In the condition of “engagement makes it worse” lurking is seriously potent. The outcome of “doesn’t do anything to the problem” is a massive win of keeping it level instead of spiraling further.
I can see a minor reason why letting for of the problemness is not trivial. You have to consider or be new things so your sense of identity can become undermined. Atleast in the suffering loop you know and are comfortable suffering that way.
Instead of negative avoidance, positive attraction addiction is quite a big cluster. If you have a boring life and then find 1 thing that you like then you might starting to think about it 24⁄7 and every moment that you are not doing that thing you fanatically think how you could end the current activity to be that much nearer to the thing that life is all about. It is a slack hog in a different way where it makes you generate it so it can be a utility monster about it.
In the condition of “engagement makes it worse” lurking is seriously potent. The outcome of “doesn’t do anything to the problem” is a massive win of keeping it level instead of spiraling further.
Agreed.
I can see a minor reason why letting for of the problemness is not trivial. You have to consider or be new things so your sense of identity can become undermined. Atleast in the suffering loop you know and are comfortable suffering that way.
Yep. Exactly.
Instead of negative avoidance, positive attraction addiction is quite a big cluster. If you have a boring life and then find 1 thing that you like then you might starting to think about it 24⁄7 and every moment that you are not doing that thing you fanatically think how you could end the current activity to be that much nearer to the thing that life is all about. It is a slack hog in a different way where it makes you generate it so it can be a utility monster about it.
This makes theoretical sense to me, but in practice I basically always see this stemming from the negative avoidance.
Like, why is your life boring? If you find one thing you like and you massively zoom in toward it, then clearly you’re not satisfied with the boring life, no?
And if it’s just “I DIDN’T KNOW THINGS COULD BE THIS GOOD”… then what’s the problem? Why call it an “addiction”? That feels kind of like naming falling in love “person addiction”. I guess? But what’s the problem?
When I think of things like heroine or meth that really do act like this “I must have the thing no matter what” kind of positive attraction slack hog nature to them… the reason they have that appeal to begin with is because there’s an underlying negative avoidance at play. Like, why did they go for the drug to begin with? Once they saw that the drug was overriding things they care about, why did they turn away?
Not to say the structure you’re naming can’t happen at all. I suppose it can. But I just honestly can’t think of any actual instances of this happening to humans that doesn’t have its problematic root in the negative avoidance version.
(If you or anyone else cares to offer such an instance, I’d be happy to update. It doesn’t feel dire to my worldview that I be right here!)
There can be a be an effect where if all you do is nail with a hammer, you do not know how to participate or appriciate other things.
a high schooler dropping out in order to “become a pro” on a recent new video game thinks he is improving their life but could be starting a tailspin. Doing 0 friendship upkeep towards anybody else while pursuing an infactuation has its downsides. Setting up a situation where one breakup turns your life from exctatic to purposeless is dangerous.
I think the emotional roots are important but the interesting quesiton is why the person is hypohedonic about all the little things that make life worth living? It is an issue of disengament with the positive. If the peers are living a life essentially the same why one feels ok/happy and one is miserable in it? The issue is not the avoidance of the negative but the formation of it.
Hmm. I guess I just disagree when I look at concrete cases. Inspired from them, I zoom in on this spot in your hypothetical example:
a high schooler dropping out in order to “become a pro” on a recent new video game thinks he is improving their life but could be starting a tailspin. Doing 0 friendship upkeep towards anybody else while pursuing an infactuation has its downsides.
My attention immediately goes to: Why the infatuation? Why does this seem more important to him than friendship upkeep? What’s driving that?
If it’s a calculated move… well, first off, notice that this can have the “mental idea imposed on the system” nature that creates adaptive entropy. But if it’s really just a consciously taken risk, then the downsides are just a result of the risk. Maybe “becoming a pro” will work out and the social risk will have been worth it. Or maybe not, which is why it’s a risk.
But if the student is doubling down on needing the “risk” to pan out well, and is refusing to orient to the consequences of it failing… that looks an awful lot to me like someone who’s using an activity to avoid dealing with some kind of inner discomfort.
So again, I look at how this hypothetical example would actually happen in someone, and what I see is very much the structure I named as “addiction” in the OP. I just don’t see this happening without it.
…which, again, might just be a matter of lack of creativity or memory on my part. But this is where I am with this topic. I don’t see any cases of a “positive” addiction actually happening for people without a “negative” addiction being the background driver.
Even bothering to do a risk assesment seems we are already out of the actual addiction phase.
If you have a mental algorithm that seeks deeper until the instance of a pet idea is encountered and then stops, in an area where things are multifaceted and many layerered that is going to favour finding the pet idea usefull.
If I had the pet idea that all addictions were positive I could latch on that the used definition of what is going on in a negative addiction has an unavoidable “relief” step which can be thought as a positive force. To be somewhat artifically motivated to find a more satisfying abstraction layer.
If one has multiple antidotes to bad feelings and somewhat often they all get used then it would make sense to favour those that get the least stuck. So it is not until the last remaining antidote where we run out of options and addiction proper kicks in.
