Boredom before computers

[Berkut]

I'm not so sure that there is a huge difference between the effect of doing drugs, and the effect of engaging in any other sort of highly attractive behaviour, like watching TV or playing video games.

While I see your point, I do think there is a difference.

At least, the difference as I see it is this - is the happiness gained a result of the activity, or is mainly an attempt to avoid the unpleasant effects of stopping?

For example, I don't think most people smoke cigarettes because smoking makes them happy (although there is a pleasurable component to it) as much as because NOT smoking makes them miserable. That, to me, is the difference between something that is fun and can be taken to an excess (although "excess" is obviously very subjective) and something that is an addiction.

Take playing WoW, for example. I knew people in our guild who bitched about playing WoW, how is really wasn't that much fun anymore, but they were still on 10 hours a day. That, to me, is addiction - not just doing something fun, but actually doing something that *isn't* fun, because you are compelled to do so.

In both cases, on a neurological level what causes an activity to be "pleasurable" is the effect on brain chemistry - the release of substances such as endorphins.

Naturally, this is true of *any* activity - the difference is usually expressed as being that the one set of activities has a worth that sets it aside from the other (doing drugs). Taking chemicals directly rather than (say) 'earning' them through activities such as exercise or exposure to great works of art is I suppose a sort of cheating; all of the pleasure with none of the effort.

Yeah, this is is the kind of value judgment I am suspicious about - "earning" enjoyment? not sure I buy the idea that "earned" enjoyment is somehow superior in an objective sense. It might be (and is, at least in my case) more valuable for the individual - but that is kind of circular. I place greater value on earning some achievement *because* it brings me greater happiness. If some people find that they enjoy something just as much even if they did not earn it, I would not dispute their happiness.

Of course that leads into the sort of value-judgments aside from "happiness" which you do not wish to make. The difficulty is that, taken to its extreme, isn't sticking a needle into the pleasure centres of our brains or taking heroin the ultimate in pure "happiness" - assuming one did not develop a physical dependency? What, if anything, makes that a bad choice in terms of the pursuit of happiness? What would be wrong with Huxley's "Soma"?

From the perspective of whether or not people are more or less happy, nothing. I would not argue that someone on some "perfect" happiness drug is not actually happy. Although again, we are in the realm of addictions - absent the addiction, I would not presume to place any value judgement on someone elses choices about what makes them happy, at least to the extent of claiming whethere they really are happy.

To my mind there is a continuum - some activities cause happiness to be sure, but there are other factors which ought to influence one's choices - because indulging in no-effort happiness can lead to addictive or compulsive behaviour which is not condusive to happiness in the long run.

What about engaging in activities that cause happiness (even 'no effort' happiness) that are not addictive or compulsive?

And more importantly, why do we presume that "modern" means of engaging in activities that create happiness are per force somehow inferior to others? Why does BB assume that being happy playing WoW is somehow less valuable than being happy curling? What if he loved curling so much he neglected his WoW playing? Would we all sit back and say "Oh no, BB has become addicted to curling, this isn't good!" Would BB say "Gosh, I really love WoW, but curling is so much easier, I know I would have more fun in the long run if only I played more WoW!"

That is one reason why smoking pot all day is "bad" (quite aside from the health effects - pot does not cause physical dependency) and it is also why watching TV too much is also "bad".

I agree that those things are "bad", but do not really agree that people who do them too much are certainly less happy. They certainly *could be* (is using an asterisk 'aggressive'?) but, that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to assume so in general.

As for how much is "too much" - that is a balancing act; the question here is, is a person activly missing out on other important and pleasurable activities on a regular basis because of it, to the extent that they and those around them regret the fact? That's one guide. Usually after a certain point, the person (or their spouse, parents or children) can tell it's a problem.   

Agreed. But even then I think the problem is that their pursuit of happiness to the exclusion of other needs is the problem, moreso than that they aren't really happy.

[DGuller]

I'm not so sure that there is a huge difference between the effect of doing drugs, and the effect of engaging in any other sort of highly attractive behaviour, like watching TV or playing video games.

In both cases, on a neurological level what causes an activity to be "pleasurable" is the effect on brain chemistry - the release of substances such as endorphins.

Naturally, this is true of *any* activity - the difference is usually expressed as being that the one set of activities has a worth that sets it aside from the other (doing drugs). Taking chemicals directly rather than (say) 'earning' them through activities such as exercise or exposure to great works of art is I suppose a sort of cheating; all of the pleasure with none of the effort.

