Frequency of Physical interaction with a media as a contributor to its addictive potential.
It seems to me that a contributor to the addictive nature of some things, short form content in particular could be related to the fact that you just have to freaking touch your screen every seven seconds and can’t take your eyes away or you might end up watching some piece of content that is at the very least uninteresting. The reason YouTube, is less addictive by a few degrees could be that you aren’t by the very modality of the content, required to touch it and remain engaged.
I think this is qualitatively a different, and complimentary to, explanation compared to the dopamine drip concepts. And that there is possibly an inverse correlation between level of required interaction with a type of content and its addictive quality. Although, if this were true one would expect books to be on the more addictive end of the spectrum.
Perhaps this has already been discussed or explored, but I just figured I’d share something that I’ve been thinking about. Also, I’m new here so feedback/criticism would be welcomed, and direction on whether this is an appropriate “quick take” would be great as well.
Also, I’m new here so feedback/criticism would be welcomed, and direction on whether this is an appropriate “quick take” would be great as well.
I think it’s okay, as in: you are not violating the local norms, but also there is a high risk of not getting any interaction, so don’t be too disappointed.
On topic:
This is an interesting thought that I don’t have a clear opinion on. Television is quite addictive to many people, but there is almost no interaction… except for switching channels. Smartphones are also quite addictive to many people, and there is constant interaction. TikTok seems more addictive than Facebook, but requires less interaction? (I am not sure actually; never used TikTok.) I think YouTube got slighty more addictive when they added automatic switch to a new video after you finished one. So… I don’t know.
Perhaps the optimal (from the perspective of someone who wants to get you addicted) amount of control is “very little but non-zero”? A repetitive mindless movement, which still creates some illusion of control? Importantly, you do not need to do anything to get new content; the medium is pushing new content at you automatically. Your choice is only between Content A and Content B—both options are okay from the perspective of the addictive medium, the only unwanted option is you turning it off, so it is better if it redirects your attention away from that.
That would explain why TV gets more addictive when you have a remote control for switching channels (more interaction), but YouTube gets more addictive when you run the next video automatically (less interaction needed). Endlessly scrolling pages are more addictive than clicking to see the next page, but TikTok is more addictive than scrolling.
Frequency of Physical interaction with a media as a contributor to its addictive potential.
It seems to me that a contributor to the addictive nature of some things, short form content in particular could be related to the fact that you just have to freaking touch your screen every seven seconds and can’t take your eyes away or you might end up watching some piece of content that is at the very least uninteresting. The reason YouTube, is less addictive by a few degrees could be that you aren’t by the very modality of the content, required to touch it and remain engaged.
I think this is qualitatively a different, and complimentary to, explanation compared to the dopamine drip concepts. And that there is possibly an inverse correlation between level of required interaction with a type of content and its addictive quality. Although, if this were true one would expect books to be on the more addictive end of the spectrum.
Perhaps this has already been discussed or explored, but I just figured I’d share something that I’ve been thinking about. Also, I’m new here so feedback/criticism would be welcomed, and direction on whether this is an appropriate “quick take” would be great as well.
I think it’s okay, as in: you are not violating the local norms, but also there is a high risk of not getting any interaction, so don’t be too disappointed.
On topic:
This is an interesting thought that I don’t have a clear opinion on. Television is quite addictive to many people, but there is almost no interaction… except for switching channels. Smartphones are also quite addictive to many people, and there is constant interaction. TikTok seems more addictive than Facebook, but requires less interaction? (I am not sure actually; never used TikTok.) I think YouTube got slighty more addictive when they added automatic switch to a new video after you finished one. So… I don’t know.
Perhaps the optimal (from the perspective of someone who wants to get you addicted) amount of control is “very little but non-zero”? A repetitive mindless movement, which still creates some illusion of control? Importantly, you do not need to do anything to get new content; the medium is pushing new content at you automatically. Your choice is only between Content A and Content B—both options are okay from the perspective of the addictive medium, the only unwanted option is you turning it off, so it is better if it redirects your attention away from that.
That would explain why TV gets more addictive when you have a remote control for switching channels (more interaction), but YouTube gets more addictive when you run the next video automatically (less interaction needed). Endlessly scrolling pages are more addictive than clicking to see the next page, but TikTok is more addictive than scrolling.