WEBVTT - Addicted to Tech

0:00:04.240 --> 0:00:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production of I Heart Radios

0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:14.120
<v Speaker 1>How Stuff Works. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff.

0:00:14.160 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:19.560
<v Speaker 1>How Stuff Works in My Heart Radio and I love

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:24.720
<v Speaker 1>all things tech And recently I attended a Techonomy conference

0:00:24.800 --> 0:00:27.680
<v Speaker 1>in New York City where people from different parts of

0:00:27.680 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>the technology space came together to give presentations and interviews

0:00:32.120 --> 0:00:37.320
<v Speaker 1>about stuff like technology, government, society, and business. And most

0:00:37.479 --> 0:00:40.240
<v Speaker 1>of the focus of the talk sort of gravitated toward

0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:44.960
<v Speaker 1>a big question, will technology save us or will it

0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 1>destroy us? Now? I think ultimately everyone at that conference

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 1>all agreed that that question, while compelling, masks the real question,

0:00:54.760 --> 0:00:58.400
<v Speaker 1>which is will we work to save ourselves or will

0:00:58.560 --> 0:01:02.640
<v Speaker 1>we allow ourselves to be destroyed? Technology, as it turns out,

0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:07.080
<v Speaker 1>is really just a tool. It can facilitate either outcome.

0:01:07.440 --> 0:01:12.200
<v Speaker 1>The determining factor, however, is us how we design and

0:01:12.360 --> 0:01:16.440
<v Speaker 1>implement that technology. Now, that being said, technology can have

0:01:16.840 --> 0:01:20.839
<v Speaker 1>real effects on us, and sometimes we might not even

0:01:20.880 --> 0:01:24.120
<v Speaker 1>be fully aware of those effects. There was a lot

0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:27.600
<v Speaker 1>of talk during the conference about how we tend to

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:31.200
<v Speaker 1>think about the Internet as a connective tissue that allows

0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:35.280
<v Speaker 1>us to communicate with practically anyone anywhere on Earth. For

0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:38.280
<v Speaker 1>many years, that was how we described the Internet. In fact,

0:01:38.319 --> 0:01:40.920
<v Speaker 1>I would argue we still describe the Internet in this fashion.

0:01:40.959 --> 0:01:45.400
<v Speaker 1>It's this global network of networks and you can easily

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:48.960
<v Speaker 1>get in contact with practically anybody at a moment's notice.

0:01:49.000 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 1>But in reality, we've seen the Internet also serve as

0:01:52.520 --> 0:01:57.040
<v Speaker 1>a means of creating silos of people who grow increasingly

0:01:57.200 --> 0:02:01.440
<v Speaker 1>separated and insulated from each other, mostly from people who

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:04.000
<v Speaker 1>don't share their views, so they all end up an

0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:10.080
<v Speaker 1>individual echo chambers that reinforce their views while simultaneously dismissing

0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:13.520
<v Speaker 1>or denying the views of other people. So rather than

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 1>a uniting force, the Internet is enabling greater division than ever.

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:22.200
<v Speaker 1>And there are a lot of reasons for that. And

0:02:22.520 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>you could even argue that that is too narrow a view,

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:29.320
<v Speaker 1>that yes, that is happening, but it may be that

0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:31.359
<v Speaker 1>that's not the only thing is happening, or not even

0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:34.120
<v Speaker 1>the primary thing that's happening. So maybe someday I'm going

0:02:34.160 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 1>to do a full episode or or perhaps even a

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:39.360
<v Speaker 1>short series about that topic. But today I just wanted

0:02:39.360 --> 0:02:43.560
<v Speaker 1>to look at one specific component of this overall picture

0:02:43.680 --> 0:02:48.680
<v Speaker 1>that factors into these discussions, and that component is addiction

0:02:49.000 --> 0:02:52.960
<v Speaker 1>to technology, and addiction is a strong word. Uh, it

0:02:53.080 --> 0:02:56.280
<v Speaker 1>may not be fully appropriate to use the word addiction,

0:02:56.600 --> 0:02:58.440
<v Speaker 1>but it is the one that a lot of people

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:01.040
<v Speaker 1>do use to describe the kind of behaviors I'll be

0:03:01.080 --> 0:03:05.720
<v Speaker 1>talking about. So for the purposes of simplicity, I'm going

0:03:05.760 --> 0:03:08.640
<v Speaker 1>to use the word largely because I don't have an

0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:14.280
<v Speaker 1>alternative that is as good at summing up the general meaning. Now,

0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>to understand the ideas behind this addictive nature of technology,

0:03:19.520 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>I thought we could look at an older tech that

0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:25.280
<v Speaker 1>I've covered before, and uh, it's from a Tech Stuff

0:03:25.320 --> 0:03:30.160
<v Speaker 1>classic episode. I'm talking about slot machines. The technology of

0:03:30.200 --> 0:03:33.840
<v Speaker 1>slot machines, when you really boil it down, is pretty simple,

0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:38.000
<v Speaker 1>But the principle behind slot machines depends upon something that

0:03:38.040 --> 0:03:40.640
<v Speaker 1>has nothing to do with the technology when you really

0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 1>boil it all down. Instead, it's depending upon human psychology

0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:47.880
<v Speaker 1>and how through technology we can exploit the way we

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 1>humans behave and make a profit from that behavior, because

0:03:52.240 --> 0:03:54.320
<v Speaker 1>that's at the very heart of what we're looking at

0:03:54.360 --> 0:03:58.040
<v Speaker 1>in tech today. Now, just in case you aren't familiar

0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 1>with a slot machine, it's like ambling device. Typically it

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:05.440
<v Speaker 1>has a panel that has divided up into columns, and

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:08.160
<v Speaker 1>each column is a reel or a wheel, if you

0:04:08.200 --> 0:04:09.680
<v Speaker 1>can think of it that way. But it's a reel

0:04:09.800 --> 0:04:13.640
<v Speaker 1>that has a selection of symbols on the outer side

0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:16.800
<v Speaker 1>of that reel. So you put whatever the amount of

0:04:16.800 --> 0:04:19.599
<v Speaker 1>money is into the slot machine for that particular machine.

0:04:19.600 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 1>You know they're penny slots, they're hundred dollar slots, and

0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:26.440
<v Speaker 1>then of course if you're in another country, it'll relate

0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:29.479
<v Speaker 1>to whatever currency that country uses. But then you after

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:31.640
<v Speaker 1>you put the money in, you typically will pull a lever,

0:04:31.880 --> 0:04:35.520
<v Speaker 1>or more frequently you'll push a button, and the reels

0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:38.440
<v Speaker 1>begin to spin. The reels, by the way, it can

0:04:38.480 --> 0:04:40.520
<v Speaker 1>be physical or they can be virtual. They can be

0:04:41.400 --> 0:04:43.960
<v Speaker 1>digital reels on a video screen, or they can be

0:04:44.040 --> 0:04:49.719
<v Speaker 1>actual physical reels that are spinning on a electro mechanical spindle.

0:04:50.560 --> 0:04:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Then each reel stops. Typically they stop left to right,

0:04:54.240 --> 0:04:56.960
<v Speaker 1>so if it's a three reel slot machine, it would

0:04:56.960 --> 0:04:59.600
<v Speaker 1>go one to three, and if you have the right

0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:03.400
<v Speaker 1>symbol that are aligned in a specific way, you win.

0:05:04.040 --> 0:05:07.920
<v Speaker 1>There's no skill involved in playing a slot machine. There's

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:11.760
<v Speaker 1>only chance the symbols, like I said, could be permanently

0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:14.880
<v Speaker 1>affixed to those physical wheels, or it could be a

0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:17.479
<v Speaker 1>video screen that simulates a spinning wheel. I know people

0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:20.080
<v Speaker 1>who won't play those games because they think of them

0:05:20.080 --> 0:05:23.280
<v Speaker 1>as being somehow fixed that the video screen can show

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:28.520
<v Speaker 1>you any any, any collection of symbols at once, quote

0:05:28.600 --> 0:05:32.039
<v Speaker 1>unquote it once, whereas a physical machine is different. But

0:05:32.600 --> 0:05:35.720
<v Speaker 1>here's a secret, they're not really different at all. Now,

0:05:35.800 --> 0:05:39.480
<v Speaker 1>some games will allow you to add in extra features,

0:05:39.520 --> 0:05:42.880
<v Speaker 1>like you could play multiple credits at once, which typically

0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>means you get an increased payout if you do happen

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:49.480
<v Speaker 1>to win um, but it could also unlock extra features

0:05:49.520 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 1>such as numerous potential lines that could represent a win. Typically,

0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:56.800
<v Speaker 1>on a very basic machine, the three symbols have to

0:05:56.880 --> 0:06:01.160
<v Speaker 1>line up in the center of each of those slots,

0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 1>and it has to be the same symbol on all

0:06:04.240 --> 0:06:07.279
<v Speaker 1>three reels, and then you win. If one of those

0:06:07.360 --> 0:06:09.680
<v Speaker 1>is offset, if it's a little too high or a

0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.280
<v Speaker 1>little too low, it's the same symbol as the first two,

0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:15.560
<v Speaker 1>but it's not in line, then it doesn't count. Some

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:19.320
<v Speaker 1>slot machines allow you to have multiple lines of play

0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:23.920
<v Speaker 1>so that you can actually have those count, But otherwise

0:06:23.920 --> 0:06:26.280
<v Speaker 1>there's not really that's not really skill. It's just that

0:06:26.320 --> 0:06:31.400
<v Speaker 1>you're spending more money for a slightly increased chance of

0:06:31.400 --> 0:06:35.280
<v Speaker 1>winning something. Um now I say slightly, and even that

0:06:35.400 --> 0:06:37.560
<v Speaker 1>is a little misleading, because at the heart of a

0:06:37.640 --> 0:06:42.240
<v Speaker 1>modern slot machine, there's a microchip that determines what result

0:06:42.279 --> 0:06:45.360
<v Speaker 1>you're going to get, and typically it's based off the

0:06:45.400 --> 0:06:48.279
<v Speaker 1>exact moment you either pull the lever or you push

0:06:48.360 --> 0:06:51.719
<v Speaker 1>the button. When you do that, it stops a random

0:06:51.880 --> 0:06:55.000
<v Speaker 1>number generator or r n G, and that r NGG

0:06:55.160 --> 0:06:58.600
<v Speaker 1>is just cycling through millions or even billions of numbers

0:06:59.279 --> 0:07:01.840
<v Speaker 1>for every set, and it's just going super fast. So

0:07:01.880 --> 0:07:06.000
<v Speaker 1>the moment it stops that number is what determines whether

0:07:06.080 --> 0:07:10.280
<v Speaker 1>or not you've won. It determines which stop each wheel

0:07:10.400 --> 0:07:12.880
<v Speaker 1>or reel will hit. So you can think of that

