E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
ICanHasHotDog.com
Scientists, online dating sites, your constantly irritated significant other and Wilhelm Hofmann at University of Chicago's Booth Business School could all save a lot of time over whether we are "addicted" to social media and/or our cellular devices. Rather than pondering or conducting surveys, they could simply do what most normal answer-seeking people do: Go to Wikipedia.
Take, for the sake of this discussion, the aforementioned Hofmann and his underlings at the University of Chicago, whose recent experiment was covered by the Guardian UK. This posse of tech addiction investigators took time out from whatever it is that goes on in business school to "gauge the willpower of 205 people aged between 18 and 85 in and around the German city of Würtzburg," the Guardian reports, concluding in their research that "tweeting or checking emails may be harder to resist than cigarettes and alcohol."
Not for nothing, but shouldn't business school people be busy learning how to further screw the economy or something, rather than reaffirming the results of countless other studies about our ongoing inability to disconnect from technology?
Instead, these academics, who include "one each from Florida State University and Minnesota University," the Guardian notes, outfitted their test subjects with BlackBerrys (I know, right? BlackBerrys!?!), and did this:
Live Poll
Are you addicted to technology?
The participants were signalled seven times a day over 14 hours for seven consecutive days so they could message back whether they were experiencing a desire at that moment or had experienced one within the last 30 minutes, what type it was, the strength (up to irresistible), whether it conflicted with other desires and whether they resisted or went along with it. There were 10,558 responses and 7,827 "desire episodes" reported.
According to the paper, which will appear in the journal Psychological Science, participants recorded the highest "self-control failure rates" with media — checking Twitter, email, etc. Participants also had a hard time resisting the urge to work. Yet, as the paper states, "people were relatively successful at resisting sports inclinations, sexual urges and spending impulses, which seems surprising given the salience in modern culture of disastrous failures to control sexual impulses and urges to spend money."
So what gives? In Hoffman's humble opinion, which he told the Guardian, "Desires for media may be comparatively harder to resist because of their high availability and also because it feels like it does not 'cost much' to engage in these activities, even though one wants to resist."
Whatever.
All of this is easily answered on Wikipedia, where — if Hofmann and crew are able to avoid stumbling down the rabbit hole of endless links only to come away six hours later with an accidental education on Vichy France ... or maybe every serial killer ever — they'd find everything they need in a thoroughly footnoted entry on dopamine. The piece prints out as 18 pages total and includes a 3-color molecular model. It calls the substance "a simple organic chemical in the catecholamine family, which plays a number of important physiological roles in the bodies of animals."
Most crucially (at least for this topic), one learns that "dopamine plays a major role in the brain system that is responsible for reward-driven learning. Every type of reward that has been studied increases the level of dopamine transmission in the brain."
Every type of reward, including the kind you get when you check Twitter or Facebook or whatever else on your stupid cellular device instead of paying attention to the corporeal hu-mons sitting across from you in the ding dang restaurant!
What's more, when we don't get the reward we're looking for — when we check our connections only to find that we haven't been retweeted, our Facebook status isn't "liked," our email not yet returned — it only reinforces our desire for that dopamine dump.
Here's what Emily Yoffe wrote about it in an article titled "Seeking: How the brain hard-wires us to love Google, Twitter, and texting," which first appeared on Slate in 2009. (2009! That's 90 jillion years ago in Internet time!):
Actually all our electronic communication devices — email, Facebook feeds, texts, Twitter — are feeding the same drive as our [Google] searches. Since we're restless, easily bored creatures, our gadgets give us in abundance qualities the seeking/wanting system finds particularly exciting. Novelty is one. [Washington State University neuroscientist] Jaak Panksepp says the dopamine system is activated by finding something unexpected or by the anticipation of something new. If the rewards come unpredictably — as email, texts, updates do — we get even more carried away. No wonder we call it a "CrackBerry."
"CrackBerry." I know, right? It's an apropos reference given that's the ancient device used in the University of Chicago study. But I told you this dopamine and your tech addiction connection is old news. And let's be honest, knowing that your generally obnoxious behavior is the result of brain chemistry does not give you license to text while walking, yack on the phone while driving, Facebook while dating, or tweet from the toilet.
