LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   'Smart' phones: the new security blankets (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/smart-phones-the-new-security-blankets-4175665765/)

enorbet 01-07-2020 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075572)
You seem to be using a lot of hyperbole and one anecdote involving laboratory animals to support your own logic, to bolster what is really just an opinion of yours, which so far as I can tell has no basis in proven fact.

I disagree and please by all means give me an example of exaggeration I used. The lab mice are an example not merely an anecdote since numerous such tests were performed with consistent results but that has no bearing other than as an example of making self-destructive choices even when positive choices are readily available. For me that is the distinction between mere "habitual" behaviour and "addictive" behaviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075572)
Introducing hard drugs into the argument - as the primary example of addiction and citing the severity of withdrawal simply as "addiction" does not simply dismiss any of the arguments being made in the thread regarding addiction, which is a compulsive behaviour in any activity which provides stimulation of the "reward" pathways in the brain. In terms of substances, if you look at tobacco (nicotine) as an example, few are willing to beg, steal, starve or worse for it, but that doesn't make it any less addictive. Though they are proven to be some of the most addictive substances, the most notable difference between the hard drugs and other substances or behaviours, aside from their high cost, health impacts and legality of course, is the severity of withdrawal. Your whole case seems to amount to "no withdrawal, not really addiction".

I didn't introduce the hard drugs example nor have I leaned on the severity of withdrawl. In the above mentioned case of the cocaine mice they weren't facing withdrawal or at least extended withdrawal since both food and cocaine were readily available, yet they didn't choose to eat. So No... my case does emphatically NOT depend on withdrawal. It depends on the degree of compulsion, the degree that crosses the line from positive to negative preference, preferring a negative results over positive results as long as the addiction continues unbroken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075572)
Addiction is related to "psychological dependence" - and the latter and "withdrawal" are not isolated to substances - pornography is one example, gambling is another - but eating is also another one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947358/

(just to give another "lab rat" example)

I don't disagree with the above. Unlike hard drugs to which any and everyone would, willingly or otherwise, become addicted given enough exposure, not everyone becomes addicted to porn or gambling and not everyone takes eating as far as a disorder. Again, the difference is defined by crossing the line into negative, self-destructive behavior.

In my opinion, based on all I have read on the subject and observed:


Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075572)
Simply put: The "brain" of an addict is rewired and it can take a long time, sometimes a year or more to undo that, or it can never be undone. i.e. even after recovery, they have to avoid the source for the rest of the lives, or relapse.

And in smartphone/faecbook/instagrat/etc addictive / dependent behaviours - the brain is also rewired - in particular the still developing brain of children and young adults.

And those big corporate players exploit this, engineer in addictiveness and it appears to be a successful business model

Citation please. Show us any peer reviewed experiment in which it is documented that (and how) "smartphones/facebook/instagrat/etc" rewire 100% of human brains exposed. I think this is really getting quite absurd, as if many here believe that given the billions of dollars spent and centuries of study, advertising is now or will soon be capable of driving us all like zombies to the supermarket to buy the latest sugared cereal or latest "new and improved" whatever. Dale Carnegie classes have spent a century trying to teach people to "win friends and influence people" but they cannot guarantee anyone can force another to be their friend. There does exist a substantial gulf between "influence" and "coerce", and that same distinction exists in every area of the will. "Just say 'No!'", right?

cynwulf 01-07-2020 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075682)
I disagree and please by all means give me an example of exaggeration I used. The lab mice are an example not merely an anecdote [etc]

I produced my own lab rat example for the food addiction, did I not?.
Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075682)
I don't disagree with the above. Unlike hard drugs to which any and everyone would, willingly or otherwise, become addicted given enough exposure, not everyone becomes addicted to porn or gambling and not everyone takes eating as far as a disorder.

And not every alcohol, cocaine or cannabis user or smoker crosses that line, so how is that relevant? Not everyone becomes a gambling addict, thus there is no gambling addiction...?

Presently "internet addiction" or "social network addiction" (or smartphone addiction) are a matter of debate for some - not specifically in that they're some kind of quackery or snake oil nonsense - but that they may fall under the same umbrella as "gaming addiction", in that social networks are very similar to an immersive "virtual world", as with something like an MMORPG.

