Can’t Put Down Your Device? That’s by Design(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Can’t Put Down Your Device? That’s by Design
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/technology/personaltech/cant-put-down-your-device-thats-by-design.html
42 comments
> the utility it offers the average user today is just a glorified photo album.
There are basically two kinds of Internet use that young people engage in -- hanging out with friends, and teaching themselves new skills.
The vast majority of young people though are mostly using the Internet to hang out with friends. The exception is apparently affluent white males, who have much higher rates of using the Internet to explore new ideas and teach themselves new skills. This is called the 'participation gap.' (It's perhaps also partly why, for example, there are more male entrepreneurs even though women do better in formal education.)
The important thing to note is that decisions about what to use the Internet for have a lot to do with who you are following in your social networks. E.g. this determines what new interests you're likely to discover, what opportunities are made available to you, etc.
source: http://www.amazon.com/Participatory-Culture-Networked-Era-Co...
There are basically two kinds of Internet use that young people engage in -- hanging out with friends, and teaching themselves new skills.
The vast majority of young people though are mostly using the Internet to hang out with friends. The exception is apparently affluent white males, who have much higher rates of using the Internet to explore new ideas and teach themselves new skills. This is called the 'participation gap.' (It's perhaps also partly why, for example, there are more male entrepreneurs even though women do better in formal education.)
The important thing to note is that decisions about what to use the Internet for have a lot to do with who you are following in your social networks. E.g. this determines what new interests you're likely to discover, what opportunities are made available to you, etc.
source: http://www.amazon.com/Participatory-Culture-Networked-Era-Co...
I know you mention that women do better in formal education. That wasn't the case a few decades ago, when I believe there was far less prejudice.
I had lunch with a few female teachers several weeks ago. One of their conversations was around the over-enthusiasm of boys in class. They unanimously agreed that boys needed to "shut up" (literal quote) so girls could answer questions too. This view parallels that of my ex-girlfriend who is (and was then) a teacher who felt boys had some sort of natural advantage that needed to be suppressed.
I also made mention of code.org that had one link only on the main page "why girls should participate in IT" (or very similar words). My young son noticed this and asked if he was welcome.
I would not use today's metrics on boys vs girls in education as a basis for any measurements. If we stopped with the prejudice (which is extremely common today), the picture would look quite different.
I had lunch with a few female teachers several weeks ago. One of their conversations was around the over-enthusiasm of boys in class. They unanimously agreed that boys needed to "shut up" (literal quote) so girls could answer questions too. This view parallels that of my ex-girlfriend who is (and was then) a teacher who felt boys had some sort of natural advantage that needed to be suppressed.
I also made mention of code.org that had one link only on the main page "why girls should participate in IT" (or very similar words). My young son noticed this and asked if he was welcome.
I would not use today's metrics on boys vs girls in education as a basis for any measurements. If we stopped with the prejudice (which is extremely common today), the picture would look quite different.
I am fascinated by your theory that there was less prejudice a few decades ago. This graph, for example, does not look like a graph of increasing prejudice:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
I read that as decreasing systemic bias in education. At least in law, medicine, and physical sciences.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
I read that as decreasing systemic bias in education. At least in law, medicine, and physical sciences.
That graph doesn't look to me like something characterized by prejudice at all. Why would people suddenly become sexist in the computer technology field only, practically overnight?
The article even suggests that the drop started with the boom of the personal computer. That is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that women do better in formal settings, since that inflection point is essentially the moment it became possible for large amounts of people to teach themselves to be a computer programmer. It seems likely that some pre existing bias (either in interest our ability from girls or more likely an interplay of interest and culture) was just amplified when the flood of autodidacts joined the field, not that everyone decided to exclude women just as the field was getting hot.
The article even suggests that the drop started with the boom of the personal computer. That is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that women do better in formal settings, since that inflection point is essentially the moment it became possible for large amounts of people to teach themselves to be a computer programmer. It seems likely that some pre existing bias (either in interest our ability from girls or more likely an interplay of interest and culture) was just amplified when the flood of autodidacts joined the field, not that everyone decided to exclude women just as the field was getting hot.
