Thank you for this important piece, Alberto. I think you’re right that smartphone addiction is modeled from parent to child.
That may be why, also like almost any addiction—from alcohol, to chocolate, to gambling, to caffeine, to rage—some people seem to not have a problem with phone usage.
If they do use TikTok or Reels or X or Substack Notes, it’s for only a few minutes at a time and they can pick up on propaganda, fear bait, and salt mining without difficulty and scroll on it without delay.
Other people—often the ones we online types encounter most and sometimes mistake for all of humanity—have dopamine systems that nature has fine tuned for escape from emotions and the empty calories of digital “connection.” A kind of connection that is like salt water that only deepens the underlying thirst.
But it’s those who suffer with the least quality that suffer in the greatest quantities.
If I numb out instead of turn inward when challenging feelings like loneliness arise, loneliness will occur more often.
If I focus on interoception—feeling, from the inside, my loneliness, anxiety, anger, or whatever triggers the urge to numb via phone—I find it has a lesson for me.
In my family none of us are really phone addicted, but everything in Fyodor's essay applies equally to internet or screen addiction more broadly. I only look at my phone when I'm out and it's usually to start a playlist or podcast, Strava or whatever. When I have my laptop close I'm glued to it, like right now. So much of what I do on it is not really helpful or soul-enriching. Reading this blog is an exception.
Thank you Joel. I agree it's screens rather than phones. I use phones as a stand-in, because I think more generally it's phones that are keeping people glued to a screen. But anyway, thank you for that last line! :)
Speaking as an old (1976) who got online very early due to technical parents, I bristle at the idea that it was better before, because of how starved we were in the before times for information beyond the statistical middle. But it's also not better than before for the reasons you claim? As I read I suddenly remembered my Clay Shirky:
> Clay Shirky describes how, during the early industrial revolution, the sudden and massive urbanization brought unprecedented population density to cities, but few social services or civic institutions like museums or organized sports existed at first. Caught in these disorienting and stressful new environments, people turned to gin as a way to cope, resulting in widespread public drunkenness—what Shirky calls a "collective bender." Only after this phase did society begin developing the civic institutions that would allow urban life to thrive, such as public libraries, museums, and education systems.
> This account is factually accurate in its broad strokes. Shirky cites the historical "Gin Craze" in 18th-century London, during which rapid urbanization and the lack of social infrastructure coincided with massive gin consumption, often blamed for social disorder and public health crises. Historians agree that, as urban challenges became better managed and new civic organizations arose, the population gradually shifted from such "anesthesia" (like gin) toward more structured and positive social activities.
100%. The internet and phones as technologies without looking at the sociocultural uglier consequences are incredible. Hard to overstate how much I owe to the internet. As you say, I just highlighted the uglier side. It's what it is but it could've been something else starting from the same substrate but with a different set of incentives.
Hi George. I agree. The source is us. But it's manifested through our phones. Sometimes looking inside and looking outside at once is the best approach.
Thank you for this important piece, Alberto. I think you’re right that smartphone addiction is modeled from parent to child.
That may be why, also like almost any addiction—from alcohol, to chocolate, to gambling, to caffeine, to rage—some people seem to not have a problem with phone usage.
If they do use TikTok or Reels or X or Substack Notes, it’s for only a few minutes at a time and they can pick up on propaganda, fear bait, and salt mining without difficulty and scroll on it without delay.
Other people—often the ones we online types encounter most and sometimes mistake for all of humanity—have dopamine systems that nature has fine tuned for escape from emotions and the empty calories of digital “connection.” A kind of connection that is like salt water that only deepens the underlying thirst.
But it’s those who suffer with the least quality that suffer in the greatest quantities.
If I numb out instead of turn inward when challenging feelings like loneliness arise, loneliness will occur more often.
If I focus on interoception—feeling, from the inside, my loneliness, anxiety, anger, or whatever triggers the urge to numb via phone—I find it has a lesson for me.
A lesson that leads to less of it.
Thank you Geoff. Bless those who don't have to go through this!
In my family none of us are really phone addicted, but everything in Fyodor's essay applies equally to internet or screen addiction more broadly. I only look at my phone when I'm out and it's usually to start a playlist or podcast, Strava or whatever. When I have my laptop close I'm glued to it, like right now. So much of what I do on it is not really helpful or soul-enriching. Reading this blog is an exception.
Thank you Joel. I agree it's screens rather than phones. I use phones as a stand-in, because I think more generally it's phones that are keeping people glued to a screen. But anyway, thank you for that last line! :)
Speaking as an old (1976) who got online very early due to technical parents, I bristle at the idea that it was better before, because of how starved we were in the before times for information beyond the statistical middle. But it's also not better than before for the reasons you claim? As I read I suddenly remembered my Clay Shirky:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/please-summarize-clay-shirky-s-sGGt8GQ3TV27r5gkmnAgsA
> Clay Shirky describes how, during the early industrial revolution, the sudden and massive urbanization brought unprecedented population density to cities, but few social services or civic institutions like museums or organized sports existed at first. Caught in these disorienting and stressful new environments, people turned to gin as a way to cope, resulting in widespread public drunkenness—what Shirky calls a "collective bender." Only after this phase did society begin developing the civic institutions that would allow urban life to thrive, such as public libraries, museums, and education systems.
> This account is factually accurate in its broad strokes. Shirky cites the historical "Gin Craze" in 18th-century London, during which rapid urbanization and the lack of social infrastructure coincided with massive gin consumption, often blamed for social disorder and public health crises. Historians agree that, as urban challenges became better managed and new civic organizations arose, the population gradually shifted from such "anesthesia" (like gin) toward more structured and positive social activities.
100%. The internet and phones as technologies without looking at the sociocultural uglier consequences are incredible. Hard to overstate how much I owe to the internet. As you say, I just highlighted the uglier side. It's what it is but it could've been something else starting from the same substrate but with a different set of incentives.
Londoner rhyming slang for gin, of course, is Mother's Ruin...
Thank you for introducing me to Fyodor. He's a brilliant writer.
As for phones, I believe the fault lies not in our devices but in ourselves.
I read your Substack on my iPhone, where I spend 99% of my online time.
Like any tool, its merits are a function of how it’s used. It
Hi George. I agree. The source is us. But it's manifested through our phones. Sometimes looking inside and looking outside at once is the best approach.
Fyodor is an AI?! 🤖