0:07:13.680 --> 0:07:17.120
<v Speaker 1>real is having numerous stops, some of which correspond to

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:19.720
<v Speaker 1>a symbol and some of which correspond to the blank

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:24.080
<v Speaker 1>space between symbols, and this random number generator figures out

0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:28.040
<v Speaker 1>which ones those are for any given spin, and so

0:07:28.080 --> 0:07:30.520
<v Speaker 1>it determines whether or not you win. In fact, you

0:07:30.560 --> 0:07:33.800
<v Speaker 1>could technically strip all that other stuff out of a

0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:37.280
<v Speaker 1>slot machine, the reels, the symbols, all that stuff, all

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:39.679
<v Speaker 1>the bells, and whistles. You could just have a random

0:07:39.760 --> 0:07:44.800
<v Speaker 1>number generator, and you could just have a schedule or

0:07:44.840 --> 0:07:49.720
<v Speaker 1>a sheet that indicates whether any particular number represents a win,

0:07:50.200 --> 0:07:52.600
<v Speaker 1>and that would be the same thing, but you lose

0:07:52.680 --> 0:07:56.480
<v Speaker 1>the theater of slot machines, the presentation, which is part

0:07:56.480 --> 0:08:00.160
<v Speaker 1>of the appeal. So you could do that where just

0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:02.040
<v Speaker 1>have a random number of generator. It tells you whether

0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:04.760
<v Speaker 1>you want or lost, but that's not nearly as sexy

0:08:04.840 --> 0:08:08.280
<v Speaker 1>as the slot machine. Modern slot machines use a lot

0:08:08.280 --> 0:08:12.240
<v Speaker 1>of sensory stimuli to kind of entice and reward players. So,

0:08:13.160 --> 0:08:15.600
<v Speaker 1>as I said, there's no skill in the game, there's

0:08:15.680 --> 0:08:20.600
<v Speaker 1>not really any way to meaningfully improve your chances. You

0:08:20.640 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 1>could boost a payout, but your chance of actually hitting

0:08:23.280 --> 0:08:26.840
<v Speaker 1>a payout doesn't improve. Um, you could add lines of

0:08:26.960 --> 0:08:30.720
<v Speaker 1>play and that might move the needle a little bit,

0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:34.080
<v Speaker 1>but so little that it doesn't make a huge difference.

0:08:34.600 --> 0:08:37.760
<v Speaker 1>And also, when you pay more money when you do lose,

0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:39.880
<v Speaker 1>it means you're losing more money on that spend than

0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:42.520
<v Speaker 1>you would on a regular spend. So how the heck

0:08:42.559 --> 0:08:45.480
<v Speaker 1>are slot machines even popular if the odds are bad

0:08:45.840 --> 0:08:48.760
<v Speaker 1>and you know the payouts are rare and it's all

0:08:48.800 --> 0:08:51.240
<v Speaker 1>based on random number of generators. How can they be

0:08:51.320 --> 0:08:55.080
<v Speaker 1>so popular? And when I say popular, I mean really popular.

0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 1>If you visit a casino, especially in the United States,

0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:01.440
<v Speaker 1>they typically slop sans will typically take up about eight

0:09:01.559 --> 0:09:05.079
<v Speaker 1>percent of the casino floor space on the playing floor,

0:09:05.600 --> 0:09:07.960
<v Speaker 1>which means that you only have twenty percent reserved for

0:09:08.200 --> 0:09:11.600
<v Speaker 1>things like table games, like games like black jack and

0:09:11.679 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 1>roulette and craps and that kind of stuff. So slot

0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:19.080
<v Speaker 1>machines dominate the physical space of casinos. They also can

0:09:19.120 --> 0:09:22.400
<v Speaker 1>account for between seventy to eight percent of the profits

0:09:22.559 --> 0:09:26.040
<v Speaker 1>for the house. It's big business. There's some regions in

0:09:26.080 --> 0:09:28.720
<v Speaker 1>the United States where gambling is legal, but the only

0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:32.120
<v Speaker 1>type of gambling that's allowed our slot machines. So what's

0:09:32.120 --> 0:09:34.560
<v Speaker 1>going on? How come they're so popular if it's just

0:09:34.600 --> 0:09:37.839
<v Speaker 1>a random number generator. Well, at the heart of it

0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:41.320
<v Speaker 1>is the psychology behind playing a slot machine, and it's

0:09:41.320 --> 0:09:46.239
<v Speaker 1>pretty ingenious and more than a little scary. The psychological

0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.920
<v Speaker 1>design is largely based off the work of a famous

0:09:50.040 --> 0:09:54.880
<v Speaker 1>psychologist named B. F. Skinner, who heavily researched human behavior.

0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:58.560
<v Speaker 1>So back in the nineteen thirties, B F. Skinner researched

0:09:59.360 --> 0:10:03.200
<v Speaker 1>what he was calling operant conditioning. This is a method

0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:07.320
<v Speaker 1>of learning that relies upon either rewards or punishment for

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:10.280
<v Speaker 1>a combination of the two, and the basic principle is

0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:13.760
<v Speaker 1>pretty darn easy to understand. If a behavior is followed

0:10:13.800 --> 0:10:17.560
<v Speaker 1>by pleasant consequences, were more likely to engage in that

0:10:17.640 --> 0:10:23.120
<v Speaker 1>behavior again. If it results in unpleasant consequences, were more

0:10:23.160 --> 0:10:27.520
<v Speaker 1>likely to avoid engaging in that behavior, which again follows

0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:30.240
<v Speaker 1>common sense right. If you do something and something good

0:10:30.280 --> 0:10:33.040
<v Speaker 1>happens as a result, you're more likely to do it again.

0:10:33.080 --> 0:10:35.240
<v Speaker 1>If you do something and something bad happens to you,

0:10:35.240 --> 0:10:37.800
<v Speaker 1>you're probably not as eager to try it again. So

0:10:37.840 --> 0:10:39.959
<v Speaker 1>if I bite into a chocolate bar, I'm going to

0:10:40.080 --> 0:10:42.400
<v Speaker 1>have the sense of pleasure as I taste the chocolate,

0:10:42.480 --> 0:10:43.920
<v Speaker 1>and I'm gonna think, oh, I want to do that

0:10:43.960 --> 0:10:46.760
<v Speaker 1>again in the future. But if I bide into i

0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:50.000
<v Speaker 1>don't know, an old sneaker, I'm probably not gonna enjoy

0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:52.160
<v Speaker 1>it very much, and I'm probably not likely to go

0:10:52.200 --> 0:10:54.480
<v Speaker 1>and do that again in the future. So by the

0:10:54.559 --> 0:10:59.080
<v Speaker 1>nineteen forties, Skinner developed what he called an operant conditioning box.

0:11:00.120 --> 0:11:03.440
<v Speaker 1>Just about everyone else uses the term Skinner box, and

0:11:03.480 --> 0:11:06.040
<v Speaker 1>it was a box that you would put a small

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:09.360
<v Speaker 1>animal into, like a rat or a pigeon, and typically

0:11:09.440 --> 0:11:12.760
<v Speaker 1>would have a lever in the box. UM there would

0:11:12.800 --> 0:11:17.520
<v Speaker 1>be in the classic skinner box and electric grid on

0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:21.320
<v Speaker 1>the floor. UM. Some of them would also have speakers,

0:11:21.920 --> 0:11:25.120
<v Speaker 1>a couple of indicator lights, and a food cup. And

0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:27.680
<v Speaker 1>he would put animals like pigeons or rats in the

0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:30.400
<v Speaker 1>box and train them to see how or not even

0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:34.120
<v Speaker 1>train them, just really letting them learn. Through this method,

0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:36.880
<v Speaker 1>he wanted to sort out three types of responses that

0:11:36.920 --> 0:11:41.520
<v Speaker 1>can follow any given behavior. So these responses or operant

0:11:41.920 --> 0:11:46.120
<v Speaker 1>fall into three categories. There's neutral oprint uh, this has

0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:49.080
<v Speaker 1>no effect on the probability that a particular behavior would

0:11:49.080 --> 0:11:53.200
<v Speaker 1>be repeated or not. Then you have reinforcers. This is

0:11:53.240 --> 0:11:57.560
<v Speaker 1>a type of operant that would encourage behavior repetition and

0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:01.240
<v Speaker 1>thus increase the probability that the critter inside the box

0:12:01.280 --> 0:12:05.000
<v Speaker 1>would do whatever that thing was again in the future.

0:12:05.440 --> 0:12:10.240
<v Speaker 1>And reinforcers can be either positive reinforcers or negative reinforcers.

0:12:10.280 --> 0:12:15.760
<v Speaker 1>A positive reinforcement encourages repeated behavior in return for a reward. Well,

0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:21.679
<v Speaker 1>a negative reinforcement encourages repeated behavior by removing something unpleasant.

0:12:22.240 --> 0:12:28.079
<v Speaker 1>So some people will conflate negative reinforcement with punishment. Those

0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:31.040
<v Speaker 1>are two different things. Punishment is the third operant. By

0:12:31.040 --> 0:12:36.880
<v Speaker 1>the way, punishment is where you punish a subject for

0:12:37.000 --> 0:12:41.360
<v Speaker 1>making the wrong choice, as opposed to rewarding a subject

0:12:41.360 --> 0:12:45.320
<v Speaker 1>for making the right choice. Negative reinforcement remains removing something

0:12:45.400 --> 0:12:49.800
<v Speaker 1>unpleasant when the person or a thing makes the correct choice.

0:12:50.440 --> 0:12:55.040
<v Speaker 1>So for example, let's say that I've got a room

0:12:55.080 --> 0:12:58.600
<v Speaker 1>and there's a button on a little table in the room,

0:12:59.240 --> 0:13:03.000
<v Speaker 1>and you are put into the room, and then the

0:13:03.120 --> 0:13:07.680
<v Speaker 1>ramans are blasting at a very uncomfortable volume, and you

0:13:08.640 --> 0:13:11.440
<v Speaker 1>want to just have some peace and quiet, and you

0:13:11.480 --> 0:13:13.280
<v Speaker 1>know that if you push the button it will stop

0:13:13.679 --> 0:13:17.920
<v Speaker 1>the um the ramons blasting at you. The behavior I'm

0:13:17.960 --> 0:13:19.800
<v Speaker 1>trying to get you to do is to push the button.

0:13:20.320 --> 0:13:24.320
<v Speaker 1>So you push the button, the negative stimuli goes away.

0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:28.200
<v Speaker 1>That's negative reinforcement. Uh, And when it comes back, you

0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:31.040
<v Speaker 1>push the button again. So now I have essentially trained

0:13:31.080 --> 0:13:34.240
<v Speaker 1>you on this behavior where you know if you push

0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:36.800
<v Speaker 1>the button you will prevent having the ramones blasted at you.