"gaming disorder" is classified by the WHO: https://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming-disorder/en/

(That also used to be dismissed out of hand, by people who claimed that only substances qualify. There are documented cases of individuals who wasted away, through lack of food and sleep and a few individual who died - at least one only last year.)

Note: "disorder", not "addiction", but it's a matter of semantics again. We could stop using "addiction" in the thread, but I doubt that would change a thing in terms of the dismissive, substances only, attitude towards smartphones and compulsive behaviour or psychological dependency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075682)
Citation please. Show us any peer reviewed experiment [etc]

Clearly marked as an opinion... you missed that?

There is research:

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/9/3528/htm?hc
https://link.springer.com/article/10...429-015-0056-9
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5369147/

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2nd link
Chemical and behavioral addictions have seven core symptoms in common: salience, tolerance, mood modification, conflict, withdrawal, problems, and relapse [4, 11]. Excessive and compulsive online social networking behavior has recently been suggested as a behavioral addiction [12•, 13••, 14••], although it is not formally recognized or embedded in current psychiatric nosology [15].

Some of which has already been posted in this thread...

Smoking tobacco and opium was once thought harmless - even beneficial, it took decades of research to expose the truth, while in the case of tobacco, the companies selling the product worked tirelessly against that - making it "fashionable", "sexy", "cool", etc, through clever marketing. People started smoking, not due to addiction but because it was "cool" and had been normalised in society - addiction came later.
Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075682)
I think this is really getting quite absurd

I submit that it's "absurd", perhaps because you disagree with what has been stated in the thread.

ondoho 01-07-2020 01:22 PM

Food for thought:
Does a hangover signify alcohol addiction?
Does "curing" the hangover with a beer signify alcohol addiction?
Do more severe hangover symptoms (shivers? cold sweat?) signify alcohol addiction?

Now translate these thoughts to mobile technology users.

BTW, the mobile device itself is only 50% of the addiction - the other half is (being connected to) the world wide web.

enorbet 01-07-2020 04:08 PM

I find myself at a loss here trying to see what I think you mean... for example.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075712)
I produced my own lab rat example for the food addiction, did I not?.

The above was in response to my question asking you to give one example of my exaggeration. I didn't see one and still don't. I related that rats often suffered from cocaine addiction not food addiction, especially given my qualifying caveat of negative behavior when there are positive choices available. I don't see how food addiction applies here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075712)
And not every alcohol, cocaine or cannabis user or smoker crosses that line, so how is that relevant? Not everyone becomes a gambling addict, thus there is no gambling addiction...?

It is a bit difficult since there are easy to see addictions like heroin to which everyone exposed long enough is addicted which is a physical addiction based on how all humans are wired, and the psychologically addictive which is characterized by the fact that not everyone is addicted so the substance alone is not considered addictive, just that some people are predisposed to that sort of stimulation or suppression, a sort of two factor addiction... a fuzzy line for sure but one that provably exists in some circumstances and people. So the relevance is that given those people and those circumstances the line can be crossed to where people choose negatives over positives in support of the habit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075712)
Presently "internet addiction" or "social network addiction" (or smartphone addiction) are a matter of debate for some - not specifically in that they're some kind of quackery or snake oil nonsense - but that they may fall under the same umbrella as "gaming addiction", in that social networks are very similar to an immersive "virtual world", as with something like an MMORPG.

"gaming disorder" is classified by the WHO: https://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming-disorder/en/

(That also used to be dismissed out of hand, by people who claimed that only substances qualify. There are documented cases of individuals who wasted away, through lack of food and sleep and a few individual who died - at least one only last year.)

The few deaths that appear to be involved around long term gaming if you actually research the cases they are very flimsy. The S. Korean man had indeed crossed the line into negative support behavior but a mere 50 hours with just some sleep and some nutrition will not kill most healthy humans of any age, let alone in their 20s. In his case they never researched whether the man had any sort of pre-existing conditions which it should be obvious he must have. People can and have lived between 30-60 days with ZERO food if hydrated. Ten days is the norm (that's 240 hours) for death when there is no water. I only mention this as a measure of the desire to exaggerate gaming as a self-destructive addiction. That the S. Korean man had already lost his job due to gaming is sufficient but that doesn't have the same impact as "to Death!" does it?

