Comment by i_c_b

Comment by i_c_b 17 hours ago

50 replies

Back in the late 90s, when I first entered the video game industry to work (when it was quite scruffy, countercultural, and populated by some pretty odd people), one of the first things I encountered was a new co-worker who, next to his giant tower of used Mountain Dew cans, had a black and white TV in his cubicle. This struck me as very odd at that moment in time - as I understood things, obviously the point of work was supposed to be that it was a place where you worked, not a place where you watched TV. (Now, granted, everyone else was playing the recently released Diablo on their work PCs during lunch in network mode, and we were a game studio after all, so my reaction wasn't totally coherent). Still, no one else had a TV, and that guy was young and single with no work-life balance, he was a recent transplant, and it still seemed unusual at the time.

Fast forward 28 years later, and now everyone has an amazing TV in their pocket at all times when they commute, sit in their work space, go out for coffee or lunch, or go sit down in the bathroom, all with a near infinite collection of video via youtube, netflix, and even massive amounts of porn. How little did I know. And that's to say nothing of texting and twitter and reddit and instant messaging and discord and ...

Several years ago, I was working on a college campus, and there were giant corporate-flavored murals beside some of the city blocks students walked, full of happy multicultural clip art people and exciting innovative technological innovation, and adorned with the message, "Imagine a borderless world!" Clearly that message was meant to be rhetorical, not a call to reflection, critique, or reevaluation. There did not seem to be the suggestion that one might imagine the borderless world and then, having done so, decide it was a problem to be corrected.

I wonder a lot, these days, if we're not deep into a Chesterton's Fence situation, where we have to rediscover the hard way the older wisdom about having separate spheres with separate hard constraints and boundaries on behaviors, communities, and communication pathways to facilitate all sorts of important activities that simply don't happen otherwise - something like borders and boundaries as a crucial social technology, specifically about directing attention productively. Phones and tablets are, in their own Turing complete way, portals to a borderless world that pierces the older intentional classroom boundaries.

RegW 13 hours ago

In my first job out of university in the 80s, I spent all one night playing Knight Lore on the Spectrum with friends. I failed to get up the next morning. My boss drove across Leeds and to bang on the door to see if I was alright. I needed that job so I stopped playing computer games.

In the 90s a later boss called me out for spending my days attached to the Slashdot firehose. I had sort-of known that it was a wasteful time sink, so I resolved to completely stop using the social media of its time, and have avoided most incarnations of it ever since (but here I am).

As a scouter working with teenagers, I feel that most kids with a supportive backgrounds will tame this beast for themselves eventually, so I hate to make hard "no phones" rules. I would rather they come to terms with this addiction for themselves. I know that some simply won't finish school without strong guidance, but delaying exposure to this might just be worse in the long term.

  • Aurornis 9 hours ago

    > As a scouter working with teenagers, I feel that most kids with a supportive backgrounds will tame this beast for themselves eventually, so I hate to make hard "no phones" rules.

    In my experience with mentoring juniors and college students, it’s common to have some wake-up call moment(s) where they realize their phone use is something that needs to be moderated. For some it comes from getting bad grades in a class (college in the age range I worked with) and realizing they could have avoided it by paying attention in lectures instead of using their phone. I’ve also seen it happen in relationships where they realize one day that their social life has disappeared or, in extreme cases, get dumped for being too into their phone. For others it shows up in their first job when someone doesn’t hold back in chewing them out for excessive or inappropriate phone use.

    In the context of high school students, I don’t see this happening as much. A big component of high school social structure is forcing students a little bit out of their comfort zone so they can discover friends and build relationships. The default for many is to hide, withdraw, and avoid anything slightly uncomfortable. For a lot of them, slightly uncomfortable might be as simple as having to make casual conversation with people around them. A phone is the perfect tool to withdraw and appear busy, which feels like a free license to exist in a space alone without looking awkward.

    So while agree that most people come to terms with the problem themselves as adults, I do also think that middle and high schools deserve some extra boundaries to get the ball rolling on learning how to exist without a phone. The students I’ve worked with who came from high schools that banned phones (private, usually, at least in the past) are so much better equipped to socialize and moderate their phone use. Before anyone claims socioeconomic factors, private high schools generally have sliding scale tuition and a large percentage of students attend for free due to their parents’ income, so it’s not just wealthy kids from wealthy families that I’m talking about.

  • testing22321 11 hours ago

    > I feel that most kids with a supportive backgrounds will tame this beast for themselves eventually, so I hate to make hard "no phones" rules. I would rather they come to terms with this addiction for themselves

    That approach doesn’t work so well for people with drug and alcohol addictions/dependancies.

    What makes you think this is different?

    • lmm 6 hours ago

      > That approach doesn’t work so well for people with drug and alcohol addictions/dependancies.