If Wikipedia teaches us anything, it's that knowledge is power. Now go forward with your knowledge of brain chemistry and stop being a jerk.
More on the annoying way we live now:
- Internet not a human right, says Internet's dad
- 7 signs we're living in the post-privacy era
- Why 'Community' is the only Internet crossover that matters
Helen A.S. Popkin goes blah blah blah about privacy and then asks her to join her on Twitter and/or Facebook. Also, Google+. Because that's how she rolls.
Leave a Comment:
Give me a break. Many of these devices are necessary to function in the modern world, especially in business. So it makes you an "addict" if you're checking your email every half-hour or texting people regularly? Were people called "automobile addicts" when they started driving Model Ts everywhere instead of riding a horse? Were they called "telegraph addicts" when they started cabling people instead of writing letters to send via Pony Express? It's just the continued evolution of technology and communications; stop trying to label it as something destructive.
You forgot television addicts and telephone addicts. Then followed video addicts, console game addicts, and cell addicts. This could go on for ever.......:P
Chris, you are in denial, like many addicts. A world with less communication, face to face that is, is not a better place. Try actually communicating, e.g. with your mother, or friend, and listen.
@chris
you are so right. It seems the term addict/addiction is placed on anything these days. It's the new label people use and all it does is place a negative on anything people do. what is going on in this country that we need to demonize actions and choices. I thought this was a free country or is this a new form of terrorism? Now sugar is the new heroin and a group wants to label sugar as an addictive substance. I would like to know who all these shadow groups are that seem to think they can dictate/preach to the masses. Is this the new religion? If so, call me an atheist!
After reading this article. I can belive it can be and addict. Of course I never use facebook or any of the those other social sites. On the other hand, sites like facebook can be addictive!
It's an addiction when it causes you personal losses that you consciously agree are bad. Like losing a meaningful relationship because you're too busy texting. Are if you just can't ignore reading that text while driving in traffic, you know, it compels you to do behave dangerously, and in a way that could kill someone else. Addiction along those lines. Otherwise it is not an addiction.
My daughter can accurately text on a smartphone's virtual keyboard without looking at it while carrying on a conversation. However, she is not completely in tune with either the texting or the conversation. She is not addicted. She has no problem totally ignoring her smartphone and watching an hour-long television re-run.
I was thinking this same thing--just because Emily Yoffe is restless and easily bored (a characteristic of the none-to-bright) doesn't mean the rest of us are.
I get bored when I am grading papers endlessly--all of them badly proofread and few of them thoughtful--but wouldn't anyone? Children, on the other hand, are endlessly fascinating. I can garden for hours, read good books for hours, just sit and watch a beautiful evening and night sky for hours, and even answer questions from students (if they are interesting questions) for hours--I don't get restless unless having to do something really tedious or when interacting with students (usually the whiney ones) who are doing assignments for the sake of doing assignments, and badly at that.
People who write articles about "addiction" to this or that are generally facing a deadline and must write something--the word "addict" always gets attention. The other thing that gets attention is an article about someone who is "ex-" something: ex-gay, ex-fat, ex-druggie, ex-boy/girlfriend of a celebrity. People read stories like that to reassure themselves that they are "normal" and everyone else is a weirdo/witch; they read articles about "addiction" for the same reason, to reassure themselves that they are "normal" or that they are a "victim" of some force greater than themselves.
Yes, new things are often a distraction--but people got over their addictions to Pacman, their addictions to yo-yoing, their addictions to Friends, and this too will pass. People who are easily distracted probably just need to work on their attention spans--yoga and meditation can help, physical activity helps, but helping others is also a great way to develop an attention span.
Yoffe, however, generally writes articles with the sole purpose of proving to the world that she is "normal"--the article cited above is no exception. Why would anyone cite an article from an uninformed, uneducated, self-absorbed cretin like that? I'd rather read the article by Hofmann any day.
Is that a bad thing?
I know some people who are so addicted to air, they cannot go without breathing for more than a minute ...
You can live without an addiction.
What the hell is Twitter and why would I want it? I have a cell phone, (no internet, pictures, or texting crap) so if I want to communicate with someone I call them. These "Techies" have been brainwashed by the companies that manufacture these devices to believe they cannot live without an Iphone. Believe me, I do not need them nor want them.