My point is that the other three lines are indicative of decreasing prejudice in education, not increasing. The computer-science line is clearly different and why is an interesting topic, but it's not the topic at hand.
A pet theory I've been developing is the decline in the 80s began with a growth in self destructive behavior in the programming employment sector. Eating junk food, caffeinated energy drinks, lack of exercise, lack of good food, lack of sleep, lack of socializing, lack of overtime pay, lack of professionalism, obsessive game play, lack of life balance, lack of decent working environment. Before the 80s programmer culture felt very engineer / mathematician / academic, after the 80s its kinda felt like an introverts weird interpretation of an all night party, every night. Here have a hot pocket and type all night. A culture that prides itself on twinkies and monster energy drinks isn't going to fit the nearly 100% female readership of the typical health magazine. The stereotypical programming environment is nearly unique in the working world, isn't it? Are there any other job markets culturally like programming? If there were, we could compare how the two fields opposition to personal hygiene or opposition to dressing fashionably, or even dressing in clean clothes might not appeal to women at similar rates, for example. I've only found two work places kinda like programming/IT as defined above. One is military mechanic and the other is SOME trading desks at big finance. Both tend a bit male.
That's directly on topic. I suppose from an "eating your own (addictive) dogfood" perspective its kinda self inflicted.
It would be interesting to look at male/female relations and ratios for programmers at non-traditional employers, perhaps the government or military or maybe academic. I suspect the lifestyle at a unionized state government office is quite a bit different than "standard" programming environment and theorize almost anything would be an improvement WRT women's interest in that workplace. Perhaps addictive behaviors would vary in those circumstances.
Surely there must be some HR statistics buried somewhere at a giant corporation or government about % of programmers participating in the corporate alcoholism project by decade, or something like that, WRT trends in addictive personality by decade.
That's directly on topic. I suppose from an "eating your own (addictive) dogfood" perspective its kinda self inflicted.
It would be interesting to look at male/female relations and ratios for programmers at non-traditional employers, perhaps the government or military or maybe academic. I suspect the lifestyle at a unionized state government office is quite a bit different than "standard" programming environment and theorize almost anything would be an improvement WRT women's interest in that workplace. Perhaps addictive behaviors would vary in those circumstances.
Surely there must be some HR statistics buried somewhere at a giant corporation or government about % of programmers participating in the corporate alcoholism project by decade, or something like that, WRT trends in addictive personality by decade.
I got the distinct impression that the parent comment was suggesting that there was increasing prejudice against men (or in favor of women), since all the stories are about a conscious effort to cater to women over men.
Yes, exactly. He's complaining about what he perceives as anti-male prejudice. He just didn't say it explicitly. He talked instead about "a few decades ago, when I believe there was far less prejudice".
I'm calling attention that rhetorical slight of hand. Reducing prejudice overall sounds like a noble goal, and it's one I share. But the stats I'm familiar with suggest that prejudice has decreased.
When prejudice in my favor decreases, it feels a lot like prejudice against me increases, so I can get why he feels that way. But I don't think that personal experience justifies a broad claim of increasing prejudice.
I'm calling attention that rhetorical slight of hand. Reducing prejudice overall sounds like a noble goal, and it's one I share. But the stats I'm familiar with suggest that prejudice has decreased.
When prejudice in my favor decreases, it feels a lot like prejudice against me increases, so I can get why he feels that way. But I don't think that personal experience justifies a broad claim of increasing prejudice.
>When prejudice in my favor decreases, it feels a lot like prejudice against me increases, so I can get why he feels that way. But I don't think that personal experience justifies a broad claim of increasing prejudice.
You are leaving out the possibility that real prejudice is decreasing, but that prejudice against males is increasing, just not as much as prejudice against females is decreasing. Not appearance, actual prejudice.
The reason for the slight of hand is that being open about the possibility of prejudice against males increasing tends to get a number of quite negative reactions, from the common (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'you have too much privilege to be able to comment on the matter' to the far less tolerated (at least here) insults.