      Children raised in cultures where alcohol is soft- rather than hard-banned for young people, and gradually introduced to it with parents around (think European teenagers having a glass of wine with lunch), tend to have healthier relationships with alcohol in later life than those raised in hard-ban-until-18/21 cultures. I think exactly the same will prove true of phones.

      • inglor_cz 4 hours ago

        There may be a massive confounding factor in the type of alcohol consumed.

        The more permissive cultures tend to be beer- or wine-centric. I have never been deeply interested in addictology, but the few (older) works on alcoholism I have read mentioned that beer and wine drinkers tend to develop a different sort of relationship with alcohol than hard drink consuments, in the sense that they have a hard time abstaining entirely, but fewer of them develop into the full-blown "gin zombie" type.

        • lmm 4 hours ago

          I suspect that's not so much a confounder as one of the mechanisms.

    • Muromec 11 hours ago

      That approach works more often than it doesn’t — outside of certain spiraling situations most people don’t became alcoholics and drug addicts.

      Some however do, which is why drugs and alcohol are controlled to some degree.

      • somenameforme 9 hours ago

        They weren't always. In fact it took many centuries for this to happen. The history of cocaine in the US is quite interesting. It was being used everywhere and by everybody. Factory owners were giving it to their laborers to increase productivity, it was used in endless tonics, medicines, and drinks (most famously now Coca-Cola = cocaine + kola nut), and so on. You had everybody from Thomas Edison to popes to Ulysses S Grant and endles others testify to the benefits of Vin Mariani [1] which was a wine loaded with cocaine, that served as the inspiration for Coca-Cola.

        So probably part of the reason it was so difficult to realize there is a problem is because everybody was coked out of their minds, so it all seemed normal. And I think the exact same is true of phones today. Watch a session of Congress or anything and half the guys there are playing on their phones; more than a few have been caught watching porn during session, to say nothing of the endless amount that haven't been caught! I can't help but find it hilarious, but objectively it's extremely inappropriate behavior, probably driven by addiction and impaired impulse controls which phones (and other digital tech) are certainly contributing heavily to.

        I find it difficult to imagine a world in the future in which phones and similar tech aren't treated somewhat similarly to controlled substances. You can already see the makings of that happening today with ever more regions moving to age restrict social media.

        [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani

    • wisty 6 hours ago

      I don't have time to search for a credible source, but it is claimed addicts often seek treatment after hitting "rock bottom".

      There's obvious reasons why it's not encouraged to wait that long though.

      • kergonath 5 hours ago

        > it is claimed addicts often seek treatment after hitting "rock bottom".

        From my experience it is often too late at that point. And actually hitting rock bottom is difficult and destructive, and leaves scars. As they say, preventing is better than curing.

      • melagonster 6 hours ago

        Maybe we can make school harder so they will go there earlier.

    • achikin 7 hours ago

      Because it is proven that phone usage is not an addiction like drugs or alcohol. People put phones away easily if they have a reason to do so.

      • rossjudson 6 hours ago

        I have no idea what you are talking about. It walks and quacks exactly like drugs and alcohol.

        Thousands of deaths every year are caused by drivers on cell phones. You'd think they'd have a reason to put them away.

        • achikin 5 hours ago

          There are a lot of reasons for distraction while driving, but we don’t call all of them addiction on that premise. If a driver was not looking at his phone - maybe he’d be looking at something else. The phone is not the reason - it’s just a very suitable object.

    • nkrisc an hour ago

      I mean, it does work for most people. Most people can drink responsibly. The alcoholics are the ones who can’t do it on their own.

  • sapientiae3 10 hours ago

    The main challenge is that the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and other things, only fully develops around age 25.

    The problem with that is without some explicit instruction or guidance or invention before they have full control of their impulses, not everyone tames the beast unscathed.

    • Aurornis 8 hours ago

      > The main challenge is that the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and other things, only fully develops around age 25.

      This factoid has been repeated for decades but it’s essentially a myth.

      Brain development continues into your 20s, but there isn’t a threshold at age 25 where someone goes from having poor impulse control to being capable of good impulse control.

      18-25 year olds are not children and are fully capable of having impulse control. That can continue to develop as they age, but it doesn’t mean age 25 is when it happens.

      I would agree that actual children need some more explicit boundaries, which is also why we don’t allow children to do a lot of things that people over 18 can do.

      • assimpleaspossi an hour ago

        I owned a string of fast food restaurants. I had the ability to not hire anyone under age 20 if I didn't have to. When I did, the requirement was that they be in college but, in every case, I found that these kids, who returned for summer work every year, did a lot of growing up between the ages of 18 and 20.

      • kelnos 5 hours ago

        I don't think anyone is saying impulse control goes from 0% to 100% on everyone's 25th birthday, like flicking a switch. But is it not reasonable to say that a 25-year-old will have significantly better impulse control than they had when they were 18? (And that their 30-year-old self probably has a similar level of impulse control as when they were 25?)