0:13:37.320 --> 0:13:39.840
<v Speaker 1>The positive reinforcement would be you come in, You're in

0:13:39.840 --> 0:13:42.160
<v Speaker 1>a room, there's a table with a button on it,

0:13:42.200 --> 0:13:44.560
<v Speaker 1>You push the button and then you get a reward

0:13:44.559 --> 0:13:47.320
<v Speaker 1>of some sort like a slice of pizza or something.

0:13:48.000 --> 0:13:54.199
<v Speaker 1>So those are the basic operant categories neutral reinforcers punishment.

0:13:55.080 --> 0:13:58.480
<v Speaker 1>So a typical experiment when involved putting a hungry rat

0:13:58.960 --> 0:14:02.040
<v Speaker 1>inside a Skinner box and if the rat were to

0:14:02.200 --> 0:14:05.360
<v Speaker 1>move the lever, typically it was done accidentally as the

0:14:05.440 --> 0:14:08.920
<v Speaker 1>rat was just exploring its box. UH. That would cause

0:14:08.960 --> 0:14:11.960
<v Speaker 1>a pellet of food to fall down a little shoot

0:14:12.040 --> 0:14:15.040
<v Speaker 1>into the food cup inside the box, and so the

0:14:15.120 --> 0:14:18.320
<v Speaker 1>rat would then get a food pellet, and before long

0:14:18.520 --> 0:14:21.560
<v Speaker 1>the rats would learn to associate that moving the lever

0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:25.240
<v Speaker 1>meant that a food pellet would come down, and so

0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:27.840
<v Speaker 1>they would start to press the lever again and again

0:14:27.960 --> 0:14:31.360
<v Speaker 1>in order to get the rewards. Uh. Skinner also did

0:14:31.400 --> 0:14:34.080
<v Speaker 1>an experiment with negative reinforcement in which he would run

0:14:34.240 --> 0:14:37.520
<v Speaker 1>a weak current through that electric grid in the box,

0:14:38.040 --> 0:14:40.960
<v Speaker 1>which would cause the rats to experience discomfort. It wasn't

0:14:41.440 --> 0:14:45.360
<v Speaker 1>like a strong enough electric current to truly shock the rat,

0:14:45.400 --> 0:14:49.280
<v Speaker 1>but it was not a pleasant sensation, and hitting the

0:14:49.360 --> 0:14:52.000
<v Speaker 1>lever would shut off the current for a while. So

0:14:52.040 --> 0:14:54.840
<v Speaker 1>the rats would learn to hit the lever and turn

0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:57.480
<v Speaker 1>off the current as quickly as possible. Now that bit

0:14:57.560 --> 0:15:00.600
<v Speaker 1>doesn't really fall into what we use was lot machines,

0:15:00.800 --> 0:15:03.120
<v Speaker 1>because as far as I know, casinos aren't using negative

0:15:03.160 --> 0:15:06.600
<v Speaker 1>reinforcement to keep people playing, at least not yet. However,

0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:10.440
<v Speaker 1>Skinner then went a step further to learn more about

0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:13.360
<v Speaker 1>the reinforcement method of learning. He wanted to see what

0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:17.120
<v Speaker 1>would happen if you were to change the schedule of reinforcement.

0:15:17.640 --> 0:15:21.280
<v Speaker 1>What happens if you stop dispensing pellets when the rat

0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:23.920
<v Speaker 1>hits the lever? So first the rat learns that hitting

0:15:23.920 --> 0:15:27.720
<v Speaker 1>the lever dispenses pellets, Then you stop dispensing pellets. How

0:15:27.760 --> 0:15:30.560
<v Speaker 1>many times will the rat hit the lever before it

0:15:30.600 --> 0:15:33.880
<v Speaker 1>gives up, before it realizes that the thing that was

0:15:33.960 --> 0:15:36.760
<v Speaker 1>working is no longer working and that behavior fades away.

0:15:37.680 --> 0:15:40.360
<v Speaker 1>How long does it take for it to abandon that behavior.

0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:43.920
<v Speaker 1>Skinner worked with other behavioral lists to determine things like

0:15:44.160 --> 0:15:48.080
<v Speaker 1>response rate, which is how frequently an animal like a

0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:50.720
<v Speaker 1>rat would hit the lever in an effort to get

0:15:50.760 --> 0:15:53.880
<v Speaker 1>a pellet, and the extinction rate, and that's the rate

0:15:53.920 --> 0:15:56.280
<v Speaker 1>at which animals would give up if they were not

0:15:56.320 --> 0:16:00.680
<v Speaker 1>being rewarded. Then, by adjusting the frequencies at which a

0:16:00.720 --> 0:16:03.840
<v Speaker 1>reward would come out. Skinner and others could determine the

0:16:03.840 --> 0:16:07.200
<v Speaker 1>balance that would encourage the most work for the slowest

0:16:07.280 --> 0:16:10.680
<v Speaker 1>rate of extinction. So, in other words, how frequently do

0:16:10.720 --> 0:16:13.840
<v Speaker 1>you need to dispense a reward so that the rat

0:16:13.880 --> 0:16:18.120
<v Speaker 1>doesn't give up and is incentivized to continue engaging in

0:16:18.120 --> 0:16:21.880
<v Speaker 1>that behavior. Skinner discovered that the best approach was to

0:16:22.000 --> 0:16:25.640
<v Speaker 1>use a variable ratio method, meaning there was no set

0:16:25.960 --> 0:16:30.200
<v Speaker 1>number of lever pushes needed between rewards. It would change.

0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:32.640
<v Speaker 1>So it might be that the first time you hit

0:16:32.640 --> 0:16:35.160
<v Speaker 1>the lever you get a pellet. Then you have to

0:16:35.240 --> 0:16:37.800
<v Speaker 1>hit the lever four more times before the next pellet

0:16:37.840 --> 0:16:40.840
<v Speaker 1>comes out. Then two times and another pellet comes out,

0:16:40.840 --> 0:16:43.560
<v Speaker 1>then three times and another pellet comes out. And they

0:16:43.600 --> 0:16:46.880
<v Speaker 1>found that by using this variable ratio approach, you could

0:16:46.920 --> 0:16:50.040
<v Speaker 1>extend the amount of time that the animal would engage

0:16:50.160 --> 0:16:53.640
<v Speaker 1>in the behavior you wanted it to do. Now, I

0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:56.640
<v Speaker 1>would like to tell you that we human beings are

0:16:56.680 --> 0:17:00.160
<v Speaker 1>better than rats, but as it turns out that it's

0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:03.960
<v Speaker 1>not true. We humans behave the same way, and that's

0:17:03.960 --> 0:17:07.760
<v Speaker 1>what the design of slot machines is ultimately predicated upon.

0:17:08.280 --> 0:17:12.080
<v Speaker 1>A slot machine promises payouts. In fact, a lot of

0:17:12.080 --> 0:17:18.240
<v Speaker 1>slot machines in casinos have a payout rate of or more, meaning,

0:17:19.040 --> 0:17:21.760
<v Speaker 1>over the life span of the slot machine, it will

0:17:21.760 --> 0:17:25.240
<v Speaker 1>pay out about of the money it takes in in

0:17:25.280 --> 0:17:27.720
<v Speaker 1>the long run. But the key phrase of that is

0:17:28.200 --> 0:17:31.359
<v Speaker 1>in the long run, not in a play session. Over

0:17:31.400 --> 0:17:35.199
<v Speaker 1>the entire lifetime of the slot machine, the likelihood of

0:17:35.240 --> 0:17:39.040
<v Speaker 1>any one spin resulting in a jackpot is very low.

0:17:39.359 --> 0:17:42.320
<v Speaker 1>It could be just a fraction of a fraction of

0:17:42.359 --> 0:17:46.760
<v Speaker 1>a percentage point. Lower payouts have better odds, and if

0:17:46.800 --> 0:17:49.480
<v Speaker 1>you sit at a slot machine long enough, you're likely

0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:52.600
<v Speaker 1>to at least get a low payout hit. Now, that

0:17:52.680 --> 0:17:54.720
<v Speaker 1>hit might not be enough to offset the amount of

0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:57.200
<v Speaker 1>money you poured into the machine. In fact, more often

0:17:57.200 --> 0:18:00.280
<v Speaker 1>than not it won't be, but it could be enough

0:18:00.320 --> 0:18:03.320
<v Speaker 1>to keep you playing the game, and that's the rub.

0:18:04.280 --> 0:18:07.399
<v Speaker 1>Here are a couple of other tricks that slot machines

0:18:07.520 --> 0:18:10.080
<v Speaker 1>used in order to keep you playing the game. The

0:18:10.119 --> 0:18:13.480
<v Speaker 1>odds of a specific combination coming up depends in part

0:18:14.000 --> 0:18:17.119
<v Speaker 1>on how many of the corresponding symbols there are on

0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:20.880
<v Speaker 1>the stops of each wheel or reel in that machine.

0:18:21.359 --> 0:18:25.480
<v Speaker 1>So let's say you've gotten old fashioned three real slot machine.

0:18:25.520 --> 0:18:29.000
<v Speaker 1>It's a physical one. You've got these three wheels, uh,

0:18:29.040 --> 0:18:31.520
<v Speaker 1>and on that outer edge you've got the symbols on them.

0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:35.919
<v Speaker 1>And the symbols include things like cherries and oranges and

0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:38.560
<v Speaker 1>the good old bar sign. And let's say that the

0:18:38.560 --> 0:18:41.920
<v Speaker 1>the jackpot symbol is a bag of money. It's got

0:18:41.920 --> 0:18:44.280
<v Speaker 1>a bag and a little dollar symbol on it, and

0:18:44.320 --> 0:18:47.680
<v Speaker 1>that represents the really big jackpot. Each reel also has

0:18:47.680 --> 0:18:50.320
<v Speaker 1>a number of stops on it, and these are all

0:18:50.400 --> 0:18:53.119
<v Speaker 1>the possible positions the real could be and when it

0:18:53.200 --> 0:18:57.320
<v Speaker 1>stops rotating, which is completely determined by that microchip. Some

0:18:57.440 --> 0:18:59.920
<v Speaker 1>of those stops have a symbol associated with them, you know,

0:19:00.000 --> 0:19:01.960
<v Speaker 1>a cherry or an orange or the bag of money.