As for increasing prejudice against males, there is far more evidence than just personal experience that there is real increases, not just perceived. From the negative effects of lacking male role models in grade school (it doesn't matter why this happens, as it does and thus it creates a negative effect by society impacting young boys) to issues such as biased definitions being used in government reports to cover up or down play male victims of crimes.
You are leaving out the possibility that real prejudice is decreasing, but that prejudice against males is increasing, just not as much as prejudice against females is decreasing. Not appearance, actual prejudice.
The reason for the slight of hand is that being open about the possibility of prejudice against males increasing tends to get a number of quite negative reactions, from the common (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'you have too much privilege to be able to comment on the matter' to the far less tolerated (at least here) insults.
As for increasing prejudice against males, there is far more evidence than just personal experience that there is real increases, not just perceived. From the negative effects of lacking male role models in grade school (it doesn't matter why this happens, as it does and thus it creates a negative effect by society impacting young boys) to issues such as biased definitions being used in government reports to cover up or down play male victims of crimes.
It's an interesting point, although I think it's worth distinguishing 4 kinds of prejudice: pro- and anti- male and female.
I'm interested in decreasing total prejudice, and also decreasing the substantial imbalance in net prejudice benefit between groups. I don't think prejudice can be eliminated; System 1 thinking is too practically useful.
I think the reason people react negatively to dudes bringing up a possible increase in anti-male prejudice is that that it's usually brought up as an interruption to discussion of anti-female prejudice. That is, it's not used as a serious participation in a broad discussion of prejudice and how to reduce it, but a way of derailing discussion. And as I said, people are inclined to treat a reduction in pro-them prejudice as an increase in anti-them prejudice. So even sincere attempts can come across as ignorant.
Personally, I suspect anti-male prejudice is actually decreasing as we unwind patriarchy. I think it can be more visible, though, as a) women are more willing to be open about anti-male prejudices they have, and b) as we see women moving toward equality, we reexamine our own position. But I'm personally ok even if it's a temporary increase, as I see it as a backlash against the status quo. Honestly, given the number of women I know who have been sexually assaulted or physically abused, I'm amazed there isn't more anti-male prejudice. As we reduce the number of people who have those experiences, I expect we'll see dramatic drops in anti-male prejudice.
I'm interested in decreasing total prejudice, and also decreasing the substantial imbalance in net prejudice benefit between groups. I don't think prejudice can be eliminated; System 1 thinking is too practically useful.
I think the reason people react negatively to dudes bringing up a possible increase in anti-male prejudice is that that it's usually brought up as an interruption to discussion of anti-female prejudice. That is, it's not used as a serious participation in a broad discussion of prejudice and how to reduce it, but a way of derailing discussion. And as I said, people are inclined to treat a reduction in pro-them prejudice as an increase in anti-them prejudice. So even sincere attempts can come across as ignorant.
Personally, I suspect anti-male prejudice is actually decreasing as we unwind patriarchy. I think it can be more visible, though, as a) women are more willing to be open about anti-male prejudices they have, and b) as we see women moving toward equality, we reexamine our own position. But I'm personally ok even if it's a temporary increase, as I see it as a backlash against the status quo. Honestly, given the number of women I know who have been sexually assaulted or physically abused, I'm amazed there isn't more anti-male prejudice. As we reduce the number of people who have those experiences, I expect we'll see dramatic drops in anti-male prejudice.
>Honestly, given the number of women I know who have been sexually assaulted or physically abused, I'm amazed there isn't more anti-male prejudice.
Would this work for anti-female prejudice if the stats were reversed. For example, once you look past how the CDC picks a specific definition of rape that excludes male victims of female rapists, you find that within a given year, men are raped at almost the same rate as women (if memory serves it was a .2% difference).
So given this, why are anti-male prejudice given an explanation based on male behavior while anti-female prejudices are not given an explanation based on female behavior?