  • bigC5560 11 hours ago

    As someone who graduated from high school in 2025 I completely agree with this. I am glad I had to work it out on my own, and I don't think this is a place that a school should take control. If I had to figure this out along with the stress of college, I don't know if I would be able to handle it. I also think that it has helped with my overall time management skills and prioritizing my time.

    I know not everyone will have the same experience as me, but I just feel like learning to manage it on my own was overall beneficial for me in the end.

    • kelnos 5 hours ago

      I think the problem is that most students, (as this study shows) are not figuring it out on their own, at least not in high school. It feels like you're one of the outliers, not the common case.

      Having rules about what you can and can't bring into school is nothing new. I went to high school in the 90s, and there were plenty of things we weren't allowed to bring with us into class; back then, the closest analogue to smartphones would have been pagers, probably.

      It seems entirely reasonable to ban smartphones (and dumb phones, even) from schools. Frankly, I think it's absolutely insane that they were ever allowed.

      And sure, maybe these students who go to high schools where smartphones are banned will get to university and go nuts, sitting in lecture halls with their phones out all the time. They'll learn very quickly that their grades will suffer, and will clean up their acts or fail out of school. But this is like everything else: the first year of university is the big year of independence, of being away from parents for the first time, and college students do plenty of dumb things in the name of that independence. That's always been the case; I'm no stranger to that phenomenon myself. They either work it out on their own, or they fail out.

  • AuthorizedCust 10 hours ago

    > As a scouter working with teenagers, I feel that most kids with a supportive backgrounds will tame this beast for themselves eventually…

    Fellow Scouter here. Lots of Scout units in the USA have cell phone bans. That’s such an obsolete policy. We need to help the Scouts model good choices, and that doesn’t happen when decision opportunities are removed.

    Also, if they are buried in their phones, take that as feedback on how much fun they are[n’t] having in your Scout unit.

    • emil-lp 6 hours ago

      > Also, if they are buried in their phones, take that as feedback on how much fun they are[n’t] having in your Scout unit.

      You are misunderstanding the addiction part here. It's not about not having fun.

      There are tech companies spending literally trillions of dollars on one goal: ensuring that kids keep looking at their phones.

      Your framing this as a question of boredom is really naive.

kragen 16 hours ago

The older wisdom was that you worked on the farm with your husband and children for your entire life, breastfeeding while you peeled the potatoes, putting down your spindle to comfort a crying child. Millers lived in the mill; even blacksmiths lived at their smithies. Except for rituals, separate spheres with separate hard constraints was a novelty of the Satanic mills where the Victorian proletariat toiled.

  • Ferret7446 15 hours ago

    They still had clear boundaries. They slept in the sleeping place and at the sleeping time, they worked at the working place and at the working time. See, they didn't have smartphones to fiddle with in bed.

    • rootusrootus 15 hours ago

      > they didn't have smartphones to fiddle with in bed

      This is solvable for people who want to. We have a dedicated charging station in our house for all electronic devices. Before bed, all of those devices get put there. Including me and my wife's phones.

      • krferriter 13 hours ago

        This definitely is the way to do it. I have started keeping my phone in my living room at night instead of my bedroom, but am still bad about doing this every night. Phones are addictive and it is mentally hard to break out of the addiction. It is essentially a "you just have to do it" situation, but "just do it", while technically simple, is still difficult if you're addicted.

      • rTX5CMRXIfFG 10 hours ago

        How can you be contacted in case of an emergency in the middle of the night?

rootusrootus 15 hours ago

I had an early experience with a Palm III and a cell modem strapped to it. It was intoxicating. I still find the pull of the phone to be very strong sometimes. It's an ongoing battle to maintain a healthy relationship with it. Such a useful tool, but also a massive time suck if you let it.

  • oasisbob 9 hours ago

    Ooh, I remember the Palm + modem + mail sync combination for sure. Was absolutely engrossing.

aa-jv 32 minutes ago

I've always had a TV or screen of some sort, devoted to background music or light films, just to fill in the void between lines of code. For some, having such light stuff going on is a productivity booster. I once got a dev team that had been struggling to get things finished, well and truly over the finish line, by putting a fat TV in the room, and giving folks the ability to line up their playlists for the day, as long as it wasn't too violent/inappropriate for the workplace.

We side-watched a ton of stuff together as a team - it was great for morale - and we actually shipped stuff, too. Of course the TV eventually became a console for the build server, but it was always available to anyone to put something on in the background, if they wanted to. Definitely a nice way to get a team to be a bit more coherent - as long as whats being played isn't too crazy.

agumonkey 12 hours ago

You could even argue that society is incapable of not running into these cycles of building wisdom and losing it. Our minds are differential.. things that are here have less value, we seek newness no matter what.

lo_zamoyski 8 hours ago

Part of the lesson is understanding how we got here.

