By my observation anger is addictive - previously normal people get angry for maybe a good reason, and subsequently they start looking for something new to be angry about. It’s a real problem because when they can’t find something worth getting worked up over they pick on a random subject and try to convince everyone their pet issue is a huge deal, and everyone who disagrees is a very bad person indeed.
Sometimes I worry that this is because people need to feel emotions, and anger is easy to feed in modern society. It's gratifying for all the wrong reasons. We should be feeding ourselves with other emotions, but anger is cheap, practically free, and requires no intimacy with another person. It makes people feel purpose, a need to resolve something, intense focus. It's a little upsetting to think about, but I'm not sure if I'm framing it differently than it really is. Maybe people have always loved to get pissed off and it's not a product of increasing social isolation causing an increasing need to feel something.
I feel like there is a sort of dominance game at work, not necessarily just with anger but other moods too. I've noticed if someone is angry or depressed, he/she will try to bring everyone around them "down to their level" (and if you're immune, you'll be ignored). I might just be sensitive to it now since I've been thinking about this for a while, but sighing or other attention-seeking behaviors (whistling triggers me) are huge tips that someone is trying to take over and shift the mood. Often people do it subconsciously, and others around them react subconsciously as well.
Try not to judge people (especially kids) who hum or whistle or drum their fingers or tap their feet etc. It is not necessarily a voluntary or conscious behavior, and often has nothing to do with attention seeking or other people at all (folks who do this will keep doing it even when alone).
Kids I don't mind. What came to mind when I said this were a couple of whistlers in the last open office I worked in. I honestly couldn't tell if they were completely unaware of their surroundings, or if they actually were putting down all their chips in the psychological dominance game I mentioned.
Some of them might be fishing to compassion, but I know what you mean generally.
I suspect that people generally try to fit their idea of the world to match the world itself, but on some issues they hate it so much they would rather change the world to match their desires, or barring that, change their perception of the world. The latter requires systematic eradication of contradicting evidence, hence the result you're observing - convincing people who can be convinced and ghosting out the rest.
The propensity for tribal identity probably is as well.
The exact tribe doesn't matter much (we've seen European far right activists jump ship to ISIS). Hooliganism also proves that the matter at hand doesn't have to be serious for people to kill each other.
It's a tricky one to tackle because stigmatization stimulates identity. Maybe promoting a strong personal identity could help.
> Maybe promoting a strong personal identity could help.
Isn't this already overwhelmingly so? I live in the United States. Virtually all popular media (movies, music, memes) exposes messages like "be your true self" - that's promoting having strong personal identities. I actually think doing this less could help.
I have my doubts: in fact, I buy Paul Graham's argument that identity is the cause, not the solution, to a lot of anger. See: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
I just saw a tweet in my timeline starting with "if you want to get FUCKING FURIOUS at" and the same thoughts popped. The issue that tweet is about is certainly a terrible thing that should be solved... but no, I do not want to get fucking furious, nobody should WANT to.
"OMG", you just triggered an epiphany in the sense that you gave a new perspective on what i've observed in a family member. Great description, and exactly fits the observation.
The essay really neglects the effect of prohibition. Legal risk scales with volume being transported - it's better for smugglers to move a briefcase of fentanyl than a 20 foot container of heroin. Hence, the Iron Law of Prohibition: the harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs.
That seems predicated on the assumption that 1) prohibition efforts are inherently flawed and 2) that a cultural desire to consume hard drugs is inevitable.
For example, many East Asian countries have serious punishments for drug trafficking and also have less general cultural acceptance of illegal drug use. As far as I know, there aren’t nearly as many drug problems there as compared to the west.
Very hard to have good data on something that's this heavily persecuted/prosecuted. Would love to see any sources/studies on it, but it sounds unlikely that a convincing comparison can be produced.
Without comparison wrt. the topic, it's akin to saying "no, of course we don't have a problem with homosexuality in Iran, we hang homosexuals". Of course, any prospective subjects for the comparative study will be very hard to find.
> For example, many East Asian countries have serious punishments for drug trafficking and also have less general cultural acceptance of illegal drug use. As far as I know, there aren’t nearly as many drug problems there as compared to the west.
How do you get accurate data about something so heavily stigmatized? What data are you basing your opinion off?
>As far as I know, there aren’t nearly as many drug problems there as compared to the west.
In Japan it seems like the prohibition/cultural disapproval of most drugs has made addiction far worse for the legal drugs -- alcoholism and cigarette smoking are ubiquitous. And I have heard there is a thriving underground trade in amphetamines, but I have no direct experience there.
> My latest trick is taking long hikes. I used to think running was a better form of exercise than hiking because it took less time. Now the slowness of hiking seems an advantage, because the longer I spend on the trail, the longer I have to think without interruption.
I love hiking for this reason.
That said I’m distractedly on my phone while walking around a mall.
The thing that always bugs me about this kind of thinkpiece is the short-view assumption that there's some telos to whatever effect they're describing. Tobacco use has waxed and waned in popularity many times over the centuries since its introduction to the rest of the world.
That seems like a nitpick but the whole "we'll have more addictive things" hypothesis rests on there being an arc of history. Like, sure maybe? Then we'll have less. I like a lot of pg's stuff, I just find this is pretty far out in left field.
I think pg always tries to make things a part of the big plan or a big arc. Can't blame him - it's easier to reason about things when they fit together, and stringing them up as a part of a trend/arc/pursuit-of-telos works very well for that. It might even be correct sometimes. Despite the apparent bias it's still quality writing and often generates quality discussions.
I also have to say that most people in our industry cannot generalize at all; pg is one of only two people I know who can do the job without botching it. To the extent that we want to generalize anything at all, however well, we have nearly no one else to look at.
I think it's less about an arc of history and more of an extrapolation. We use technology to advance things that benefit us. Getting people addicted to things benefits the people who sell those things. Hence, they will use technology to advance addictiveness. Since technology advances exponentially, addictiveness will then also advance exponentially. We are hitting the fat part of the technology curve, so maybe the fat part of the addictiveness curve is right behind it.
Ketamine has been around, and used recreationally, since far before 2010. The only thing that's new is using it as a highly effective treatment for depression.
I'd be more concerned about fentanyl and it's derivatives than something like THC or ketamine, which aren't nearly as addictive or have the same potential for physically dependency.
Fentanyl isn't anything new, but it's cheap and extremely potent. Doses are measured in the microgram range, because of that and it's incredibly short high, it's the number 1 cause of overdose for opioid users. It has contributed a lot to our current opioid epidemic.
One thing he's not really mentioned is the development of tolerance, and the subsequent withdrawal when the addictive substance/behavior is taken away. This is what, to me, separates the so-so addictions like running from the junkies who will commit violence to avoid withdrawal. There is enough evidence that stuff like gaming, gambling, social media are activating these rewards centers and leading to structural changes in the brain.
In other words, I think pg is missing half the story by not discussing the phenomena of tolerance (higher doses to achieve the same effect) and withdrawal (profound suffering when effect is taken away). Typical writing of someone so divorced from the real world.
> This is what, to me, separates the so-so addictions like running from the junkies who will commit violence to avoid withdrawal. There is enough evidence that stuff like gaming, gambling, social media are activating these rewards centers and leading to structural changes in the brain.
This is central to the concept of diagnosing addiction, as well as the colloquial use: it has to be a compulsive behavior whose use negatively and substantially affects your life, which is why running and normal caffeine use don't usually qualify.
I doubt that pg is unaware of this, or indeed anyone who's familiar with the context of addiction, and it's a bizarre leap to say that he's missing it due to being detached from the real world just because he chooses not to focus on it.
