Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

    (arstechnica.com)
    349 points pseudolus | 26 comments | 17 Dec 24 23:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.201s | source | bottom
    Show context
    vouaobrasil ◴[20 Dec 24 19:19 UTC] No.42474017[source]▶
    I wonder if the new drug of choice is actually technology. In some ways I think that the addiction to technology has some similar mellowing effects as drugs. Some research indicates that smartphone addiction is also related to low self-esteem and avoidant attachment [1] and that smartphones can become an object of attachment [2]. The replacement of drugs by technology is not surprising as it significantly strengthens technological development especially as it is already well past the point of diminishing returns for improving every day life.

    1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07475...

    2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07475...

    replies(27): >>42474251 #>>42474255 #>>42474258 #>>42474428 #>>42474552 #>>42474820 #>>42474840 #>>42475416 #>>42476573 #>>42476771 #>>42476830 #>>42477157 #>>42477286 #>>42477871 #>>42478303 #>>42478352 #>>42478504 #>>42478717 #>>42478824 #>>42478837 #>>42479083 #>>42479553 #>>42480244 #>>42481141 #>>42481485 #>>42482200 #>>42483991 #
    1. imoverclocked ◴[20 Dec 24 19:43 UTC] No.42474258[source]▶
    Be careful of a possible false dichotomy; People don’t need to have a drug.
    replies(7): >>42474352 #>>42474404 #>>42474416 #>>42474936 #>>42474953 #>>42476667 #>>42477249 #
    2. ndileas ◴[20 Dec 24 19:52 UTC] No.42474352[source]▶
    Hey, speak for yourself, buddy.

    More seriously, I think there's ample historical evidence that drugs (with a liberal definition, beer, etc) are very popular across various times and places.

    replies(2): >>42474418 #>>42474627 #
    3. behnamoh ◴[20 Dec 24 19:56 UTC] No.42474404[source]▶
    OP didn't say that.
    4. pwillia7 ◴[20 Dec 24 19:57 UTC] No.42474416[source]▶
    Who like hermits and people that follow asceticism?
    5. kube-system ◴[20 Dec 24 19:57 UTC] No.42474418[source]▶
    And religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
    replies(1): >>42474988 #
    6. _Algernon_ ◴[20 Dec 24 20:19 UTC] No.42474627[source]▶
    Popularity doesn't necessarily imply a need.
    replies(1): >>42475143 #
    7. vouaobrasil ◴[20 Dec 24 20:56 UTC] No.42474936[source]▶
    That's fair. But I was only referring to those that tend towards drugs, since the entire study is about a reduction in drug use.
    8. dpndencekultur ◴[20 Dec 24 20:59 UTC] No.42474953[source]▶
    Indoctrination into a dependency mindset fits the "buy a solution" model that our societies run on. We are already primed for this indoctrination from the moment mother puts a pacifier in our mouths. Then constantly looking up at her approval, that constitutes the beginning of our need of approval from the women in our lives. We are programmed and primed from day 0.
    replies(3): >>42475403 #>>42479295 #>>42480753 #
    9. ikanreed ◴[20 Dec 24 21:02 UTC] No.42474988{3}[source]▶
    That very wikipedia article you links makes it clear it's not intended to mean religion is a "Drug" in the sense of being addictive, but rather a sociological pain killer. A tonic that limits how much people react to their own suffering.
    replies(1): >>42475330 #
    10. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[20 Dec 24 21:17 UTC] No.42475143{3}[source]▶
    If you want to get technical, doesn’t it? When some particular variety of thing is popular across all human cultures, doesn’t this point to it addressing some deep desire we might put on mazlow’s? What distinguishes a deep, innate human desire from a need?
    replies(1): >>42475587 #
    11. kube-system ◴[20 Dec 24 21:40 UTC] No.42475330{4}[source]▶
    Absolutely. And smart phones are also not literally a drug. Drugs, video games, alcohol, and religion, are all used as a part of coping mechanisms for many, however.
    replies(1): >>42480323 #
    12. nozzlegear ◴[20 Dec 24 21:49 UTC] No.42475403[source]▶
    We're just missing a cigar and a dream about trains here.
    replies(1): >>42477627 #
    13. s1artibartfast ◴[20 Dec 24 22:13 UTC] No.42475587{4}[source]▶
    One way to distinguish them is the retrospective analysis of the outcome. What happens when someone obtains or goes without each category?

    To go deeper, I think one needs to more fully defined "need”. Need for what? Are we talking about needs.. to sustain biological life? Are we talking about needs... To sustain happy and productive lives?