0:19:02.560 --> 0:19:05.400
<v Speaker 1>Some of the stops actually represent the blank space between

0:19:05.560 --> 0:19:08.600
<v Speaker 1>symbols on the reel. So let's say our machine has

0:19:08.760 --> 0:19:12.600
<v Speaker 1>fifty stops per real, so each reel could stop in

0:19:12.760 --> 0:19:17.720
<v Speaker 1>one of fifty different configurations. The bag of money represents

0:19:17.800 --> 0:19:21.040
<v Speaker 1>just one stop on each of the three reels. So

0:19:21.119 --> 0:19:23.080
<v Speaker 1>you do have a bag of money on real one,

0:19:23.280 --> 0:19:25.720
<v Speaker 1>Reel two, and Real three, but you have forty nine

0:19:25.760 --> 0:19:28.600
<v Speaker 1>other things on those reels as well. So what are

0:19:28.600 --> 0:19:31.359
<v Speaker 1>the odds that you would hit all three of those well,

0:19:31.640 --> 0:19:33.679
<v Speaker 1>it's one out of fifty times one out of fifty

0:19:33.720 --> 0:19:35.920
<v Speaker 1>times one out of fifty and then multiplying by a

0:19:36.000 --> 0:19:38.760
<v Speaker 1>hundred to get the percentage, which comes out to point

0:19:39.040 --> 0:19:44.320
<v Speaker 1>zero zero zero eight chance. That's the chance you have

0:19:44.359 --> 0:19:47.280
<v Speaker 1>of hitting the jackpot. Not great odds. But we're not

0:19:47.320 --> 0:19:50.040
<v Speaker 1>done yet. I'll explain more in just a second, but

0:19:50.119 --> 0:20:00.040
<v Speaker 1>first let's take a quick break. All right. So I

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:03.520
<v Speaker 1>mentioned earlier that the big jackpot might have a really

0:20:03.560 --> 0:20:07.159
<v Speaker 1>low likelihood of popping up. But slot machine manufacturers have

0:20:07.280 --> 0:20:10.840
<v Speaker 1>come up with ways to avoid discouraging players. They built

0:20:10.840 --> 0:20:13.720
<v Speaker 1>in systems that would make it more likely that that

0:20:13.840 --> 0:20:16.879
<v Speaker 1>bag of money symbol, for example, might appear lined up

0:20:16.880 --> 0:20:20.199
<v Speaker 1>on the first two reels more frequently, which gives the

0:20:20.200 --> 0:20:23.800
<v Speaker 1>player the sense of a near miss. So you get

0:20:23.840 --> 0:20:27.080
<v Speaker 1>a bag of money, a bag of money, and oh,

0:20:27.200 --> 0:20:31.800
<v Speaker 1>shoot cherries or a blank spot. That's nothing right there.

0:20:31.800 --> 0:20:34.080
<v Speaker 1>There's no payout with that, but it feels like it

0:20:34.160 --> 0:20:37.399
<v Speaker 1>was almost something because you had two out of the

0:20:37.480 --> 0:20:40.000
<v Speaker 1>three bags you needed to hit the jackpot. It's like

0:20:40.040 --> 0:20:42.760
<v Speaker 1>you almost got that big payout, but in reality, you

0:20:42.800 --> 0:20:46.199
<v Speaker 1>didn't almost do anything at all. You've got a result

0:20:46.240 --> 0:20:49.600
<v Speaker 1>based on a random number generator in the machines circuitry

0:20:49.640 --> 0:20:53.040
<v Speaker 1>that amounted to a loss. The way the machine displayed

0:20:53.080 --> 0:20:55.720
<v Speaker 1>that loss to you was in a way that made

0:20:55.760 --> 0:20:58.399
<v Speaker 1>it seem like it was almost a win. So to us,

0:20:58.440 --> 0:21:01.720
<v Speaker 1>it feels like we near really grabbed that brass ring,

0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:05.120
<v Speaker 1>so if we just stick at it, we're gonna get it. Meanwhile,

0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:08.840
<v Speaker 1>other symbols might take up far more space on the reels,

0:21:08.840 --> 0:21:11.800
<v Speaker 1>symbols that would result in a much lower payout, thus

0:21:11.840 --> 0:21:14.919
<v Speaker 1>increasing the likelihood that you'll at least get some combination

0:21:14.920 --> 0:21:17.440
<v Speaker 1>that represents a more modest wind if you play long enough.

0:21:18.359 --> 0:21:21.840
<v Speaker 1>At least that's the way it looks on the outside right,

0:21:21.880 --> 0:21:25.000
<v Speaker 1>that the odds of hitting a low payout might be

0:21:25.160 --> 0:21:31.120
<v Speaker 1>closer to So we get two types of rewards. One

0:21:31.200 --> 0:21:34.000
<v Speaker 1>are of these small payouts, which, if the machine is

0:21:34.040 --> 0:21:36.840
<v Speaker 1>working properly, tends to be less than what we've poured

0:21:36.920 --> 0:21:39.360
<v Speaker 1>into the machine in the first place, or at least

0:21:39.359 --> 0:21:41.600
<v Speaker 1>the payout is less than what the machine has been

0:21:41.600 --> 0:21:45.000
<v Speaker 1>collecting for that day. And another are these near misses

0:21:45.400 --> 0:21:48.360
<v Speaker 1>that make us feel like we're getting closer to that goal. Now.

0:21:48.400 --> 0:21:51.200
<v Speaker 1>Once in a blue moon, these machines will do the

0:21:51.280 --> 0:21:56.040
<v Speaker 1>jackpot payout Uh, that's part of what keeps people playing

0:21:56.080 --> 0:21:58.879
<v Speaker 1>these games is the promise that it can happen, but

0:21:58.960 --> 0:22:01.840
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't happen freak ly. The odds alone tell you

0:22:02.000 --> 0:22:05.200
<v Speaker 1>that it's pretty rare. Now, in addition to all that,

0:22:06.119 --> 0:22:08.919
<v Speaker 1>we humans are also really good at recognizing patterns. This

0:22:09.040 --> 0:22:12.080
<v Speaker 1>becomes more important with video slot machines. In fact, we're

0:22:12.119 --> 0:22:15.639
<v Speaker 1>so good at recognizing patterns we will frequently perceive a

0:22:15.640 --> 0:22:18.280
<v Speaker 1>pattern where there is no pattern, or at least no

0:22:18.359 --> 0:22:21.800
<v Speaker 1>pattern that has been consciously created. So, for example, when

0:22:21.800 --> 0:22:24.360
<v Speaker 1>you look at clouds and you see faces in them

0:22:24.480 --> 0:22:28.240
<v Speaker 1>or other complex shapes, that's your brain applying a pattern

0:22:28.320 --> 0:22:31.960
<v Speaker 1>to something that is actually random and not ordered. With

0:22:32.040 --> 0:22:35.040
<v Speaker 1>slot machines, we're looking at the creation of patterns. Three

0:22:35.040 --> 0:22:37.880
<v Speaker 1>symbols in a row would be a pattern. So there's

0:22:37.880 --> 0:22:40.879
<v Speaker 1>another little psychological boost that keeps us playing even if

0:22:40.920 --> 0:22:42.960
<v Speaker 1>we're not in a lucky streak, because we're looking for

0:22:43.000 --> 0:22:46.080
<v Speaker 1>those patterns. We find that very satisfying. Now, there are

0:22:46.119 --> 0:22:48.199
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people who give advice on how to

0:22:48.320 --> 0:22:50.879
<v Speaker 1>play slot machines well, but at the very end of

0:22:50.920 --> 0:22:53.719
<v Speaker 1>the day, you have to acknowledge the slot machines are

0:22:53.760 --> 0:22:57.640
<v Speaker 1>designed to take money. There's no way to skillfully play

0:22:57.680 --> 0:23:00.360
<v Speaker 1>a slot machine. You can use some wisdom to help

0:23:00.359 --> 0:23:03.480
<v Speaker 1>pick out machines that might have more favorable odds for

0:23:03.560 --> 0:23:07.239
<v Speaker 1>a payout, but those odds are are favorable because they

0:23:07.320 --> 0:23:11.920
<v Speaker 1>ultimately benefit the house. You have very few decisions when

0:23:11.920 --> 0:23:14.400
<v Speaker 1>it comes to playing a slot machine, and generally speaking,

0:23:15.280 --> 0:23:19.240
<v Speaker 1>in house games, in casino games, gambling games, you narrow

0:23:19.280 --> 0:23:22.560
<v Speaker 1>the odds between you and the house in those games

0:23:22.560 --> 0:23:25.920
<v Speaker 1>where you have more options as a player, assuming that

0:23:25.960 --> 0:23:30.160
<v Speaker 1>you are pursuing optimal play, that you're playing without mistakes.

0:23:30.359 --> 0:23:32.959
<v Speaker 1>That's asking a lot because optimal play is a pretty

0:23:32.960 --> 0:23:36.239
<v Speaker 1>tough skill to develop. But with slot machines, there's not

0:23:36.280 --> 0:23:38.720
<v Speaker 1>really much you can optimize, so you're not really going

0:23:38.800 --> 0:23:41.600
<v Speaker 1>to narrow those odds very much. Now, in addition to

0:23:41.680 --> 0:23:44.720
<v Speaker 1>all I've just said are the more flashy slot machines

0:23:44.760 --> 0:23:46.880
<v Speaker 1>that have come out over the last couple of decades.

0:23:47.240 --> 0:23:50.680
<v Speaker 1>Many of these include using licensed i P to attract

0:23:50.760 --> 0:23:53.440
<v Speaker 1>players to them. So if you walk around a modern casino,

0:23:53.680 --> 0:23:56.200
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna see a lot of slot machines that are

0:23:56.440 --> 0:24:01.080
<v Speaker 1>modeled after licensed material there licensed from popular movies like

0:24:01.119 --> 0:24:02.960
<v Speaker 1>the Lord of the Rings franchise. That's one that my

0:24:03.000 --> 0:24:07.359
<v Speaker 1>friends Shannon really likes, or television shows like the series Friends.

0:24:07.840 --> 0:24:11.280
<v Speaker 1>These machines frequently include music and video clips to help

0:24:11.359 --> 0:24:15.360
<v Speaker 1>lure people over to play them there they're more demographically

0:24:15.400 --> 0:24:19.960
<v Speaker 1>aligned to capture certain types of people, and then the

0:24:20.119 --> 0:24:23.320
<v Speaker 1>gameplay is what keeps them there. Um. They might also

0:24:23.320 --> 0:24:25.760
<v Speaker 1>include bonus features that make the game more exciting to

0:24:25.800 --> 0:24:30.320
<v Speaker 1>play without significantly increasing the likelihood of a big payout. Okay,

0:24:30.359 --> 0:24:33.120
<v Speaker 1>so I've covered the psychology of slot machines, So why

0:24:33.160 --> 0:24:35.240
<v Speaker 1>did I spend so much time on that. It's because

0:24:35.280 --> 0:24:39.920
<v Speaker 1>many developers of both software platforms and apps rely upon

0:24:40.000 --> 0:24:42.960
<v Speaker 1>those same sort of designs when they're creating their work.