Would this work for anti-female prejudice if the stats were reversed. For example, once you look past how the CDC picks a specific definition of rape that excludes male victims of female rapists, you find that within a given year, men are raped at almost the same rate as women (if memory serves it was a .2% difference).
So given this, why are anti-male prejudice given an explanation based on male behavior while anti-female prejudices are not given an explanation based on female behavior?
You are claiming that women rape men basically as often as men rape women? I find that literally incredible. If you have stats, by all means post them, but there's a ton of evidence the other way.
As to your question, the short answer is patriarchy. We're slowly emerging from a millennia-long system of male dominance of women. I read a lot of anti-female prejudice as part of that system of control of women. Whereas I read a lot of anti-male prejudice as a) reaction to the experience of patriarchy, b) resistance to the system of patriarchy, or c) part of patriarchy itself. As we eliminate patriarchy and then have a couple of generations of people who haven't experienced it, I expect much of that to fade.
As to your question, the short answer is patriarchy. We're slowly emerging from a millennia-long system of male dominance of women. I read a lot of anti-female prejudice as part of that system of control of women. Whereas I read a lot of anti-male prejudice as a) reaction to the experience of patriarchy, b) resistance to the system of patriarchy, or c) part of patriarchy itself. As we eliminate patriarchy and then have a couple of generations of people who haven't experienced it, I expect much of that to fade.
The computer-science line clearly indicates that 'prejudice in education' is not the only and may not be the strongest cause of that trend.
> That wasn't the case a few decades ago, when I believe there was far less prejudice.
Keep in mind that in HS men are discriminated against in terms of their GPA. But then the ones that make it to college get some affirmative action in the admissions process, which partly makes up for it. Though there are still way more women who make it into and through college. But then Ph.D. programs arguably favor men.
I guess my point is that there are lots of different types of participation in the education system, and lots of different types of discrimination. So saying that discrimination has on the whole increased or decreased, even in the limited area of gender issues, is probably difficult.
Keep in mind that in HS men are discriminated against in terms of their GPA. But then the ones that make it to college get some affirmative action in the admissions process, which partly makes up for it. Though there are still way more women who make it into and through college. But then Ph.D. programs arguably favor men.
I guess my point is that there are lots of different types of participation in the education system, and lots of different types of discrimination. So saying that discrimination has on the whole increased or decreased, even in the limited area of gender issues, is probably difficult.
Compared to the past standard of 'you are a woman, you aren't allowed here', discrimination has decreased. The problem is when you focus on more recent history, say in the last 10 years. How has discrimination changed in the last decade and who are the winners, the losers, and the ones not impacted either way?
I think there is a third kind too; consuming media (music/video). I'm not sure how that compares to the hanging out by time-spent, but by dollars-spent I would imagine it's the biggest one.
That's a bit cynical. Or realist. Some people would argue strongly that the web made revolt or rescue possible in some aeras.
Twitter has a little value as a live wingman for Google. Parts of reddit were very helpful in some actions (finding missing people), almost self organized .. that was something special IMO. Youtube as sink for forgotten videos too (alternative filming of music events etc etc).
I tend to see the web as a waste of time. Even HN is mostly fancy tech-centered zapping nowadays (I speak for myself). It's also an ever changing market of trends, from socnet websites to some of its technical structure.
That's why nowadays I mostly look at old and limited network medias (ML, IRC). Where the communication is lighter but of higher information content (not always but on average).
[1] I also wonder about the ecological effects of all these website. I hosted a gif on imgur the other day, one hour later it used a few GB of bandwidth I felt crass. Even the social side .. so much waste. Let's all meditate and lower the planet blood pressure.
Twitter has a little value as a live wingman for Google. Parts of reddit were very helpful in some actions (finding missing people), almost self organized .. that was something special IMO. Youtube as sink for forgotten videos too (alternative filming of music events etc etc).
I tend to see the web as a waste of time. Even HN is mostly fancy tech-centered zapping nowadays (I speak for myself). It's also an ever changing market of trends, from socnet websites to some of its technical structure.