Nevertheless that still qualifies under my stricter distinction whether it makes for great headlines or not.


Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075712)
Clearly marked as an opinion... you missed that?

Yes I missed that and still do. Here is your statement and I don't see any reference to "opinion" or "speculation". It appears stated as fact to me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Simply put: The "brain" of an addict is rewired and it can take a long time, sometimes a year or more to undo that, or it can never be undone. i.e. even after recovery, they have to avoid the source for the rest of the lives, or relapse.

And in smartphone/faecbook/instagrat/etc addictive / dependent behaviours - the brain is also rewired - in particular the still developing brain of children and young adults.

And those big corporate players exploit this, engineer in addictiveness and it appears to be a successful business model

I see nothing demonstrating that smartphones et al rewire human brains. However I really hope it is clear that just as I think people should not risk cocaine on the basis that some people are predisposed and few know in advance if they are, just because I differentiate between addiction and habit-forming doesn't mean there is no risk nor that people should be casual about accepting such risks. It isn't "mountains and molehills", but rather "mountains and foothills". I find a blanket application of "addiction" diminishes the actual power and accuracy of the word. I prefer precision.

ChuangTzu 01-07-2020 04:09 PM

Just leaving a little note on the side table:
Even brief abstinence from social media causes withdrawal symptoms
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-...-symptoms.html
Study: Smartphone addiction withdrawal is physical, mental
http://www.mobilevillage.com/iphone-...-stress-study/
The Extended iSelf: The Impact of iPhone Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/jcc4.12109
Phone Addiction Is Real -- And So Are Its Mental Health Risks
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegw.../#531b167b13df

enorbet 01-07-2020 04:18 PM

Chuang, you do realize don't you, (in reference to your 2nd link) that a ringing landline has the very same effect as an unanswered ringing cellphone? In fact that may actually have become less compelling for people who grew up with answering machines and screening their calls. The ring is in essence an attention getting alarm. It demands to be answered which is why it was chosen as an alarm bell on the first phones. That some publications apparently skew their results like this and apparently feel they need to just makes me all the more skeptical of their "results".

ChuangTzu 01-07-2020 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075825)
Chuang, you do realize don't you, (in reference to your 2nd link) that a ringing landline has the very same effect as an unanswered ringing cellphone? In fact that may actually have become less compelling for people who grew up with answering machines and screening their calls. The ring is in essence an attention getting alarm. It demands to be answered which is why it was chosen as an alarm bell on the first phones. That some publications apparently skew their results like this and apparently feel they need to just makes me all the more skeptical of their "results".

Impossible to read those links in 9 minutes enorbet...TLDR then jump to conclusions? Landlines were not designed to be portable nor addictive your assertion has no merit. A pencil is not designed to be addictive, however, a fidget wheel/spinner is designed to be so. Huge difference even though both can be "fidgeted". I am beginning to think you are playing a game of circular logic and that is quite off topic and unproductive.

rigor 01-07-2020 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6072120)
While that is quite true when we are talking about a source of 50,000 watts, a signal strength still measuring 10s of 1000s of watts extends for many miles. The distance at which it drops to the 4 watt level of cellphones is many hundreds of miles. The bottom line is that cellphone contribution is essentially akin to "spitting in the ocean".

. . .

It is certainly true that cause and effect on disease or even physical harm is a nebulous territory and rarely ever simple. Set and setting rarely are. This is one of the reasons that health guidelines are so general and conservative. It's an effort to estimate the lowest possible risk for the highest susceptibility. However, again, the degree of radio exposure from a cellphone is so low especially compared to the ocean of transmissions we are all constantly immersed in makes it utterly insignificant. Hand held "walkie-talkies" had roughly the same power as a cell phone and I would expect that being in use since 1937 we would have seen cancers by now if that was a risk. Seems like an acceptable level of risk to me.