0:24:43.080 --> 0:24:45.560
<v Speaker 1>They designed the experience to have that same sort of

0:24:45.640 --> 0:24:49.280
<v Speaker 1>reward system for users, and that encourages users to spend

0:24:49.280 --> 0:24:53.560
<v Speaker 1>more time on the platform, which ultimately benefits the developer

0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:56.720
<v Speaker 1>in some way. Now, that way could be through advertising.

0:24:57.200 --> 0:25:00.600
<v Speaker 1>If you go to advertisers with data a out how

0:25:00.640 --> 0:25:03.280
<v Speaker 1>many users you have and the average amount of time

0:25:03.320 --> 0:25:06.520
<v Speaker 1>those users spend per day on your product, you've got

0:25:06.520 --> 0:25:09.960
<v Speaker 1>a pretty powerful tool in your sales toolbox. If you've

0:25:10.000 --> 0:25:12.280
<v Speaker 1>got a lot of users that use A that spend

0:25:12.320 --> 0:25:14.080
<v Speaker 1>a lot of time on your on your platform, you

0:25:14.080 --> 0:25:17.520
<v Speaker 1>can ask for better rates, and you can get better sponsors,

0:25:17.560 --> 0:25:20.320
<v Speaker 1>and you can assure those sponsors that people using your

0:25:20.359 --> 0:25:23.120
<v Speaker 1>services are spending more time doing that and less time

0:25:23.119 --> 0:25:27.960
<v Speaker 1>doing other things. So advertisers one eyeballs, right, if the

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:31.200
<v Speaker 1>eyeballs are all on your app, they're not other places,

0:25:31.240 --> 0:25:33.360
<v Speaker 1>So they want to be where the eyeballs are. That's

0:25:33.400 --> 0:25:35.879
<v Speaker 1>your app. So it gives you a lot more leverage,

0:25:35.920 --> 0:25:39.680
<v Speaker 1>and it allows you to have much better rates, sales rates.

0:25:39.880 --> 0:25:41.880
<v Speaker 1>You're gonna make a lot more money, So you've got

0:25:41.880 --> 0:25:44.720
<v Speaker 1>a really strong incentive to encourage people to look at

0:25:44.760 --> 0:25:47.879
<v Speaker 1>your app or service for a long time and not

0:25:48.359 --> 0:25:51.720
<v Speaker 1>at other stuff. Another possibility is that maybe you're using

0:25:51.760 --> 0:25:55.280
<v Speaker 1>pay for content or pay for elements in your service,

0:25:55.800 --> 0:25:57.879
<v Speaker 1>and this could be done in place of or in

0:25:58.000 --> 0:26:02.680
<v Speaker 1>conjunction with advertising. A lot of mobile games use this method.

0:26:02.880 --> 0:26:04.920
<v Speaker 1>You play the game and you make a little progress,

0:26:05.200 --> 0:26:08.280
<v Speaker 1>so you receive that little psychological reward for achieving things

0:26:08.280 --> 0:26:11.040
<v Speaker 1>in the game, little dopamine going through your system. But

0:26:11.119 --> 0:26:13.920
<v Speaker 1>sooner or later you hit a barrier, maybe you run

0:26:13.920 --> 0:26:16.480
<v Speaker 1>out of turns or lives in a game. Maybe you

0:26:16.520 --> 0:26:18.480
<v Speaker 1>need a boost to get past a certain point in

0:26:18.520 --> 0:26:22.520
<v Speaker 1>the game. Whatever the case, you typically have two options

0:26:22.520 --> 0:26:26.040
<v Speaker 1>in most of these types of games. One is that

0:26:26.240 --> 0:26:28.600
<v Speaker 1>you wait a given amount of time before you can

0:26:28.640 --> 0:26:32.199
<v Speaker 1>try again, with no guarantee of success. So you might

0:26:32.240 --> 0:26:34.680
<v Speaker 1>have to wait thirty minutes or an hour before you

0:26:34.720 --> 0:26:36.840
<v Speaker 1>can try again and you aren't sure if you're gonna

0:26:36.920 --> 0:26:39.960
<v Speaker 1>make any progress. Option two is that you can pay

0:26:40.000 --> 0:26:43.680
<v Speaker 1>some money and in return you get immediate gratification, either

0:26:43.720 --> 0:26:46.840
<v Speaker 1>you get more turns or lives, or maybe some sort

0:26:46.840 --> 0:26:49.160
<v Speaker 1>of in game asset that makes it easier to get

0:26:49.200 --> 0:26:51.679
<v Speaker 1>beyond that part of the game. Now, this isn't just

0:26:51.760 --> 0:26:54.400
<v Speaker 1>something we see in mobile games. It's how the business

0:26:54.440 --> 0:26:57.920
<v Speaker 1>model of shareware works too. When I was in high school,

0:26:58.400 --> 0:27:03.000
<v Speaker 1>games like Castle Wolfenstein re D used that model. Developers

0:27:03.000 --> 0:27:05.639
<v Speaker 1>would release the first level or the first part of

0:27:05.680 --> 0:27:08.200
<v Speaker 1>a game for free so you could easily get your

0:27:08.240 --> 0:27:10.960
<v Speaker 1>hands on that version and you could play through to

0:27:11.040 --> 0:27:14.040
<v Speaker 1>your heart's content, and when you reach the end of

0:27:14.080 --> 0:27:16.960
<v Speaker 1>whatever that free section was, you would typically get a

0:27:17.000 --> 0:27:19.199
<v Speaker 1>message that would encourage you to purchase the rest of

0:27:19.200 --> 0:27:21.479
<v Speaker 1>the game if you enjoyed what you had done. And

0:27:21.520 --> 0:27:23.640
<v Speaker 1>it was an effective tool and one that a lot

0:27:23.640 --> 0:27:25.720
<v Speaker 1>of gamers actually approved of because it gave them a

0:27:25.800 --> 0:27:28.840
<v Speaker 1>chance to try out a game before committing real money

0:27:28.880 --> 0:27:31.960
<v Speaker 1>to it, and if the game was good, many people

0:27:32.000 --> 0:27:34.320
<v Speaker 1>were willing to cough up the cash to get the rest.

0:27:34.640 --> 0:27:37.119
<v Speaker 1>So while the shareware model followed a bit in the

0:27:37.119 --> 0:27:41.320
<v Speaker 1>wake of Skinner's work, it wasn't seen as predatory because

0:27:41.640 --> 0:27:44.160
<v Speaker 1>you could just say like, well, you know, I played it.

0:27:44.160 --> 0:27:46.720
<v Speaker 1>It didn't really impress me. I'm going to walk away.

0:27:46.960 --> 0:27:50.240
<v Speaker 1>Now that's not necessarily the case with apps and services

0:27:50.280 --> 0:27:53.480
<v Speaker 1>that are popular today, whether it's the algorithm that serves

0:27:53.560 --> 0:27:57.080
<v Speaker 1>up a feed of content on a social platform cough

0:27:57.320 --> 0:28:01.840
<v Speaker 1>Facebook cough, or the propensity of game features like looped

0:28:01.880 --> 0:28:05.359
<v Speaker 1>crates that became incredibly pervasive. Over the last couple of years.

0:28:05.600 --> 0:28:10.439
<v Speaker 1>We've seen developers exploit the same behavioral tendency, and we

0:28:10.520 --> 0:28:14.800
<v Speaker 1>as consumers, have engaged in those behaviors again and again,

0:28:15.040 --> 0:28:19.640
<v Speaker 1>just as predictably as the rats in Skinners experiments. Now,

0:28:19.640 --> 0:28:22.719
<v Speaker 1>this also plays into the larger concept of game theory.

0:28:23.000 --> 0:28:27.240
<v Speaker 1>How do you balance out different factors to maximize engagement

0:28:27.760 --> 0:28:32.159
<v Speaker 1>with games? Developers have to balance challenges and rewards carefully.

0:28:32.400 --> 0:28:35.560
<v Speaker 1>If a game is too easy, players may become bored

0:28:35.680 --> 0:28:38.640
<v Speaker 1>and move on to something else. If it's too challenging,

0:28:38.880 --> 0:28:42.040
<v Speaker 1>they become frustrated and they won't stick with it. So

0:28:42.120 --> 0:28:44.440
<v Speaker 1>it needs to be challenging enough to the player so

0:28:44.480 --> 0:28:46.400
<v Speaker 1>that when they win a game or achieve a goal,

0:28:46.480 --> 0:28:49.240
<v Speaker 1>there's a sense of accomplishment, and this needs to be

0:28:49.360 --> 0:28:52.479
<v Speaker 1>repeatable to keep the experience going. The same theory can

0:28:52.520 --> 0:28:56.040
<v Speaker 1>be applied to other stuff, not just too explicit games.

0:28:56.080 --> 0:29:00.000
<v Speaker 1>So let's take Tender for example. The dating app Share

0:29:00.040 --> 0:29:02.960
<v Speaker 1>is a lot in common with slot machines. Users flick

0:29:03.040 --> 0:29:07.240
<v Speaker 1>through photos of other users, swiping left or right, and

0:29:07.240 --> 0:29:10.960
<v Speaker 1>there's a quick psychological reward. Either you find someone attractive

0:29:11.200 --> 0:29:14.120
<v Speaker 1>or you don't, and you pass judgment, then you move on.

0:29:14.640 --> 0:29:17.320
<v Speaker 1>So if that person has similarly passed judgment upon you

0:29:17.360 --> 0:29:20.040
<v Speaker 1>and found you attractive, and you found them attractive, then

0:29:20.080 --> 0:29:23.960
<v Speaker 1>you can connect. All the elements are there. And I'm

0:29:23.960 --> 0:29:26.880
<v Speaker 1>not getting on a high horse here. I'm as guilty,

0:29:27.160 --> 0:29:30.800
<v Speaker 1>or probably even more guilty than any of you guys

0:29:30.800 --> 0:29:33.760
<v Speaker 1>out there. I find myself having to be mindful to

0:29:33.960 --> 0:29:37.600
<v Speaker 1>not be actively using some device that's got a screen

0:29:37.680 --> 0:29:40.959
<v Speaker 1>on it. Otherwise that's where you're gonna find me, is

0:29:41.120 --> 0:29:44.120
<v Speaker 1>behind a screen. I try to make rules for myself,

0:29:44.360 --> 0:29:46.320
<v Speaker 1>and they are hard for me to follow because I'm

0:29:46.360 --> 0:29:49.800
<v Speaker 1>pretty darn addicted to screens. It takes effort for me

0:29:49.880 --> 0:29:52.120
<v Speaker 1>to not whip out my phone as soon as I

0:29:52.120 --> 0:29:54.280
<v Speaker 1>sit down to eat, for example, or if I'm in

0:29:54.360 --> 0:29:57.240
<v Speaker 1>line anywhere, I want my phone out in my hand.