If you have a mental algorithm that seeks deeper until the instance of a pet idea is encountered and then stops, in an area where things are multifaceted and many layerered that is going to favour finding the pet idea usefull.
This lands for me like a fully general counterargument. If I’m just describing something real that’s the underlying cause of a cluster of phenomena, of course I’m going to keep seeing it. Calling it a “pet idea” seems to devalue this possibility without orienting to it.
I felt like “If anybody sees a scottsman, please tell” and when providing a scottman getting a reception of “The kilt is a bit short for a scottsman”. Being clueless is one thing and announcing a million dollar prize pool for an effect that you are never going to consider granting is another.
The argument is not general as digging into each candidate the same set amount does not apply to it or having any kind of scheme where you can justify the scrutinity given.
I though that part of the function was “I hope I have understood this correctly” or “this seems to be a thing” where “is this real?” is kind of the question being asked.
If your lenses are working, more power to you. If your lenses do not catch the things that my lenses make illusions of to me, I am not particularly selling my lenses or particularly explaining the cracks in my lenses to you.
I’m about to give up on this branch of conversation. I’m having trouble parsing what you’re saying. It’s feeling weirdly abstract to me.
If you have an example of something humans actually do that is more of this “positive addiction” thing, in a way that isn’t rooted in the “negative addiction” pattern I describe, I’m open to learning about that.
You gave a hypothetical example type. I noted that in practice when that actually happens it strikes me as always rooted in the “negative addiction” thing. So it doesn’t (yet) work for me as an example.
If there’s something I’m missing about your example, please feel free to clarify.
Don’t slide into claims that I’m just blinding myself with a “pet theory”. If I’m blinding myself, I’m blinding myself to something you can name. Please just name the thing.
I disagree that that examples need to be verbally accessible (but undestand making a scheme where rare data types can be utilised require a lot of good will).
By Aumann agreement style reasoning, if we are both sane and differ in our judgement/perception then somebody got some updating to do. Even if we can’t explicate the opining. I am doing so bad in this discussion that I am kind of orienting being the insane one here. So I consider to have abandoned the thing except for few select threads that seem can be positive.
Alternative word that in some contexts has been a near synonym: compulsiveness
Example of positive addiction: people being on their phones and conversing less face-to-face. (ocurred to me why the search might have special character, positive addiction might not be a problem or concieved as a problem, pure occurrence vs forming a problem). People do not need to find face-to-face time negative for it to occur or hurry to end when it happens.
I think I am curious about how the classifying of the previous two examples were found to not be an instance (Aumann crux).
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
<edit moved to another post for known to be in its own karma bucket>
If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:
Why infactuation? Well, it could be Z, X, Y. Z is based on negative addiction. X is based on negative addiction. Y is based on negative addiction. Infactuation seems to be based on negative addiction
Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority.
Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. “A” could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as “negative life” I am wondering what words “neutral” and “positive” are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of “it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction.” closing a branch of inquiry of the type “it can be, therefore it must be”. ∃x=¬∀¬x negates as ¬∃x=∀¬x rather than ¬∃x≠p(¬x)>90%. Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that “that is not an edge case as it is rare” is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).
In the condition of “engagement makes it worse” lurking is seriously potent. The outcome of “doesn’t do anything to the problem” is a massive win of keeping it level instead of spiraling further.
I can see a minor reason why letting for of the problemness is not trivial. You have to consider or be new things so your sense of identity can become undermined. Atleast in the suffering loop you know and are comfortable suffering that way.
Instead of negative avoidance, positive attraction addiction is quite a big cluster. If you have a boring life and then find 1 thing that you like then you might starting to think about it 24⁄7 and every moment that you are not doing that thing you fanatically think how you could end the current activity to be that much nearer to the thing that life is all about. It is a slack hog in a different way where it makes you generate it so it can be a utility monster about it.
Agreed.
Yep. Exactly.
This makes theoretical sense to me, but in practice I basically always see this stemming from the negative avoidance.
Like, why is your life boring? If you find one thing you like and you massively zoom in toward it, then clearly you’re not satisfied with the boring life, no?
And if it’s just “I DIDN’T KNOW THINGS COULD BE THIS GOOD”… then what’s the problem? Why call it an “addiction”? That feels kind of like naming falling in love “person addiction”. I guess? But what’s the problem?
When I think of things like heroine or meth that really do act like this “I must have the thing no matter what” kind of positive attraction slack hog nature to them… the reason they have that appeal to begin with is because there’s an underlying negative avoidance at play. Like, why did they go for the drug to begin with? Once they saw that the drug was overriding things they care about, why did they turn away?
Not to say the structure you’re naming can’t happen at all. I suppose it can. But I just honestly can’t think of any actual instances of this happening to humans that doesn’t have its problematic root in the negative avoidance version.
(If you or anyone else cares to offer such an instance, I’d be happy to update. It doesn’t feel dire to my worldview that I be right here!)