Naturally each person will decide what they believe, and what, if anything, to do with what they belief.

I tend to think that this thread might have ranged a bit from it's original topic, but just to get the physics into the mix accurately, since the intensity of radio wave exposure drops inversely as the distance increases, doing the calculation seems to show that actually, the intensity of a 4 watt cell phone signal a foot away from someone's head, is over 50 times the intensity of a 50,000 watt signal, one mile away. Naturally some people are closer to a Radio Stations's antenna, and there are multiple radio stations, plenty of cell towers, etc., etc., and quite often some devices in a person's own dwelling, emitting energy through the air.

The following link:

Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

points to a document mentioning the viewpoints, etc., of various health related organizations, and has a bibliography with dozens of links to related documents on the subject.

cynwulf 01-07-2020 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075820)
The above was in response to my question asking you to give one example of my exaggeration.

I did not use the term "exaggeration", hence why I have not responded with examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075820)
Yes I missed that and still do. Here is your statement and I don't see any reference to "opinion" or "speculation". It appears stated as fact to me.

From the post you have misquoted:


Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075572)
In my opinion, based on all I have read on the subject and observed:

Simply put: The "brain" of an addict is rewired and it can take a long time, sometimes a year or more to undo that, or it can never be undone. i.e. even after recovery, they have to avoid the source for the rest of the lives, or relapse.

And in smartphone/faecbook/instagrat/etc addictive / dependent behaviours - the brain is also rewired - in particular the still developing brain of children and young adults.

And those big corporate players exploit this, engineer in addictiveness and it appears to be a successful business model


Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075820)
I prefer precision.

In other words you're simply a pedant.

cynwulf 01-07-2020 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 6075769)
Food for thought:
Does a hangover signify alcohol addiction?
Does "curing" the hangover with a beer signify alcohol addiction?
Do more severe hangover symptoms (shivers? cold sweat?) signify alcohol addiction?

Search the web for a "high functioning alcoholic".
Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 6075769)
BTW, the mobile device itself is only 50% of the addiction - the other half is (being connected to) the world wide web.

50% is significant.

Geist 01-07-2020 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 6075769)
Food for thought:
Does a hangover signify alcohol addiction?
Does "curing" the hangover with a beer signify alcohol addiction?
Do more severe hangover symptoms (shivers? cold sweat?) signify alcohol addiction?

...that sounds more like drink for thought, to be honest... ;)
(Sorry... I have nothing to add anymore, really. I agree with both sides to an extent right now. Even hardcore phone users would be okay after a short while, I'm sure, but it's also a highly potent habit forming activity, so..yeah... )

enorbet 01-07-2020 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075838)
I did not use the term "exaggeration", hence why I have not responded with examples.

No you didn't. You used a more extreme term according to Websters Dictionary

Quote:

Originally Posted by Online Websters Dictionary
Definition of hyperbole

: extravagant exaggeration (such as "mile-high ice-cream cones")


Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075838)
From the post you have misquoted:

This was indeed a serious mistake on my part. The words are there but escaped the quote leader tag. It was an accident but I am responsible and I sincerely apologize for my error both in what I concluded and how I came to that conclusion. You did in fact state that it was opinion.

Incidentally I offered this apology because it is my responsibility to answer for my mistakes even though in this case that is a more difficult "pill to swallow" considering you refer to me as being both hyperbolic and pedantic, both substantial personal insults. I really don't understand your need to attack me or get heated at all. Until the insults I had no argument with you, just with ideas and about smartphones for crying out loud.... not exactly political or religious hotbed stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynwulf (Post 6075838)
In other words you're simply a pedant.

I make a distinction between being addicted to heroin and in the habit of regularly buying lottery tickets and apparently you do not. If you think that's a niggling, insignificant difference then I suppose I am a pedant in your eyes, but then I care about the difference between connotation and denotation and debates usually are accompanied by definitions of terms, so I prefer "precise" to "sloppy".

enorbet 01-07-2020 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 6075827)
Impossible to read those links in 9 minutes enorbet...TLDR then jump to conclusions?