0:29:57.600 --> 0:30:00.200
<v Speaker 1>But even when I'm at home, I'm usually either are

0:30:00.200 --> 0:30:03.480
<v Speaker 1>playing a game or watching something online. I have numerous

0:30:03.520 --> 0:30:06.160
<v Speaker 1>tabs open all the time in my browsers. I play

0:30:06.240 --> 0:30:09.000
<v Speaker 1>some mobile games that are definitely built on top of

0:30:09.000 --> 0:30:12.000
<v Speaker 1>this understanding of human behavior, and I find myself growing

0:30:12.040 --> 0:30:15.800
<v Speaker 1>more disenchanted with it overall. And we're starting to see

0:30:15.800 --> 0:30:19.480
<v Speaker 1>a bit of backlash against this trend in broader culture.

0:30:19.840 --> 0:30:25.720
<v Speaker 1>This includes articles, books, public speaking engagements, politicians, activist organizations,

0:30:25.760 --> 0:30:28.520
<v Speaker 1>and more. There are lots of articles out there pointing

0:30:28.520 --> 0:30:31.280
<v Speaker 1>out our tendency to spend more time in front of screens.

0:30:31.640 --> 0:30:34.720
<v Speaker 1>A recent article in The Chicago Tribune cited a study

0:30:34.760 --> 0:30:38.600
<v Speaker 1>conducted by a nonprofit group called Common Sense Media that

0:30:38.720 --> 0:30:42.840
<v Speaker 1>found US teenagers are spending about nine hours each day

0:30:43.040 --> 0:30:46.440
<v Speaker 1>on some sort of digital media, and adults. Don't feel

0:30:46.440 --> 0:30:50.360
<v Speaker 1>good about yourselves because we're even more extreme eleven hours

0:30:50.440 --> 0:30:54.120
<v Speaker 1>per day devoted to screen time. Now, this prompts us

0:30:54.120 --> 0:30:56.680
<v Speaker 1>to ask the question, is that much time in front

0:30:56.680 --> 0:31:00.280
<v Speaker 1>of screens harmful to us? Should we be concerned that

0:31:00.320 --> 0:31:03.840
<v Speaker 1>we're dedicating so many waking hours to interacting with digital

0:31:03.880 --> 0:31:07.760
<v Speaker 1>media that it is encouraging this behavior and rewarding us

0:31:08.160 --> 0:31:12.040
<v Speaker 1>in psychological ways for engaging in it. Could we actually

0:31:12.080 --> 0:31:15.600
<v Speaker 1>be hurting ourselves and each other through these practices. Now,

0:31:15.640 --> 0:31:17.840
<v Speaker 1>as it turns out, there are a lot of people

0:31:17.880 --> 0:31:20.760
<v Speaker 1>who have stuff to say about this particular set of ideas,

0:31:21.040 --> 0:31:24.120
<v Speaker 1>and as you might imagine, the responses range from well,

0:31:24.120 --> 0:31:26.880
<v Speaker 1>of course, this is dangerous and harmful behavior and we

0:31:26.920 --> 0:31:29.520
<v Speaker 1>need to do something about it, to a more cautious

0:31:29.520 --> 0:31:32.880
<v Speaker 1>statement like, we honestly don't have enough empirical evidence to

0:31:32.880 --> 0:31:36.400
<v Speaker 1>support any sort of conclusion on the matter. So as

0:31:36.400 --> 0:31:39.040
<v Speaker 1>tempting as it is to come to one, the responsible

0:31:39.040 --> 0:31:41.440
<v Speaker 1>thing to say is we don't know enough yet. So

0:31:41.440 --> 0:31:44.240
<v Speaker 1>in our next section will dive into some of those arguments,

0:31:44.360 --> 0:31:46.760
<v Speaker 1>and some of them will appeal to common sense, But

0:31:46.800 --> 0:31:50.440
<v Speaker 1>it's good to remember that common sense isn't always right.

0:31:51.120 --> 0:31:53.320
<v Speaker 1>Sometimes we'll draw a conclusion because we all see a

0:31:53.360 --> 0:31:58.080
<v Speaker 1>correlation that ends up being impossible to support upon further study. Remember,

0:31:58.480 --> 0:32:02.440
<v Speaker 1>correlation and causation are not the same thing. Sometimes the

0:32:02.520 --> 0:32:07.160
<v Speaker 1>correlation can indicate a causal sort of relationship between two things,

0:32:07.600 --> 0:32:09.920
<v Speaker 1>but it's not always the case. So when we come

0:32:09.960 --> 0:32:13.360
<v Speaker 1>back from this break, we'll look further into this issue

0:32:13.640 --> 0:32:24.440
<v Speaker 1>and we'll be right back. Okay, So it's pretty clear

0:32:24.560 --> 0:32:28.280
<v Speaker 1>people are spending more time with digital medium than ever before,

0:32:28.600 --> 0:32:31.760
<v Speaker 1>and if we're dedicating time to those screens, we might

0:32:31.840 --> 0:32:35.320
<v Speaker 1>also be taking time away from other tasks. So at

0:32:35.360 --> 0:32:39.080
<v Speaker 1>some level you could argue that spending time on digital

0:32:39.120 --> 0:32:42.160
<v Speaker 1>media can have a negative impact if we're neglecting real

0:32:42.200 --> 0:32:45.800
<v Speaker 1>world issues while we are engaged in the digital world.

0:32:46.280 --> 0:32:50.560
<v Speaker 1>But to make that argument convincingly, we need more data. Further,

0:32:51.120 --> 0:32:53.800
<v Speaker 1>there are many who might argue that because we're spending

0:32:53.840 --> 0:32:57.040
<v Speaker 1>so much time on digital media, we're hurting our own

0:32:57.080 --> 0:33:00.320
<v Speaker 1>ability to form meaningful connections with other people in the

0:33:00.320 --> 0:33:03.840
<v Speaker 1>real world. There's a growing concern that we're relying more

0:33:03.920 --> 0:33:08.080
<v Speaker 1>on online interactions than ones in a physical space, and

0:33:08.120 --> 0:33:11.440
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing it reflected in multiple behaviors, such as relying

0:33:11.480 --> 0:33:15.480
<v Speaker 1>more heavily on text and essueing phone calls. Most of

0:33:15.480 --> 0:33:18.400
<v Speaker 1>the people I know will not answer the phone, even

0:33:18.400 --> 0:33:20.520
<v Speaker 1>if they know who it's coming from. They would rather

0:33:20.600 --> 0:33:25.000
<v Speaker 1>just have a text. They actively avoid having to talk

0:33:25.040 --> 0:33:28.320
<v Speaker 1>on the phone. It's a social interaction that they don't

0:33:28.360 --> 0:33:31.960
<v Speaker 1>want to have. So we're choosing interactions that don't connect

0:33:32.040 --> 0:33:35.880
<v Speaker 1>us with each other in more traditional ways and arguably

0:33:35.920 --> 0:33:39.040
<v Speaker 1>more meaningful ways. But the jury is still out over

0:33:39.120 --> 0:33:44.080
<v Speaker 1>whether or not this constitutes actual harmful behavior. Is an

0:33:44.160 --> 0:33:49.520
<v Speaker 1>online relationship less meaningful or emotionally fulfilling as one done

0:33:49.560 --> 0:33:52.720
<v Speaker 1>in real space? Can we even draw any sort of

0:33:52.760 --> 0:33:56.040
<v Speaker 1>conclusion about that in general or does it depend upon

0:33:56.160 --> 0:33:59.520
<v Speaker 1>the actual situations and individuals involved On a case by

0:33:59.560 --> 0:34:02.600
<v Speaker 1>case Base says it may be that we cannot make

0:34:02.640 --> 0:34:07.800
<v Speaker 1>a generalization about the health of an online relationship versus

0:34:07.920 --> 0:34:13.759
<v Speaker 1>and a meat space relationship. Now, from an armchair psychology standpoint,

0:34:14.239 --> 0:34:17.080
<v Speaker 1>you could argue that the online world has deprived us

0:34:17.160 --> 0:34:19.800
<v Speaker 1>of a sense of intimacy that we tend to crave.

0:34:20.080 --> 0:34:24.680
<v Speaker 1>And I'm not speaking solely of romantic intimacy, though that

0:34:24.880 --> 0:34:28.600
<v Speaker 1>can play apart two. Rather, I'm talking about the intimate

0:34:28.640 --> 0:34:32.080
<v Speaker 1>connection between two people in a one on one interaction,

0:34:32.640 --> 0:34:36.480
<v Speaker 1>not a romantic intimacy, but just a human connection. It

0:34:36.600 --> 0:34:40.400
<v Speaker 1>is very tempting to argue that the rise and popularity

0:34:40.440 --> 0:34:43.600
<v Speaker 1>of things like a S m R style videos in

0:34:43.640 --> 0:34:46.759
<v Speaker 1>which a creator focuses their attention on the viewer in

0:34:46.840 --> 0:34:50.920
<v Speaker 1>some way in an effort to soothe, relax or tingle

0:34:51.239 --> 0:34:54.880
<v Speaker 1>that person, is evidence that we in general lack the

0:34:55.040 --> 0:34:57.640
<v Speaker 1>sort of connections in our day to day lives. We

0:34:58.320 --> 0:35:02.520
<v Speaker 1>crave that connection and that we're not getting and that

0:35:02.560 --> 0:35:06.120
<v Speaker 1>has given birth to an entire genre of videos that

0:35:06.160 --> 0:35:10.600
<v Speaker 1>have become incredibly popular over the last five years. If

0:35:10.600 --> 0:35:13.120
<v Speaker 1>you do a quick search on YouTube for the terms

0:35:13.320 --> 0:35:18.120
<v Speaker 1>personal attention, you're going to find thousands of videos catering

0:35:18.320 --> 0:35:21.600
<v Speaker 1>to that audience. These videos tend to feature one or

0:35:21.640 --> 0:35:25.560
<v Speaker 1>more creators speaking to the camera and microphones as they

0:35:25.600 --> 0:35:28.799
<v Speaker 1>serve as a stand in for the viewer, so they

0:35:28.800 --> 0:35:31.880
<v Speaker 1>are simulating the sort of interactions people would otherwise have

0:35:32.200 --> 0:35:36.160
<v Speaker 1>in real spaces. It's possible that the popularity of this

0:35:36.360 --> 0:35:39.959
<v Speaker 1>genre is in part due to a decline in such

0:35:40.080 --> 0:35:44.080
<v Speaker 1>meaningful interactions happening in the real world, but without an

0:35:44.120 --> 0:35:49.200
<v Speaker 1>actual study investigating the matter, it's not scientifically responsible to

0:35:49.280 --> 0:35:52.160
<v Speaker 1>make that claim. You could say, I suspect I have

0:35:52.200 --> 0:35:56.400
<v Speaker 1>a hypothesis that this is because of that, but until

0:35:56.480 --> 0:35:59.480
<v Speaker 1>I test it, I cannot really be certain. Also, these

0:35:59.520 --> 0:36:03.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of end up being very tricky to arrange because

0:36:04.600 --> 0:36:07.440
<v Speaker 1>there are a lot of potential variables that could affect

0:36:07.520 --> 0:36:12.080
<v Speaker 1>the outcome, and isolating all those variables is notoriously difficult

0:36:12.120 --> 0:36:14.880
<v Speaker 1>to do. In these sort of social uh survey and

0:36:15.000 --> 0:36:19.359
<v Speaker 1>social scientific studies, they're very very challenging. It's much more

0:36:19.440 --> 0:36:23.799
<v Speaker 1>challenging than say, taking a substance and saying is this flammable?

