are there any pop-science books you've enjoyed?
Absolutely loved this book. Boosted my high school biology grades a lot too.>>25177905Righteous Mind is really, really bad and the assumption drawn from the data are complete non-sequitors
>>25177905>HELP ME R*DDIT I NEED A KOSHER AUTHORITY FIGURE TO PEER REVIEW COMMON SENSE
I tried reading A Brief History of Time and Hawking really does not dwell long on the abstract leaps of logic. I got lost fast.
>>25177905Do they talk about the food industry? If not, i shan't be reading good sir.
This is happening through the feminization of the population by any means necessary, including spiritually.Turns out women are not the superior choice to solve any problems.And the actual fucking cause of all the worst problems they wanted to get away from.
>>25177905This book is responsible for the destruction of anonymity on the Internet. I sincerely hope Jonathan Haidt gets dick cancer.
Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss
>>25178528What changed about anonymity from when the book came out (2024) and today?If you're talking about Australia and other countries restricting access to TikTok and Instagram to minors, that's a good thing.The internet is better without these horrible 'social media'.
>>25178665>He says on an anonymous imageboard.If you think this will only effect certain "social media" companies and not the Internet as a whole, you're not paying attention.
>>25178683Ah, the retarded '4chan is social media like TikTok is!'Making internet access easier has been a disaster for online spaces.The book as far as I understand is against these addicting algorithms and smartphone use.4chan has no such algorithms and was better when only desktops could access it.Anonymity will be fine.
>>25178699>addicting algorithmsSpooked.
>>25178788They're literally designed for maximum engagement. Whether that counts as "addicting" or not is a matter of semantics.
>>25178788Even if you don't believe in psychology the elites in the corporate and political works absolutely believe it and use it in propaganda and advertising. The idea that autists are immune to propaganda is hilariously wrong too, just look how fast AGP spreads in autistic communities.
>>25177905I liked the Horrible Science series as a kid
>>25177905I work in education and they made everyone in my district read this book. It wasn't mandatory but every member of the staff was "heavily encouraged" to read it
>>25178788If it doesn't work, these companies wouldn't be dumping money into research about how to keep people hooked on their apps.It clearly works since the people who use it freely admit that it's probably making them miserable. Yet they continue to use it.You can argue the term 'addictive' but that's just you wasting your time. The concept is real.
>>25177905What a pathetic generation. They’ve had the most sheltered cushy childhood and one mean word on the internet sends them into a state of suicidal ideation. Even the bullying is very tame now.
>>25179024Them being sheltered is exactly why they're so easily impacted by 'one mean word' (disingenuous framing but okay)If there was a stronger social upbringing this would be much less a problem. And they are not to blame for that.
>>25179035>(disingenuous framing but okay)Yeah I’m hyperbolising for the sake of my post but I do agree with you. But still, I just find it discouraging for the future given they’re almost adults.
>>25177905I read the Coddling book from the same author. This guy writes about topics that seem to be almost blacklisted from the industry. Like college students demanding white students gtfo for a day. Or arguing that educational institutions should be for education, and not social justice.I flipped through the OP book once. I was suprised that it had small sections dedicated to topics like "hikikomori", or the problem with young boys not being allowed to have a gender to conform to, because society currently has a phobia about men being men. Unlike girls.His stuff usually get a negative reputation on this site for being popular, and therefore "reddit", though.
>>25178987how was it
>>25177922There is no common sense anymore man. Everything is split in two camps and both of them are nutty in their own way. All the boomers and blue collar larpers that claim to represent common sense are possibly the most insane of all.
>>25178859>>25178960>>25179020Behavioral addictions are a myth.
>>25179192How would you want to call it then?
>>25179220Stop entertaining the retard, retard.
>>25179229No.
>>25178960>source: my ass
>>25177908Atheist bitch.
>>25179375His ass makes a strong case.
>>25179192>>25179220>>25178859They're vices, which are habits. All environments and cultures inform and indoctrinate, we just happen to live an era where this is denied or ignored. Rather than formation in virtue, we have positive formation in vice. To be sure, other eras had this problem as well (e.g., the defective fanning of the flames of thymos in honor cultures). Ours is fairly unique is simply denying virtue however, and the relentless therapeutic focus on the self that Philip Rieff describes.Alasdair MacIntyre is good on some of the key underlying issues here.We have made reason a slave of the passions. This is the linear, clouded motion of the nous, a pathology of spirit.