There can be a be an effect where if all you do is nail with a hammer, you do not know how to participate or appriciate other things.
a high schooler dropping out in order to “become a pro” on a recent new video game thinks he is improving their life but could be starting a tailspin. Doing 0 friendship upkeep towards anybody else while pursuing an infactuation has its downsides. Setting up a situation where one breakup turns your life from exctatic to purposeless is dangerous.
I think the emotional roots are important but the interesting quesiton is why the person is hypohedonic about all the little things that make life worth living? It is an issue of disengament with the positive. If the peers are living a life essentially the same why one feels ok/happy and one is miserable in it? The issue is not the avoidance of the negative but the formation of it.
Hmm. I guess I just disagree when I look at concrete cases. Inspired from them, I zoom in on this spot in your hypothetical example:
My attention immediately goes to: Why the infatuation? Why does this seem more important to him than friendship upkeep? What’s driving that?
If it’s a calculated move… well, first off, notice that this can have the “mental idea imposed on the system” nature that creates adaptive entropy. But if it’s really just a consciously taken risk, then the downsides are just a result of the risk. Maybe “becoming a pro” will work out and the social risk will have been worth it. Or maybe not, which is why it’s a risk.
But if the student is doubling down on needing the “risk” to pan out well, and is refusing to orient to the consequences of it failing… that looks an awful lot to me like someone who’s using an activity to avoid dealing with some kind of inner discomfort.
So again, I look at how this hypothetical example would actually happen in someone, and what I see is very much the structure I named as “addiction” in the OP. I just don’t see this happening without it.
…which, again, might just be a matter of lack of creativity or memory on my part. But this is where I am with this topic. I don’t see any cases of a “positive” addiction actually happening for people without a “negative” addiction being the background driver.
Even bothering to do a risk assesment seems we are already out of the actual addiction phase.
If you have a mental algorithm that seeks deeper until the instance of a pet idea is encountered and then stops, in an area where things are multifaceted and many layerered that is going to favour finding the pet idea usefull.
If I had the pet idea that all addictions were positive I could latch on that the used definition of what is going on in a negative addiction has an unavoidable “relief” step which can be thought as a positive force. To be somewhat artifically motivated to find a more satisfying abstraction layer.
If one has multiple antidotes to bad feelings and somewhat often they all get used then it would make sense to favour those that get the least stuck. So it is not until the last remaining antidote where we run out of options and addiction proper kicks in.
This lands for me like a fully general counterargument. If I’m just describing something real that’s the underlying cause of a cluster of phenomena, of course I’m going to keep seeing it. Calling it a “pet idea” seems to devalue this possibility without orienting to it.
I felt like “If anybody sees a scottsman, please tell” and when providing a scottman getting a reception of “The kilt is a bit short for a scottsman”. Being clueless is one thing and announcing a million dollar prize pool for an effect that you are never going to consider granting is another.
The argument is not general as digging into each candidate the same set amount does not apply to it or having any kind of scheme where you can justify the scrutinity given.
I though that part of the function was “I hope I have understood this correctly” or “this seems to be a thing” where “is this real?” is kind of the question being asked.
If your lenses are working, more power to you. If your lenses do not catch the things that my lenses make illusions of to me, I am not particularly selling my lenses or particularly explaining the cracks in my lenses to you.
I’m about to give up on this branch of conversation. I’m having trouble parsing what you’re saying. It’s feeling weirdly abstract to me.
If you have an example of something humans actually do that is more of this “positive addiction” thing, in a way that isn’t rooted in the “negative addiction” pattern I describe, I’m open to learning about that.
You gave a hypothetical example type. I noted that in practice when that actually happens it strikes me as always rooted in the “negative addiction” thing. So it doesn’t (yet) work for me as an example.
If there’s something I’m missing about your example, please feel free to clarify.
Don’t slide into claims that I’m just blinding myself with a “pet theory”. If I’m blinding myself, I’m blinding myself to something you can name. Please just name the thing.
I disagree that that examples need to be verbally accessible (but undestand making a scheme where rare data types can be utilised require a lot of good will).
By Aumann agreement style reasoning, if we are both sane and differ in our judgement/perception then somebody got some updating to do. Even if we can’t explicate the opining. I am doing so bad in this discussion that I am kind of orienting being the insane one here. So I consider to have abandoned the thing except for few select threads that seem can be positive.
Alternative word that in some contexts has been a near synonym: compulsiveness
Example of positive addiction: people being on their phones and conversing less face-to-face. (ocurred to me why the search might have special character, positive addiction might not be a problem or concieved as a problem, pure occurrence vs forming a problem). People do not need to find face-to-face time negative for it to occur or hurry to end when it happens.
I think I am curious about how the classifying of the previous two examples were found to not be an instance (Aumann crux).
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
<edit moved to another post for known to be in its own karma bucket>
If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:
Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority.
Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. “A” could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as “negative life” I am wondering what words “neutral” and “positive” are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of “it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction.” closing a branch of inquiry of the type “it can be, therefore it must be”. ∃x=¬∀¬x negates as ¬∃x=∀¬x rather than ¬∃x≠p(¬x)>90%. Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that “that is not an edge case as it is rare” is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).