0:36:23.880 --> 0:36:26.960
<v Speaker 1>That's pretty easy claim to test. These sort of claims

0:36:27.120 --> 0:36:30.360
<v Speaker 1>much trickier. Now. We might also draw the conclusion that

0:36:30.440 --> 0:36:33.640
<v Speaker 1>all this technology is hurting our ability to focus on

0:36:33.719 --> 0:36:37.359
<v Speaker 1>specific tasks and interactions. When our world is filled with

0:36:37.360 --> 0:36:41.480
<v Speaker 1>notifications and demands for our attention, are we giving anything

0:36:41.640 --> 0:36:44.840
<v Speaker 1>our full focus at any given time or are we scattered?

0:36:45.400 --> 0:36:47.960
<v Speaker 1>There are a lot of articles suggesting that that's the case,

0:36:48.000 --> 0:36:51.480
<v Speaker 1>that we're not capable of really focusing on things anymore,

0:36:51.800 --> 0:36:55.360
<v Speaker 1>though again, few studies really back up this claim, And

0:36:55.400 --> 0:36:57.239
<v Speaker 1>I should also point out that this doesn't mean the

0:36:57.280 --> 0:37:00.880
<v Speaker 1>claim is false, That just because it's not yet supported

0:37:00.880 --> 0:37:04.440
<v Speaker 1>by scientific research doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means

0:37:04.520 --> 0:37:07.759
<v Speaker 1>we can't be certain. You can make a claim and

0:37:07.840 --> 0:37:10.359
<v Speaker 1>not have evidence, and you can end up being right,

0:37:11.120 --> 0:37:13.600
<v Speaker 1>but you have to have the evidence to prove whether

0:37:13.680 --> 0:37:16.680
<v Speaker 1>or not you're right. People who follow me outside of

0:37:16.680 --> 0:37:18.799
<v Speaker 1>tech stuff might know that I used to do a

0:37:18.840 --> 0:37:22.799
<v Speaker 1>show called Podcast Without Pretense with my co hosts Eric

0:37:22.880 --> 0:37:26.320
<v Speaker 1>Sandean and I as actar, and the show gradually evolved

0:37:26.320 --> 0:37:30.520
<v Speaker 1>into a sort of jokey experiment. Each week, one of

0:37:30.600 --> 0:37:34.000
<v Speaker 1>us would pick a movie, usually a really poorly reviewed

0:37:34.239 --> 0:37:37.840
<v Speaker 1>film that we could watch on a streaming service like Netflix,

0:37:38.280 --> 0:37:41.239
<v Speaker 1>and then we would set time aside to watch the movie.

0:37:41.280 --> 0:37:43.799
<v Speaker 1>Each of us would make time in the week to

0:37:43.880 --> 0:37:46.920
<v Speaker 1>try and watch the movie, and the rule was you

0:37:47.040 --> 0:37:50.440
<v Speaker 1>could not have any distractions present while you tried to

0:37:50.440 --> 0:37:54.800
<v Speaker 1>watch the film. No second screens, no smartphones out, no laptops,

0:37:54.880 --> 0:37:58.080
<v Speaker 1>nothing like that. It was just you and the movie.

0:37:58.480 --> 0:38:00.920
<v Speaker 1>And then we'd each write down how long into the

0:38:00.960 --> 0:38:04.600
<v Speaker 1>film we lasted before we either grabbed a second screen

0:38:04.960 --> 0:38:07.200
<v Speaker 1>because we didn't want to pay full attention to the

0:38:07.200 --> 0:38:10.680
<v Speaker 1>film anymore, or we just gave up entirely and turned

0:38:10.680 --> 0:38:13.759
<v Speaker 1>the film off, which happened more rarely than you would think.

0:38:13.840 --> 0:38:15.560
<v Speaker 1>Usually we would just give up and grab a second

0:38:15.560 --> 0:38:18.560
<v Speaker 1>screen and keep on going. Now, this was in reaction

0:38:18.880 --> 0:38:22.319
<v Speaker 1>to that same feeling that our dependence on technology meant

0:38:22.320 --> 0:38:24.760
<v Speaker 1>that when we do something like try and watch a show,

0:38:25.400 --> 0:38:28.160
<v Speaker 1>we'd have another screen open at the same time, and

0:38:28.200 --> 0:38:32.160
<v Speaker 1>it would leave us feeling like we hadn't really watched anything,

0:38:32.360 --> 0:38:34.520
<v Speaker 1>that we were just sort of there while it was happening.

0:38:34.920 --> 0:38:37.200
<v Speaker 1>So this was sort of us testing our ability to

0:38:37.239 --> 0:38:40.440
<v Speaker 1>focus on a topic even if that topic didn't deserve

0:38:40.520 --> 0:38:44.080
<v Speaker 1>our attention, and dedicate all of our attention to it,

0:38:44.640 --> 0:38:49.839
<v Speaker 1>and it wasn't easy, even when the films weren't absolutely awful. Similarly,

0:38:50.239 --> 0:38:53.719
<v Speaker 1>claims that screen time is harmful in of itself, while

0:38:53.760 --> 0:38:56.480
<v Speaker 1>appealing on a common sense level, haven't had a lot

0:38:56.480 --> 0:38:59.680
<v Speaker 1>of critical scientific study. It's a challenging thing to explore.

0:39:00.000 --> 0:39:02.440
<v Speaker 1>You might see a rise in screen time and a

0:39:02.480 --> 0:39:06.120
<v Speaker 1>similar trend in people seeking help to treat depression, so

0:39:06.200 --> 0:39:10.720
<v Speaker 1>that is attempting connection there. But does that mean people

0:39:10.760 --> 0:39:14.040
<v Speaker 1>are becoming more depressed as they spend more time interacting

0:39:14.040 --> 0:39:17.720
<v Speaker 1>with screens or could it mean that depressed people seek

0:39:17.760 --> 0:39:21.000
<v Speaker 1>out screens as a means to help alleviate their depression.

0:39:21.640 --> 0:39:24.840
<v Speaker 1>One does not necessarily cause the other, and it could

0:39:24.840 --> 0:39:27.719
<v Speaker 1>be that both trends have no meaningful connection at all.

0:39:27.760 --> 0:39:30.400
<v Speaker 1>They're both on the rise, but maybe they both stem

0:39:30.480 --> 0:39:35.200
<v Speaker 1>from a common source that doesn't have a connection between

0:39:35.239 --> 0:39:38.600
<v Speaker 1>the two. Now, I say all this to remind myself

0:39:38.680 --> 0:39:41.160
<v Speaker 1>just as much to remind all you that these are

0:39:41.200 --> 0:39:44.879
<v Speaker 1>complicated issues. I have my own opinions, which typically lean

0:39:44.960 --> 0:39:47.800
<v Speaker 1>toward the idea that more screen time and less interaction

0:39:47.800 --> 0:39:51.720
<v Speaker 1>in real space is probably not the most psychologically healthy

0:39:51.800 --> 0:39:54.840
<v Speaker 1>behavior we could engage in. But I also must admit

0:39:55.200 --> 0:39:58.239
<v Speaker 1>that I don't have any scholarly evidence to support this,

0:39:58.600 --> 0:40:00.960
<v Speaker 1>and that most of my conclusions are really drawn from

0:40:00.960 --> 0:40:04.439
<v Speaker 1>my own personal experience, and as any good scientist will

0:40:04.440 --> 0:40:09.680
<v Speaker 1>tell you, anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence at all. At

0:40:09.719 --> 0:40:13.440
<v Speaker 1>the same time, for my own mental health, I feel

0:40:13.440 --> 0:40:15.920
<v Speaker 1>the need to do something, and so I've been trying

0:40:15.960 --> 0:40:18.560
<v Speaker 1>to sort of wean myself off of my dependence of

0:40:18.640 --> 0:40:21.560
<v Speaker 1>social media and screens to see if that has a

0:40:21.560 --> 0:40:24.400
<v Speaker 1>positive impact on my life. I'm not the only one

0:40:24.520 --> 0:40:27.920
<v Speaker 1>drawing these sort of tentative conclusions, and some people are

0:40:28.160 --> 0:40:31.200
<v Speaker 1>far less cautious in connecting the dots than I am,

0:40:31.239 --> 0:40:33.960
<v Speaker 1>but they also are more educated in the field than

0:40:34.000 --> 0:40:36.400
<v Speaker 1>I am, So it's not meant to be a dig So,

0:40:36.440 --> 0:40:39.800
<v Speaker 1>for example, the Chicago Tribune piece that I mentioned earlier

0:40:39.800 --> 0:40:43.480
<v Speaker 1>in this episode, the author, Drene Dodge and McGee is

0:40:43.560 --> 0:40:46.399
<v Speaker 1>a psychologist and a researcher, and she believes that there

0:40:46.560 --> 0:40:50.920
<v Speaker 1>is a connection between an increase independence upon technology and

0:40:50.960 --> 0:40:54.200
<v Speaker 1>the rise of depression among certain populations in the United States.

0:40:54.640 --> 0:40:58.279
<v Speaker 1>She connects increased usage with declining mental health, and she

0:40:58.400 --> 0:41:00.960
<v Speaker 1>may be right, but I still worry that without some

0:41:01.040 --> 0:41:03.840
<v Speaker 1>carefully designed studies, we can't be sure that that's the

0:41:03.880 --> 0:41:07.040
<v Speaker 1>actual flow of behavior. That is, that people begin to

0:41:07.080 --> 0:41:10.480
<v Speaker 1>experience a decline and mental health as they use more

0:41:10.520 --> 0:41:13.960
<v Speaker 1>and more technology, instead of people are using more and

0:41:14.000 --> 0:41:17.799
<v Speaker 1>more technology as a result of them already dealing with

0:41:17.840 --> 0:41:21.360
<v Speaker 1>a decline in mental health. Like, without establishing the actual

0:41:21.440 --> 0:41:24.959
<v Speaker 1>causal relationship there, I don't think you can make any

0:41:25.160 --> 0:41:29.839
<v Speaker 1>real conclusions. Now, another factor we should take into consideration

0:41:30.200 --> 0:41:33.560
<v Speaker 1>is what is the actual behavior being reinforced through these

0:41:33.640 --> 0:41:36.840
<v Speaker 1>various technologies and services if the purpose is to capture

0:41:36.840 --> 0:41:41.440
<v Speaker 1>eyeballs for the purposes of generating revenue, And nearly every

0:41:41.480 --> 0:41:44.719
<v Speaker 1>case does boil down to that if you go far enough,

0:41:45.320 --> 0:41:46.719
<v Speaker 1>the best you might be able to say is that

0:41:46.760 --> 0:41:50.960
<v Speaker 1>it's not necessarily doing direct harm to someone. If the

0:41:51.000 --> 0:41:53.640
<v Speaker 1>design is meant to convince someone to pour money into

0:41:53.640 --> 0:41:56.360
<v Speaker 1>a service, you could argue that the service can be

0:41:56.440 --> 0:42:00.480
<v Speaker 1>financially harmful to those who are vulnerable to the reinforcement cycle.