Of course that leads into the sort of value-judgments aside from "happiness" which you do not wish to make. The difficulty is that, taken to its extreme, isn't sticking a needle into the pleasure centres of our brains or taking heroin the ultimate in pure "happiness" - assuming one did not develop a physical dependency? What, if anything, makes that a bad choice in terms of the pursuit of happiness? What would be wrong with Huxley's "Soma"?

To my mind there is a continuum - some activities cause happiness to be sure, but there are other factors which ought to influence one's choices - because indulging in no-effort happiness can lead to addictive or compulsive behaviour which is not condusive to happiness in the long run. That is one reason why smoking pot all day is "bad" (quite aside from the health effects - pot does not cause physical dependency) and it is also why watching TV too much is also "bad".

As for how much is "too much" - that is a balancing act; the question here is, is a person activly missing out on other important and pleasurable activities on a regular basis because of it, to the extent that they and those around them regret the fact? That's one guide. Usually after a certain point, the person (or their spouse, parents or children) can tell it's a problem.

I think the point here is that there are several levels of happiness.  There is the contentment, which is what we get when we waste away in front of TV or computers, or do anything else that keeps boredom at bay.  Then there is a higher level sense of accomplishment, which requires a lot more from you.  Being too content may actually prevent you from being happy on a higher level, as it can take the drive to seek higher level of happiness away from you.

[Berkut]

While not directly touching on access to computers and TV, we can take the income levels of some countries as some indication of the various levels of access to such technologies.  In particular Nigeria would appear to have lower rates of ownership of personal computers than does western europe.

So this one survey would seem to show that happiness is rather independent and not associated with income and technology.

That is great - but I don't think I have argued that happiness is dependent on income or technology.

[Malthus]

I think the point here is that there are several levels of happiness.  There is the contentment, which is what we get when we waste away in front of TV or computers, or do anything else that keeps boredom at bay.  Then there is a higher level sense of accomplishment, which requires a lot more from you.  Being too content may actually prevent you from being happy on a higher level, as it can take the drive to seek higher level of happiness away from you.

Yeah, that's certainly a part of it.

[Berkut]

I think the point here is that there are several levels of happiness.  There is the contentment, which is what we get when we waste away in front of TV or computers, or do anything else that keeps boredom at bay.  Then there is a higher level sense of accomplishment, which requires a lot more from you.  Being too content may actually prevent you from being happy on a higher level, as it can take the drive to seek higher level of happiness away from you.

Hmmm, that is an interesting perspective on it. I guess that relates, to some degree, to what I said earlier about whether we were all using the same definition of happiness.

[Malthus]

While I see your point, I do think there is a difference.

At least, the difference as I see it is this - is the happiness gained a result of the activity, or is mainly an attempt to avoid the unpleasant effects of stopping?

For example, I don't think most people smoke cigarettes because smoking makes them happy (although there is a pleasurable component to it) as much as because NOT smoking makes them miserable. That, to me, is the difference between something that is fun and can be taken to an excess (although "excess" is obviously very subjective) and something that is an addiction.

Take playing WoW, for example. I knew people in our guild who bitched about playing WoW, how is really wasn't that much fun anymore, but they were still on 10 hours a day. That, to me, is addiction - not just doing something fun, but actually doing something that *isn't* fun, because you are compelled to do so.

To my mind, while physical dependency does complicate the issue, it isn't an explaination of the difference - some drugs cause no physical dependency at all, such as pot. Yet over-indulgence in pot has *far* worse effects on one's lifestyle than over-indilgence in tobacco, which is quite physically addicting (at least until the latter kills you). You can have a normal life, hold down a job etc. and smoke; that is rather more difficult if you smoke pot all day.

Yeah, this is is the kind of value judgment I am suspicious about - "earning" enjoyment? not sure I buy the idea that "earned" enjoyment is somehow superior in an objective sense. It might be (and is, at least in my case) more valuable for the individual - but that is kind of circular. I place greater value on earning some achievement *because* it brings me greater happiness. If some people find that they enjoy something just as much even if they did not earn it, I would not dispute their happiness.

As Dguller noted, happiness comes in different forms - playing 10 hours of WOW may give the same "rush" of endorphins as making a great achievement in the arts.

From the perspective of whether or not people are more or less happy, nothing. I would not argue that someone on some "perfect" happiness drug is not actually happy. Although again, we are in the realm of addictions - absent the addiction, I would not presume to place any value judgement on someone elses choices about what makes them happy, at least to the extent of claiming whethere they really are happy.

But a "soma" like drug would not be addictive. No-one is claiming that they are not really happy, only that the happiness that comes from a drug or a passive form of entertainment has a different quality to it - it contains no aspect of real-world achievement, for one; and for another, it may become compulsive, preventing in effect the person from *having* real-world achievements.