That's why nowadays I mostly look at old and limited network medias (ML, IRC). Where the communication is lighter but of higher information content (not always but on average).
[1] I also wonder about the ecological effects of all these website. I hosted a gif on imgur the other day, one hour later it used a few GB of bandwidth I felt crass. Even the social side .. so much waste. Let's all meditate and lower the planet blood pressure.
> the utility it offers the average user today is just a glorified photo album.
If that's how you choose to use it, yes. What makes these devices useful to people is that you do get to choose how to use them.
If that's how you choose to use it, yes. What makes these devices useful to people is that you do get to choose how to use them.
No! It offers much more, but some users are just not interested.
Also published recently on the same topic:
https://aeon.co/essays/if-the-internet-is-addictive-why-don-...
(In fact the NYT article looks like it might be plagiarized from this.)
https://aeon.co/essays/if-the-internet-is-addictive-why-don-...
(In fact the NYT article looks like it might be plagiarized from this.)
this is better than the NYT article. i don't understand how it can consider regulation though, when the only currency onvolved is the user's attention, and they are their own federal reserves. does the web physically make us addicted, like cigarettes, to the point of unpleasantness when not indulging in the activity, or does it just form patterns pf behaviour that can be easily broken, provided one is _conscious_ of them?
Thanks for this one, liked it more than the NYT.
Was also interesting to learn where the game company "Machine Zone" (Game of War) got its name.
Was also interesting to learn where the game company "Machine Zone" (Game of War) got its name.
Engineering addictive/compulsive usage is the highest achievement for any company as relates to their bottom line. Coke, Apple, FritoLay, Altria, Google etc... Literally every consumer focused company that is a leader in their market has gotten this down to a T and the ones with the most addicting properties among them, do the best.
Leading car companies?
Status (probably not the best word for it) addiction?
BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, etc... you'll find high rates of satisfaction, repeat business, etc, despite rather high rates of unreliable over-engineered components. It's more important to a lot of people to be driving a technologically advanced Tesla with great acceleration, or a differently-advanced sporty BMW that handles like a dream, rather than a more boring, more reliable car that just works. (Or, for a eco-friendly to eco-friendly comparison, the Tesla inspires much more devotion than other electric or hybrid vehicles.)
BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, etc... you'll find high rates of satisfaction, repeat business, etc, despite rather high rates of unreliable over-engineered components. It's more important to a lot of people to be driving a technologically advanced Tesla with great acceleration, or a differently-advanced sporty BMW that handles like a dream, rather than a more boring, more reliable car that just works. (Or, for a eco-friendly to eco-friendly comparison, the Tesla inspires much more devotion than other electric or hybrid vehicles.)
You're talking about a major purchase made once every 5+ years. Not exactly on the timescale of a compulsive loop.
Tesla is Consumer Reports highest rated car ever.
Just. Wait.
IMO you don't know if a car is reliable until the kid created in the back seat is old enough to pick up his prom date in it.
I'll also add that there's not a lot of people driving Teslas as their only vehicle year round in salt states and the typical owner is wealthy and can afford to take care of it.
I'm not saying it's not reliable, just that we don't know yet and that they'll never get very hard treatment.
IMO you don't know if a car is reliable until the kid created in the back seat is old enough to pick up his prom date in it.
I'll also add that there's not a lot of people driving Teslas as their only vehicle year round in salt states and the typical owner is wealthy and can afford to take care of it.
I'm not saying it's not reliable, just that we don't know yet and that they'll never get very hard treatment.
Yes, the same Consumer Reports who later called them out for reliability: http://www.consumerreports.org/cars/tesla-reliability-doesnt...
You use it everyday by default. In the case of cars they don't need to engineer it as it's baked in to what they do. Same goes for refrigerators, beds and homes.
The bottom line is trying to get you to use something everyday.
The bottom line is trying to get you to use something everyday.
Beds are sold through an addiction/compulsion mechanism because you use it every day? That's stretching things.