That' not true, Chuang. To test it I re-read all four of them, and this time, timed it. It took 8 minutes. BTW the Wiley Online Library link was the most interesting as well as scientific but that didn't say anywhere that human brains were "rewired".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 6075827)
Landlines were not designed to be portable nor addictive your assertion has no merit. A pencil is not designed to be addictive, however, a fidget wheel/spinner is designed to be so. Huge difference even though both can be "fidgeted". I am beginning to think you are playing a game of circular logic and that is quite off topic and unproductive.

In didn't say landline phones were designed to be addictive. Shoot! I'm saying smartphones aren't either! I did say the ringing part which was mentioned in the 2nd linked page where it states
Quote:

Originally Posted by mobilevillage.com
While working on the second puzzle, the researchers called the participants’ iPhones–which the participants heard ringing, but couldn’t reach.

and I submit that is no different than had they been landlines in that ringtones are meant to grab one's attention as an alarm. It used to be that nobody would even imagine not answering a ringing phone, even a pay phone where the likelihood the call is for you is nearly non-existent. Although that implied responsibility may not be as strong today as it used to be, the Wiley article mentioned FoMO (Fear of Missing Out) as a cause of stress resulting in increased heart rate, so maybe it isn't less than it used to be, just different.

It is absolutely absurd to say I am off topic since the subject in the thread title is precisely "Smartphones" The New Security Blanket" which I am taking quite literally as in the image of Charlie Brown's Linus character holding his to his face while he sucks his thumb. When that occurs in real life it can be a mildly traumatic habit to break, but there is little concern for negative behavior to reclaim the blanket or danger of relapse. It is in fact a bad habit with some benefits that is easily outgrown. It may be unproductive to you since my ideas are in opposition to yours but that is entirely subjective.

ntubski 01-07-2020 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075864)
BTW the Wiley Online Library link was the most interesting as well as scientific but that didn't say anywhere that human brains were "rewired".

Yeah, "rewired" seems like a pretty vague term. Aren't memories formed by connections between neurons? That is, literally every moment of your waking life "rewires" (causes new connections to form in) your brain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 6075682)
hard drugs to which any and everyone would, willingly or otherwise, become addicted given enough exposure

Citation needed. Here is some reason to think otherwise:

https://www.drugrehab.com/addiction/...how-addictive/
Quote:

In 2015, a study published in the Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry also explored the addictive potency of drugs based on a variety of factors. Researchers suggested that cocaine was the third most addictive drug. Only alcohol and heroin were reported to be more addictive.
Note that alcohol is rated as the most addictive drug (along with Heroine iv), and there are many people with a lot of alcohol exposure who aren't addicted.

https://drugabuse.com/cocaine/first-time/
Quote:

How long does it take to get addicted to coke? Depending on the interaction of these factors, it could be a few hours, a few years, or never.

jsbjsb001 01-07-2020 10:43 PM

Just an FYI to those that clearly missed the point of the "hard drugs example" I posted earlier on; the point was that, people aren't addicted to the drug itself, they are "addicted" to the "high" said drug provides, so the drug itself is really immaterial.

The same as you don't use a smartphone just because of the "soft keyboard", and pressing images on the screen. You use it because you are doing some activity on it - like playing games, narcissistically ranting on social media, etc. So again, it's what they are using the smartphone for that can be the "addiction" - if you become "addicted" in the first place of course. And it's absurd to suggest that the smartphone itself is "addictive", the same as it's absurd to suggest everyone who gambles is an "gambling addict" - buying a lotto ticket is ALSO a form of gambling BTW.

The same as someone who's "addicted" to cigarettes, it's the nicotine in those cigarettes that is what their brain is "addicted" to. In others words, the brain forms a dependence on that same nicotine, whereby the brain says "I need more, more, more!" - it doesn't matter who makes the particular cigarettes of choice, that's immaterial.

And ChuangTzu, posting links to what are really just opinions isn't "proof" of anything, other than someone's cobbled together opinions. You don't need a PhD to do that.

In the end, I'm with enorbet on this one.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.