What about engaging in activities that cause happiness (even 'no effort' happiness) that are not addictive or compulsive?

And more importantly, why do we presume that "modern" means of engaging in activities that create happiness are per force somehow inferior to others? Why does BB assume that being happy playing WoW is somehow less valuable than being happy curling? What if he loved curling so much he neglected his WoW playing? Would we all sit back and say "Oh no, BB has become addicted to curling, this isn't good!" Would BB say "Gosh, I really love WoW, but curling is so much easier, I know I would have more fun in the long run if only I played more WoW!"

Because modermn technology enables more forms of essentially passive entertainment which effectively mimic "achievement" without necessarily providing the substance. Malory's brain may get as big a "kick" out of a mountain-climbing game as actually climbing mount Everest - but in the long run, actually achieving stuff is more valuable that the simalcrum of doing so; really playing a sport is better in many ways than playing a computer version - it develops real skills and muscles, for one.

I agree that those things are "bad", but do not really agree that people who do them too much are certainly less happy. They certainly *could be* (is using an asterisk 'aggressive'?) but, that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to assume so in general.

The question is "less happy than what?". To my mind, "less happy than if they lived a more balanced life". 

[fhdz]

I have substantially less computer time than I did, say, 8 months ago.  I am also substantially less bored now than I was then.  I don't think the two are of necessity correlated, though - sometimes I played computer games because I really wanted to play them; sometimes I'd just play because I was bored.  At the present moment I don't have much down time at all, and so nowadays when I *do* get to play a computer game it's a real treat.

[Ed Anger]

I've grown bored with PC games. I may finally be totally burned out on using a PC as a gaming platform.

And the console games don't float my boat anymore either.

[saskganesh]

lots of employed pot heads out there Malthus. I don't buy what you are smoking. it's just time management.

[Malthus]

lots of employed pot heads out there Malthus. I don't buy what you are smoking. it's just time management.

Depends on exactly what you mean by a "pot head". Certainly it is perfectly possible to smoke pot recreationally and work - I've done that myself, don't forget.

OTOH there are people who smoke so much they are basically unemployable except in the most menial of occupations - I know some.

There are very few people who smoke so much tobacco that they cannot hold down a good job.

Yet tobacco is far more addictive than pot - pot is not physically addictive at all: there is no dependency, no withdrawal symptoms. In contrast, tobacco is physically addictive, with excrutiating withdrawal symptoms.

Therefore I conclude that it is not physical addiction which is the problem, but as you would say the time management - it's the choice to smoke all the time rather than do anything else. This is not (I would contend) any different from people who play WOW all day and all night and thus cannot work.

[Barrister]

While not directly touching on access to computers and TV, we can take the income levels of some countries as some indication of the various levels of access to such technologies.  In particular Nigeria would appear to have lower rates of ownership of personal computers than does western europe.

So this one survey would seem to show that happiness is rather independent and not associated with income and technology.

That is great - but I don't think I have argued that happiness is dependent on income or technology.

You haven't stated that, but it seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

You have argued that people will take whatever steps to maximize their own happiness, and that if they are pursuing one option over another it is because that one option makes them happier.

It's clear though that o your typical north american has a huge number more options of entertainment than your average Nigerian.  Or, that your typical north American today has many more options of entertainment now that in the past (the article also states that general levels of happiness have remained static in north america).  But surely if there are more options now than then, people have the option to pursue entertainment that makes them more happy?

[Berkut]

Not necessarily - more options just means that they have choices about how to get their happiness, that doesn't mean that they will actually be happier overall.

Playing WoW makes me happier than curling.

But if I didn't have the option to play WoW, maybe curling would make me happier than playing hockey.

But we are talking about how much we enjoy particular activity - not some generalized state of overall happiness, which is going to depend on much more than what leisure activities we have available.

[Barrister]

But we are talking about how much we enjoy particular activity - not some generalized state of overall happiness, which is going to depend on much more than what leisure activities we have available.

I would go so far as to say that a "generalized state of overall happiness" is entirely divorced from "what leisure activities we have available" given the data about Nigeria.

[Berkut]

But we are talking about how much we enjoy particular activity - not some generalized state of overall happiness, which is going to depend on much more than what leisure activities we have available.

No argument from me, even without hearing about Nigeria.

I would go so far as to say that a "generalized state of overall happiness" is entirely divorced from "what leisure activities we have available" given the data about Nigeria.

[Barrister]

Berkut, while I frequently find that pictures are blocked when viewing at work, even quoting your reply doesn't show any kind of link or other reply.