One of the amusing parallels regarding Facebook (and similar products) is the way your likes, messages, and notifications, are basically like a little scoreboard, even in about the same location as old arcade games, and emphasized as strongly as anything else on the site - bright red against a similar shade of blue. It definitely contributes to that impulsive feeling I remember (prior to closing my account) to just keep checking. Similar to the worst psychological tactics and "reward-for-suffering" schemes employed by some game developers, e.g. Farmville, Curiosity, World of Warcraft, etc.
It'd be nice to see gamification used for good rather than kinda-evil, but the potential users they alienate with these tactics are clearly a minority compared to the ones they manage to attract and keep hooked - or else they wouldn't have managed to stay successful products for as long as they have.
It'd be nice to see gamification used for good rather than kinda-evil, but the potential users they alienate with these tactics are clearly a minority compared to the ones they manage to attract and keep hooked - or else they wouldn't have managed to stay successful products for as long as they have.
People tend to refresh the same feeds/groups/sites repeatedly, unthinkingly. Each of those has biases depending on the people who post there. Something useful to interrupt the unthinking refresh cycle would be an app or extension that analyzes group sentiments and occasionally signals "You've visited this site 3 times today. Would you like to try one of the following to see some different viewpoints on the same topics?"
Probably not possible without privacy issues, but if opinions are already being tracked that way for advertising and surveillance purposes anyway, we could get some value out of it...
Probably not possible without privacy issues, but if opinions are already being tracked that way for advertising and surveillance purposes anyway, we could get some value out of it...
This as a browser extension yes! I need this. I wish I could give you 1000 votes! Please make this happen, I can even help you with it!
Frankly I'm not sure how to feel about this line of thought.
I safely avoid experiences like this and I don't see the appeal of Instagram. I imagine the feeling is much like eating snack food: you know you're eating too much, you have plenty, and nothing in the moment except shame will stop you from eating it.
The answer is: don't buy snack food ever. Eat hearty meals and leave it at that.
I take that approach to web/app content: read hearty texts, view great images. Switch it off when the quality dips below ambient levels.
I safely avoid experiences like this and I don't see the appeal of Instagram. I imagine the feeling is much like eating snack food: you know you're eating too much, you have plenty, and nothing in the moment except shame will stop you from eating it.
The answer is: don't buy snack food ever. Eat hearty meals and leave it at that.
I take that approach to web/app content: read hearty texts, view great images. Switch it off when the quality dips below ambient levels.
So how do you manage your time on Hacker News?
Even though this site teaches me things, it works a lot like a slot machine.
Each pull of the lever has a small chance of dispensing a reward like a mildly interesting article.
Not that different from reddit or buzzfeed. The difference mostly being the academic level of the reward.
I'm picky about the kinds of articles I read from HN. I admit that I responded in this thread because I figured the title itself insinuated a lot more than it should.
I tend to opt not to read or participate in threads based on that though. General rules are: read the headline and the number of points for each item on the home page and the "new" page; if it's interesting pop it into a tab. If the quality of the article is mediocre or bad then it just gets closed.
Then I don't come back for at least two hours.
Not sure this is a great general strategy, I'd be interested to see what other people do.
I tend to opt not to read or participate in threads based on that though. General rules are: read the headline and the number of points for each item on the home page and the "new" page; if it's interesting pop it into a tab. If the quality of the article is mediocre or bad then it just gets closed.
Then I don't come back for at least two hours.
Not sure this is a great general strategy, I'd be interested to see what other people do.
[deleted]
"Please revisit using Google Chrome" no, that's okay.
I've recently reflected that despite the internet having origins which benefited the military and scientific community, the utility it offers the average user today is just a glorified photo album.
You see it as people endlessly scroll their Facebook feed, spending very little time even paying attention to the photos they are viewing. You see it in Snapchat, where users are encouraged to narcissistic-ly document their life every few seconds. It's on Imgur (granted, that's not too surprising), Buzzfeed, and clickbait (25 Unbelievable photos taken by a skydiver). I'm sold that if you want to make a successful app or website (based on number of users, not quality of content), it needs to revolve around users taking photos...