    If we take the second definition, there is a pretty clear difference between a desire and a need. Satisfaction of a desire does not necessarily advance that goal, and can very well be counter to it.

    replies(1): >>42479632 #
    14. layer8 ◴[21 Dec 24 01:02 UTC] No.42476667[source]▶
    So what‘s your drug of choice?
    15. techfeathers ◴[21 Dec 24 03:09 UTC] No.42477249[source]▶
    I really found it interesting that in the engineered society of Brave New World, everyone got a drug. I guess my personally opinion is that I disagree with you, that in a world where you know about drugs, drugs are a sort of need.
    16. sandy_coyote ◴[21 Dec 24 04:53 UTC] No.42477627{3}[source]▶
    What's the reference here? I thought Pink Floyd at first.
    replies(2): >>42477813 #>>42478919 #
    17. ◴[21 Dec 24 05:58 UTC] No.42477813{4}[source]▶
    18. FooBarBizBazz ◴[21 Dec 24 11:00 UTC] No.42478919{4}[source]▶
    Quoth the AI:

    > According to Freud, dreaming about trains often symbolizes the journey of life, with the train representing the progression of time and the destination representing death, and the act of riding a train can be linked to unconscious sexual desires due to the sensation of movement and confinement, particularly when experiencing anxiety about missing a train or being trapped on one.

    replies(1): >>42480668 #
    19. 9dev ◴[21 Dec 24 12:30 UTC] No.42479295[source]▶
    That kind of misogyny sounds like some deeply rooted trauma you have there, buddy.

    Have you ever considered that humans are simply social creatures, that the only thing really separating us from other animals is our ability to socialize and organise in groups?

    There is no programming, it’s our nature.

    replies(1): >>42479880 #
    20. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[21 Dec 24 13:44 UTC] No.42479632{5}[source]▶
    I would just argue that “happy and productive“ is vastly too reductive. This seems like a very difficult definition to nail down, but those needs which are not required for survival would probably be defined as something like “those things which increase the flourishing of, maximize the potential of, and/or contribute to a valid and lasting feeling of deep satisfaction in the individual.”

    From this definition, it seems like some drugs and some uses of drugs are most certainly not necessary while others seem to be contributing to a real psychological need. Some drugs can give people insight into the nature of their own mind or of their experience, or reshape their worldview for the better. They can allow us to experiment with our own consciousness, which seems to be something that we derive a lot of satisfaction and even utility from. In these cases, drugs may be fulfilling a need. Simultaneously we can recognize that drug use intended more just to anesthetize or produce blind pleasure is most likely not contributing to a need, as it was defined above.

    21. gehwartzen ◴[21 Dec 24 14:27 UTC] No.42479880{3}[source]▶
    So if babies are ignored and raised in isolation they still grow up with normal social skills? I think it’s fairly clear that socialization is learned (a term which I think is equivalent to programmed in this context) and not something as innate (or “in our nature”) as breathing.
    replies(1): >>42480148 #
    22. 9dev ◴[21 Dec 24 15:21 UTC] No.42480148{4}[source]▶
    That’s a fallacy. Human babies don’t grow up in isolation; if they do, it’s in contrived experiments, and drawing conclusions from that is about as helpful as watching birds in a cage.

    Humans in their natural environment will interact with other humans socially, mirror their display of emotion, and have a desire for affection.

    replies(1): >>42480373 #
    23. vacuity ◴[21 Dec 24 15:51 UTC] No.42480323{5}[source]▶
    > a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms (such as anxiety, irritability, tremors, or nausea) upon withdrawal or abstinence

    (Merriam-Webster, "addiction")

    It might be stretching it somewhat, but I think video games, social media, and religion can manifest a habitual need to indulge, negative effects from doing so, and negative effects from not doing so. Perhaps not in most people.

    Coping mechanisms/painkillers can naturally cause some people to be "in too deep" because they keep using it and become dependent.

    24. gehwartzen ◴[21 Dec 24 15:58 UTC] No.42480373{5}[source]▶
    Of course they will. But that’s is programming. Nurturing, socializing, teaching… all of it is programming. I’m not placing any negative connotations on the word. I’m not sure why you don’t view those things as programming?
    25. mindslight ◴[21 Dec 24 16:50 UTC] No.42480668{5}[source]▶
    Any exceptions for when you had train wallpaper as a kid? Asking for a friend.
    26. mindslight ◴[21 Dec 24 17:01 UTC] No.42480753[source]▶
    A human baby is helpless and "primed" for dependency on others - there is simply no other way they could be (without a drastically different evolutionary path). This whole thread is about the modern difficulties of teaching children to become independent in spite of that beginning and the corporate machine that wishes to keep us there ("commoditize your complements"). So uh, welcome to the conversation and try not to be so fatalistic.