating thing was and become addicted to that.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

[chess93]

I am a big fan of the "humans are social creatures" mantra. In that regard, if something is more stimulating than social interaction it is likely to be harmful but if something is less stimulating than social interaction it is probably fine. [1]

In this simple model, I would probably say books are definitely less stimulation, TV is probably about equal (I have no idea), and modern videogames and social media are definitely much more stimulating. So, books would only become a problem in the presence of other factors but social media can become a problem for anyone.

In highschool I would play high stimulation PC games while browsing the internet on another monitor while listening to music while using voice chat. I also had almost no desire to socialize while in highschool.

[1] It goes without saying that we probably can't reduce activities to a single metric like "amount of stimulation" but I think this is a useful thought experiment.

[dondawest]

The nuance here is that people are stimulated by different things.

For example, I simply don’t find video games stimulating. I didn’t grow up with them and I never got into them. I’d sooner talk to a human being than play a video game any day.

However, I find books SIGNIFICANTLY more stimulating than social interaction. (Go figure, lol).

I agree with your mental model that humans are social creatures and that if something is more stimulating than social interaction it is likely to be harmful. The nuance is that for some people — like me — video games are LESS stimulating than social interaction, while books are MORE stimulating. That’s why for me personally video games don’t harm me but books — according to your model — do.

Brains are weird. I self-medicate with words and sentences. Am I a “book addict” like some people are “video game addicts”? Or am I just a relatively bookish individual? or both? I think both :)

-non-recovered book addict in the tortured throes of a relapse on literature

[0xb100db1ade]

True, but what are we using technology right now, in the moment, to do? Communicate.

Rather than technology driving us away from being social, I think being social is driving us to technology.

There are many extremely niche communities that I'd be unable to be a part of if the Internet did not exist.

[ahartman00]

"using voice chat" ... "almost no desire to socialize"

What is your definition of socialize? What makes voice chat different from voice, other than lack of body language/non verbal cues?

[AQuantized]

Obviously lack of body language is precisely what makes it different?

[ahartman00]

My question was meant to be: why is talking to people on voice chat/text/whatever internet technology not considered socializing? What is it if not socializing?

[rdiddly]

The problem with the whole "screen time" premise (and maybe this is her whole point) is that there's no differentiation made between good and bad screen time. Just looking at someone who's looking at a screen, it's impossible to tell what they're doing. Or before that, before phones became smart (but after they became mobile), I can recall just seeing someone in the store, talking loudly on their phone, and being like "what a douche." But it could be their nearly-deaf mother calling them from her deathbed or something.

[president]

Tech was supposed to make life easier but it ended up giving more power to people who make life harder - criminals, bad bosses, corrupt politicians, communist dictators.