Tools for business/work? Sure. Can you do without it at the beach/on vacation/in bed? If not, you ( and the people you affect) have a problem.
Luddites always want to destroy the machines of progress. By the way, did you take into account the little detail that information is now more readily available to many more humans?
Information permits informed decision making, and allows the brainwashed to escape the control of their brainwashers.
oops, I guess that's why so many old religious men don't like technology....
I love technology and love the idea of people learning new things. Just take everything you read with a grain of salt. The internet, as cool as it is, is also the number one source of false information.
Give me a break...I've been going to a job for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for the last 19 years....can I get help for my "work" addiction?
I am addicted hahahaha! Work is so boring sometimes! It is nice to have something to do while I wait for customers...
icanhascheezburger!!!!! xD
THIS IS TOTALLY UNTRUE ! ! !
My name is Walt Jorgan, Im a typical 47 year old guy, living in my parents Attic, here in Topeka Kansas. My career as a Produce Spritzer at Walmart affords me a mere 16 hours per day to troll the Internet. The Internet is a world of Reality. There I have discovered:
1. The Elks Club #153 (Ames, Iowa) Killed JFK
2. George W. Bush invented Global Warming because he hates America. 'THEY' PROVED IT ! ! !
3. Barrack Obama is a Muslim Spy...ITS TRUE.... I READ IT ! ! !
4. Cher has never had Surgery. (I bought the body Cream she sells on line that makes her so young)
5. 9-11 was actually planned by EXXON & HALEBURTON....I read this on the Occupy Wallstreet web-site ! ! !
As you can clearly see, the Internet IS NOT AN ADDICTION.....
It educates and informs. Sites I like best...?..:
1. Boy Scout Camping sites
2. How to tap into Young Boys Fitting Room Security Cameras
3. How to befriend a 12 year old.
4. Adolescent Chat Lines.
5. Public Restroom locations
6. How to avoid Law Enforcement online.
THE INTERNET IS GREAT ! ! ! !
@ALLERGIC TO STUPID PEOPLE - great comment - made me laugh and grimace at the same time.
I work in Addiction Medicine. People who do things in moderation are not addicts. If you can't stop texting, checking your messages, or talking on your cell while you are walking down the street, riding your bike, or driving your car - you are addicted. If you are at work and you consistently can't wait until your break to text, or check the internet, or talk on your cell - you may have a problem. You may not see it, but other people do. It's a problem for employers, and on the street it's a problem of safety. Just yesterday I saw a woman who had her 4 or 5 year old kid by the hand almost walk the kid into the path of an oncoming car because she was talking on her cell and not paying attention. Thank God the driver of the car wasn't texting or something, or we would be reading about a tragedy in the papers today.
“Ding dang restaurant” LOL!
I just created a poll to ask if you're addicted to technology. It's not so hard to ask people to give an honest answer. Go ahead and vote, share the link, let the news channels actually make news instead of reporting it.
Ok, so the site won't let me post links as a new user, that stinks.
just type the text of the link without the ht tp;//www. It won't be an active link, but people can just copy and paste it into the browser address bar
easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4f2e3b75c2e1b0e41d91c294 Thanks for the tip if this works.
Everyone has to define 'need' in their use of this technology. Need vs want vs can. I 'need' to use my cell phone because if I don't, something bad will happen --- I'll lose this relationship or this client or my job or my life. I 'want' to use my cell phone because it makes me feel good to hope that someone might be interested in what I have to say even if it's unimportant. I 'can' use my cell phone, and to prove it I will --- now let me think of what I can possibly say. If you can objectively define your use along the scale from 'can-to-need', then there is hope. If you can't, and you 'need' to use your cell phone every time you pick it up, then you are certainly addicted.