0:42:01.000 --> 0:42:03.600
<v Speaker 1>And while social networks can help people connect with one

0:42:03.640 --> 0:42:06.640
<v Speaker 1>another and stay in touch, if the algorithm that populates

0:42:06.640 --> 0:42:09.719
<v Speaker 1>a news feed is selecting which posts you see and

0:42:09.800 --> 0:42:12.359
<v Speaker 1>which ones you don't in an effort to convince you

0:42:12.400 --> 0:42:15.560
<v Speaker 1>to spend more time on that platform, you're not really

0:42:15.719 --> 0:42:18.840
<v Speaker 1>engaging with those friends and loved ones. Instead, you're seeing

0:42:18.840 --> 0:42:22.520
<v Speaker 1>a curated list that isn't meant to create meaningful connections,

0:42:22.760 --> 0:42:25.839
<v Speaker 1>but rather keep you on the platform longer so that

0:42:25.880 --> 0:42:29.280
<v Speaker 1>the platform can serve you more ads. If you're lucky,

0:42:29.719 --> 0:42:33.120
<v Speaker 1>just like with a slot machine player, than some percentage

0:42:33.120 --> 0:42:36.120
<v Speaker 1>of those posts you are seeing are actually meaningful and

0:42:36.160 --> 0:42:39.879
<v Speaker 1>do help you create those close connections, but otherwise you're

0:42:39.920 --> 0:42:43.040
<v Speaker 1>being fed stuff with the intent of keeping you there.

0:42:43.520 --> 0:42:46.520
<v Speaker 1>From a business standpoint, I can totally understand that design

0:42:46.960 --> 0:42:50.160
<v Speaker 1>businesses generate revenue, and generally speaking, you want as much

0:42:50.239 --> 0:42:52.880
<v Speaker 1>revenue as you can earn. You want that revenue to

0:42:52.920 --> 0:42:55.880
<v Speaker 1>grow year over year. To return money on the investment

0:42:55.920 --> 0:42:58.880
<v Speaker 1>for building the business in the first place. Publicly traded

0:42:58.960 --> 0:43:01.799
<v Speaker 1>companies face growth targets each year with the goal of

0:43:01.840 --> 0:43:05.359
<v Speaker 1>creating a return for shareholders, But that just means that

0:43:05.400 --> 0:43:07.560
<v Speaker 1>the business has to find ways to make more money,

0:43:08.040 --> 0:43:10.919
<v Speaker 1>not to make money in a responsible or a compassionate way.

0:43:11.160 --> 0:43:14.359
<v Speaker 1>As long as the business isn't outright violating any regulations

0:43:14.440 --> 0:43:17.319
<v Speaker 1>or laws, it's pretty much fair game. And this has

0:43:17.320 --> 0:43:20.440
<v Speaker 1>created the environment we see today and has enabled companies

0:43:20.480 --> 0:43:23.839
<v Speaker 1>to create services that incentivize us to use them more

0:43:23.840 --> 0:43:26.279
<v Speaker 1>and more. They can serve up ads, and in the

0:43:26.280 --> 0:43:28.719
<v Speaker 1>case of companies like Facebook or Google, they can use

0:43:28.760 --> 0:43:32.680
<v Speaker 1>the collected data that we generate to great advantage. So

0:43:32.920 --> 0:43:36.320
<v Speaker 1>even if the use of these strategies isn't directly causing

0:43:36.400 --> 0:43:39.440
<v Speaker 1>us harm, it is certainly an attempt to manipulate us

0:43:39.440 --> 0:43:43.360
<v Speaker 1>into being ever more dependent upon those services, and it

0:43:43.480 --> 0:43:46.560
<v Speaker 1>totally works, just as it worked in those rats in

0:43:46.600 --> 0:43:50.160
<v Speaker 1>Skinner's experimental box. Now there are people out there who

0:43:50.200 --> 0:43:53.960
<v Speaker 1>are dedicated to breaking this dependence on technology. In some cases,

0:43:54.160 --> 0:43:57.200
<v Speaker 1>it all starts with more tech. There's an app called Moment,

0:43:57.360 --> 0:43:59.719
<v Speaker 1>for example, and it tracks how much you use your

0:43:59.719 --> 0:44:02.399
<v Speaker 1>phone in her tablet and includes a breakdown of which

0:44:02.400 --> 0:44:05.080
<v Speaker 1>apps you use most frequently and for the longest amount

0:44:05.080 --> 0:44:09.040
<v Speaker 1>of time. Sometimes just getting quantifiable data can help you

0:44:09.160 --> 0:44:12.160
<v Speaker 1>get some perspective. For some people, the results might not

0:44:12.239 --> 0:44:14.920
<v Speaker 1>be a surprise or even alarming, but for others it

0:44:14.960 --> 0:44:17.719
<v Speaker 1>could serve as an incentive to try and reduce the

0:44:17.719 --> 0:44:20.960
<v Speaker 1>amount of time spent on devices. There are books and

0:44:21.200 --> 0:44:24.800
<v Speaker 1>camps dedicated to helping people break free of technology dependence,

0:44:25.520 --> 0:44:27.440
<v Speaker 1>and I think that can be well intentioned. But I

0:44:27.480 --> 0:44:29.719
<v Speaker 1>also want to point out that the world we live

0:44:29.760 --> 0:44:33.759
<v Speaker 1>in skews pretty darn heavily in favor of people who

0:44:33.760 --> 0:44:37.880
<v Speaker 1>are making use of technology or communication systems. Means of

0:44:37.920 --> 0:44:44.040
<v Speaker 1>finding work, uh commerce systems and more grow increasingly tech dependent.

0:44:44.680 --> 0:44:47.719
<v Speaker 1>I think it's not realistic to truly shed your use

0:44:47.760 --> 0:44:50.680
<v Speaker 1>of technology, to go off the grid entirely and be

0:44:51.520 --> 0:44:57.200
<v Speaker 1>meaningfully interacting with society at large. I suppose it's possible,

0:44:57.239 --> 0:45:01.560
<v Speaker 1>but it's really really hard to do. I do think, however,

0:45:01.600 --> 0:45:03.960
<v Speaker 1>you can make some choices to reduce your dependence on

0:45:04.000 --> 0:45:07.600
<v Speaker 1>technology if that's your goal. Now. For me, I plan

0:45:07.680 --> 0:45:11.440
<v Speaker 1>on stepping back a significant amount later this year. En

0:45:11.880 --> 0:45:15.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm likely deactivating my Facebook account in June of two

0:45:15.040 --> 0:45:18.400
<v Speaker 1>thousand nineteen. And this is a choice I'm making for myself.

0:45:18.719 --> 0:45:22.400
<v Speaker 1>I'm not urging anyone to do Likewise, I don't pretend

0:45:22.440 --> 0:45:24.799
<v Speaker 1>that I have the answer for everyone out there. Heck,

0:45:24.880 --> 0:45:27.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm not even certain that cutting back on screen time

0:45:27.080 --> 0:45:30.120
<v Speaker 1>and social platforms will have any meaningful positive effect in

0:45:30.160 --> 0:45:32.520
<v Speaker 1>my day to day life, but something I'm going to

0:45:32.600 --> 0:45:35.319
<v Speaker 1>try in an effort to be more engaged with the

0:45:35.360 --> 0:45:38.680
<v Speaker 1>people around me and my real world community. So we'll

0:45:38.719 --> 0:45:42.000
<v Speaker 1>see if it makes an impact in the meantime. If

0:45:42.040 --> 0:45:45.080
<v Speaker 1>you guys have any suggestions for future topics of tech stuff,

0:45:45.160 --> 0:45:47.919
<v Speaker 1>or you have any questions or comments for me reach out.

0:45:48.200 --> 0:45:50.759
<v Speaker 1>You can do so through email. The address is tech

0:45:50.840 --> 0:45:54.400
<v Speaker 1>stuff at how stuff Works dot com, or on Facebook

0:45:54.480 --> 0:45:56.359
<v Speaker 1>or Twitter. The handle for both of those is text

0:45:56.360 --> 0:45:58.879
<v Speaker 1>stuff HSW. I'm eager to hear what you guys think

0:45:58.920 --> 0:46:01.960
<v Speaker 1>about this stuff. Also, remember you can pop on over

0:46:01.960 --> 0:46:05.360
<v Speaker 1>to our website, tech Stuff Podcast dot com. I promise

0:46:05.440 --> 0:46:07.840
<v Speaker 1>I don't use any of those tricks to try and

0:46:07.920 --> 0:46:10.200
<v Speaker 1>keep you on that site forever, but you can search

0:46:10.280 --> 0:46:13.000
<v Speaker 1>the archive and look at all the past episodes we

0:46:13.040 --> 0:46:14.759
<v Speaker 1>have up there in case you want to see if

0:46:14.760 --> 0:46:18.520
<v Speaker 1>there's something specific in our library. And you can also

0:46:18.560 --> 0:46:20.560
<v Speaker 1>pop on over to our merchandise store if you want

0:46:20.600 --> 0:46:23.200
<v Speaker 1>to get a tech Stuff T shirt or a hat

0:46:23.480 --> 0:46:25.640
<v Speaker 1>or a coffee mug or something like that. And remember

0:46:25.640 --> 0:46:27.320
<v Speaker 1>every purchase you make goes to help the show. We

0:46:27.440 --> 0:46:31.399
<v Speaker 1>greatly appreciate it, and I'll talk to you again really soon.

0:46:36.160 --> 0:46:38.359
<v Speaker 1>Hext Stuff is a production of I Heart Radio's How

0:46:38.400 --> 0:46:41.799
<v Speaker 1>Stuff Works. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit

0:46:41.840 --> 0:46:44.920
<v Speaker 1>the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you

0:46:45.000 --> 0:46:46.320
<v Speaker 1>listen to your favorite shows.