The answer is, of course, liberal hyperindividualism. By that I don't mean "liberal institutions" or respect for the individual person especially in the face of collectivism, but an ideology of antisocial atomization of the self that thrusts the self into subjective godhood. Paradoxically, this makes people more susceptible to control in practice.

Now, ideological and political programs don't fully realize the consequences of their premises instantly. It can take years, decades, centuries for all the nasty errors to manifest and become so conspicuous that they cannot be ignored. The Enlightenment program in our case. And so, in this hyperindividualism, the social order - its layers, its concentric circles, its various rights and demands on the individual that precede the consent of the individual - is all reduced progressively to not only the consensual, but also the transactional. Social bonds and structures evaporate or become fluid and contingent merely on the transactional; commitment and duty are a prison. Consent as the highest and only moral law leads us to relativism, because if all that is needed is consent to make an act moral and good, then naturally what is morally good will vary from person to person, and even minute to minute for a given person. On top of that, consent can be attained through manipulation and power, and so now individuals joust for power to manufacture consent in order to bless their exploitation of others.

The self cannot be limited in any way according to this program, and any residual limits are the lingering chains of some ancient past.

Perhaps most amusing is how so-called "countercultural" movements are anything but. These are typically just advancing the ideological program, not rejecting it. Contradictions between such movements and the status quo often come in the form of a tension between residual cultural features of an earlier age and the greater faithfulness to the trajectory of the program among the countercultural. Typically, conflicts are over power, not belief. And sometimes, the internal contradictions of the program lead to diverging programs that come into conflict.

  • silisili 6 hours ago

    Leaving out the word liberal as I don't really understand its context here, individualism was at one time a boon for the nation/economy. People move out of their family homes early, start their own family, chart their own path. Good for capitalism. And good for lots of things, really, a lot of America's success can be traced back to it.

    But man, social media and the internet age have really exploited it to an unhealthy and unproductive point.

    I remember going to college for the first time in 2000, and having an absolute blast meeting the people I was by circumstance forced to be around. Went back in 2004 and it was completely different, everyone was on their phone, maintaining their personal bubble in what should have been an age of exploration. That made me rather sad.

    Today it's even worse, but at the risk of being an old man yelling at clouds, I won't drone on. I mostly wish my own children could experience the upbringing I had, as I find this one rather dystopian and depressing.

patcon 13 hours ago

> rediscover the hard way the older wisdom about having separate spheres with separate hard constraints and boundaries on behaviors

This is something I also believe. Thanks for saying it.

I've been thinking and reflecting a lot on what I've been calling for myself "generative constraint". It's sure as heck not something that is the same for everyone, but I think we all have a set of them that might help us be our best person.

We've universalized constraints and expansivenesses in a way that seems really poor judgement. And yes, there is a capitalist critique in this too, as any good theory should have :)

  • cal_dent 12 hours ago

    I think of it as "introducing friction". There's a lot things that we do now which is largely as a result of frictionless ease of doing it. Smartphones and social media are the obvious one, but it applies to many technology/digital driven behaviour (pay with face id/touch and people end up consuming more for instance). And it's no surprise to me that what works for a lot of people is putting their phone somewhere else in their house. Essentially introducing artificial friction.

    My slightly cynical view is for many of us we're more often lazy than not and default to doing the most frictionless thing. Introduce friction and very quickly I find it forces you to think about what you're actually doing

georgeecollins 16 hours ago

I am also older and I see that my kids don't have certain things that I perceived as disadvantages at the time but may have helped develop useful habits. These things include quiet and boredom, which helped with focus; lack of ready answers or information, which may have helped imagination or generative reasoning.

I think we can recreate these things if and when we need to, but that recreation may be for the elites. I heard an interview with a professor who said he had to reintroduce Socratic exams to get around chat bots and the fact that kids now have very poor handwriting. At an elite school you can do that.

  • somenameforme 9 hours ago

    I don't think this is something just for elites at all, because so much of this happens at the home. So for instance I completely agree on the boredom and have factored into how I raise my children. Similarly, I also agree on the importance of not having answers simply handed to you. Another one as well is realizing that not everything you're told is true, which is a big part of the reason that I ultimately decided that Santa exists for them. And it makes me wonder if that wasn't the point all along, because it doesn't feel right to lie to your kids for years.

imgabe 11 hours ago

For certain tasks for me, having a movie running while I'm working is more productive. It gives something to take your attention when you have to wait for something without getting sucked in to endless scrolling.

calderwoodra 13 hours ago

Article about smartphones being bad? Right to the top.

Generic comment that would fit in the comment section of any of those articles? Right to the top.

I get baited into reading these posts and comments every day - why can't I stop? Probably for the same reason these posts and comments get up votes.