Technology “Addiction”
I haven&#x27;t listened to the episode, so this may be off, but...<p><i>our broad use of the word “addiction” can cause real harm.</i><p>I would say that the opposite is (at least) as harmful. Quantifying and medically defining addiction narrowly has led to a lot of harm. Smoking is extremely hard to kick, with some first handers claiming that its worse than heroin. People rarely prostitute themselves (or others) for tobacco though. Which defines or quantifies addiction?<p>Withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism are among the most dangerous, and deadly, much worse than cocaine. That doesn&#x27;t quite capture what addiction is though. Withdrawal symptoms are short lived, and addicts of many substances are extremely likely to regress well after this part. Cannabis can be habit forming. There are no withdrawal symptoms, and motivated quitters seem to have good success rates... even returning to moderate use. OTOH, it is a very common experience that someone decides not to consume... but does, repeatedly, with impacts on other areas of life.<p>We know that context and comorbidity is very important.<p>I think there&#x27;s no doubt that technology creates impulsive &amp; compulsive behaviours, that people want to stop, but fail to.<p>It&#x27;s all complex. There aren&#x27;t real dividing lines between procrastination, self discipline issues addiction and such. People call it addiction because it walks and quacks like addiction. I&#x27;m more inclined to say that research definitions are incorrect that layman ones. If a researcher narrows the definition to observable neurochemistry or withdrawal symptoms, excluding other addictions with similar behavioural effects... who is wrong here?<p>That said, I haven&#x27;t listened. Adding depth and nuance to our understanding of different addiction (or addiction like) experiences may be useful.