>>25179394Not an argument. I think Dawkins makes one quip about Christianity in that entire book. It's mostly focused on how genes are the central driver of evolution
>>25179542>It's mostly focused on how genes are the central driver of evolutionThat's an incorrect view too.
>>25179612Species and individual based views fail to account for the death of the individual and the species. They're teleogical and thus wrong. Gene-based view is completely spotless. The genes only "goal" is to survive and reproduce itself using the phenotype as a vehicle for this "purpose".
>>25179623*teleological
>>25179623You're indoctrinated into a cult and have no theory of mind. Denis Noble is more right than Richard Dawkins btw.
>>25179220>How would you want to call it then?A lack of self-discipline.
>>25180468Not the user. I'm asking what you call it when billion dollar companies use psychology to keep people hooked on apps.Using strategies pioneered by casinos and exploiting weaknesses in people to get them to stay on your app as long as you can. Regardless on how it impacts their mental health.What do you call that?
>>25177905Not sure if it counts but The Technological Republic was OK. Aggressively mediocre writing, to say the least, but there are some interesting ideas in the second half.
>>25179394I honestly don't understand how people got psyopped into thinking fedora atheists were somehow more obnoxious or aggressive in the beliefs than online Christians. Ever since COVID e-Christians and trads have been way cringier than new atheists ever were without any real pushback.
>>25180688>What do you call that?Design.
>>25178987Was it good?
>>25180721Great so when I say design you know exactly what I'm referring to?is it a better, clearer way of communicating what I described?The answer is no.
>>25180737Let's look at the phenomena you're describing...>I'm asking what you call it when billion dollar companies use psychology to keep people hooked on apps.What you're really asking is, why do companies design their product to give their customers what they want? But you frame this question in the most nefarious way possible in order to push your unfounded moral panic. You act like something as mundane as design is some occult hex that companies use to mentally rape their customers for profit. I've just stripped out the unnecessary hysteria.
>>25180851You're having an episode. Nowhere did I frame it as some occult hex. This is you creating a strawman.I don't frame is in the most nefarious way possible. I describe just exactly what they are doing. What is it you're in disagreement with? Do they not spend millions of dollars into researching how to manipulate their users? You frame it as if they're an ice cream store selling a new flavour. Just what the customer wants! In reality it's 100% provably using psychological methods to manipulate their users emotions. You cannot dispute this and will dodge it in your next reply.It's less like any other consumer product and more akin to a casino. And we have special rules for gambling (or at least we had) for good reasons.I bet you see nothing wrong with the explosion in betting apps either right?
>>25180880>You're having an episode. Nowhere did I frame it as some occult hex. This is you creating a strawman.It's called hyperbole and figurative language.>I don't frame is in the most nefarious way possible.Let's look at the type language you were using to describe the design of social media...>Hooked>Manipulate>CasinoAll these things have a negative connotation. You aren't objectively describing the services that social media companies provide, you're baking in your own subjective assessments of those "manipulative strategies" and presenting them as objective.>Just what the customer wants!How do you think the social media companies keep their userbase? By using their algorithms to present things that their users don't want? Maybe by sending armed thugs to force people to use their services perhaps? The fact is, the reason people are "hooked" on social media, is because they want to use social media.>In reality it's 100% provably using psychological methods to manipulate their users emotions.Which is what you're trying to do right now with your hysterical descriptions of basic product design. Pot meet kettle.>You cannot dispute this and will dodge it in your next reply.I can and I will. The problem isn't social media companies acting as "pushers", it's irresponsible people acting irresponsibly with social media and blaming everyone else for their own irresponsible actions. And now everyone else has to suffer because of these retards.>It's less like any other consumer product and more akin to a casino.More "psychological methods" aim at "emotionally manipulating" me.>And we have special rules for gambling (or at least we had) for good reasons.And there it is, the demand for government regulation. And it's so very convenient that the concept of "behavioral addiction" is so loose that it could be applied to virtually all behavior, and be used to justify regulation of all behavior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhnsC2V4_0w>I bet you see nothing wrong with the explosion in betting apps either right?Yes, unironically.
>>25177905>le phone is the problem VS>Neo-liberal self exploitation is the problemwell /lit/, whos right?