LMAO, yeah right,,,,I haven't upgraded my cellphone nor any of its app's for at least 10 years. And I don't want the trash they try to get me to buy for overinflated prices....That stuff is for the young and naive to buy...The last item of Technology I bought was a HD TV five years ago....and that is about it.....I don't own an X-Box or any of the Video games instead I use my money to buy Books with which never seem to be needing to be "updated" etc. etc...and never seem to bore me after reading it three times..and some actually make me think and to use my brain...How Novel!.....The only other item of Technology I have bought is at "Spot II" GPS rescue device for when I am Backpacking or Fishing in distant lakes which upon a push of a button summons help for me in an emergency....Funny, I am not boring, over weight, nor a dull person or constantly short of Money and can actually speak about real life things for hours on end unlike my dull minded and witted peers who are addicted to Technology...Lol's
You know the old saying, "You know you are addicted when you aren't doing drugs, the drugs are doing you"? Same thing with tech of any sort.
The worst I've seen:
A couple walking out a Gold's Fitness center both texting and laughing...they were texting each other as they walked to their car. They were both still texting as they drove away.
Helen A.S. Popkin: Any useful explaination of the electronic addiction, would be well informed to review this ancient eposide.
I have been following the popular "I am important, generation" for generations. All followers of popular group trends tend to become group followers, it does not suite me to follow them, take your own path, but never follow me because I am not going there.
One of the key qualifiers of an addiction is that it has a negative impact on those who care about you. When your girlfriend/boyfriend can't snuggle on the couch with you to watch a movie without his/her laptop on their lap also playing with Facebook or their cell phone, it's a barrier to intimacy. Same with dining out. Same when entertaining company.
Those that disagree are moving this culture down the same path as every other civilization the preceded it. It's never noticeable by the people on the inside. It's a slow evolutionary bleed, a decay of morals and values. Things that were previously considered a social faux pas simply become tolerable, then become normal, then become accepted.
The last three girls I dated had cell phone and facebook addiction. And their excuse for their disrespectful behavior is that, "Everyone does it." But that's not true. They use it as a means to justify their behavior, but it's a warped perception. For example, when hosting a dinner for a bunch of friends, there's a HUGE difference between her friends leaving their cell phones on the dinner table while eating, but not touching it vs. the addicted girl having her head buried in it and barely lifting her head up, even when being directly talked to. Even when multiple people are trying to communicate with her, she barely acknowledges them.
You guys who are bashing people for labeling everything an addiction are right. Not everything is an addiction. Not everything labeled a disease is a disease either. But there is a direct relationship between the decay in the quality of communication and the decay of our civilization. Remember, 60% of communication is non-verbal, so the highest quality interaction between people can only be achieved face-to-face. With all the texting today, we are already, at best, 40% of the quality in human interaction we used to be.
In Person > Video Conferencing > Telephone > Texting > eMail
Now think about each one of those as a percentage of your daily communication and how it compares to even 20 years ago.
Communication decay is not the only cause of the destruction of our nation, but it is a noteworthy component.
If you're in denial, you're just part of the growing population of people that can't or are simply not willing to recognize the slow bleed.
This isn't about conspiracy theories either. Just pick up a history book or two, maybe anthropology while you're at it. Or maybe you're just too young and you need to give it a few years before you become a responsible adult and your values and priorities will be influenced more by reason and less by emotion.
Sorry, but the addiction to social media, texting, and TV is very concerning. It's not necessary and is helping to further dumb down America's students.
They spend more time on Twitter, FB, You Tube, and texting, than they do studying. And that includes college students for whom we're paying through the nose for tuition!
We watch our teen G-kids after school. The first thing they ask, as soon as they're in the door, is to "Check my FB." It's ridiculous. Half of these young people can't even get their grammar and spelling right anymore. And History? Forget it! Well, we do it differently in our house.
We refuse to allow any of it until after all HW is done and checked. We don't allow texting at all and limit TV. What we do instead is encourage reading, drawing, and painting in our house.
We also talk about History alot, as my husband & I are both History lovers. Hopefully, some of it will sink in. We encourage them to watch things like discovery channel, rather than these idiotic kids' shows.
When we do allow any time on FB, we limit it to no more than 15 minutes, after HW is done, and the laptop must be out here where we can watch them. We also monitor how long and what they watch on TV.
And just look at the obesity rates! You can't even get kids to play outside anymore. All they want to do is watch TV and go on the computer. No wonder people are so overweight!
Interesting study, so many comments. Nobody realized the name of the town is wrong... It is called "Würzburg".