The thesis statement: This is silly. For starters, it's downright offensive to equate watching Netflix and alcoholism. The original temperance movement was (among other things) a response to real...
Exemplary
The thesis statement:
Netflix (and its imitators) produce too many TV shows that are too good—and too easy to binge. Consequently, too many great minds spend their time watching TV rather than thinking and inventing and creating.
This is silly.
For starters, it's downright offensive to equate watching Netflix and alcoholism. The original temperance movement was (among other things) a response to real harms caused by alcohol abuse, including domestic violence, child neglect, poverty, and serious health risks. The dangers of watching "too much" TV don't begin to compare.
Second, this kind of paternalism has no place in a modern liberal society. Who is Leopold Aschenbrenner to tell anyone else how best they ought to be spending their time? It's none of his business. So what if he thinks my brainpower would be better spent on something productive? Is productivity the sole measure of a person's worth? Should leisure be disparaged? This reeks of the protestant work ethic. The machinery of capitalism is squeezing every drop of monetizable output from us every day at work... can we not attempt to commodify our every fleeting moment of downtime at home too?
This guy's tone is so repulsive to me... he obviously doesn't understand other people. He comes off as an upper class snob, looking down on leisure time as something for the poors. He doesn't even...
Exemplary
While many still struggle, this cultural pushback has kept video games in check. At least among the educated classes.
We don’t tell our bright young minds that it’s alright to waste away your days drinking or abusing drugs.
This guy's tone is so repulsive to me... he obviously doesn't understand other people. He comes off as an upper class snob, looking down on leisure time as something for the poors. He doesn't even seem aware that he doesn't understand other people. The tone is such that it makes me wonder if he considers 'the uneducated' as people in the same way he sees himself as a person. Some really condescending stuff here. "Wouldn't the world be so much more productive if the uneducated masses would stop giving in to their base desires, the way we ivy leagues have"
As an undergraduate at Columbia
I rolled my eyes so hard at this, lol...
Update: i found this article about the author. He is a rich tech bro who got fired from OpenAI for leaking a security issue to the board, and being racist. Now he's starting an investment firm. He wishes he was elon musk but his parents didn't own an emerald mine. https://maxread.substack.com/p/who-is-leopold-aschenbrenner
I'm in the same boat, I found the whole article ridiculous. I could also tell within about a minute that the author is exactly the kind of person I would detest in real life: completely sure of...
I'm in the same boat, I found the whole article ridiculous. I could also tell within about a minute that the author is exactly the kind of person I would detest in real life: completely sure of himself despite having very little real life experience or capacity for empathy.
He thinks that everyone in the world is either just like him, or aspires to be just like him, and as such, the personal, individual issues he's identified with himself are so general that they represent some sort of existential threat to humanity.
Not everyone is addicted to Netflix. I don't really like watching television shows for more than an episode now and again, despite being part of "the educated class." Most content on Netflix doesn't really interest me, and I haven't had a subscription in years.
Many people I know are in the same boat. There are other non productive things I do with my leisure time, but unlike Leo, I don't ascribe some moral failing to that, because leisure time is for leisure, not for producing shareholder value.
This whole article reads like the author one day said "I binged 12 hours of Brigerton and feel like a piece of shit. This is netflix's fault, and represents a threat to humanity". Like, how self-involved can one person be?
I’m looking into founding a company at the moment. Going to apply to YC. I have a successful CEO friend who I’m talking to soon. It’s kind of a “if you want something done right then you have to...
I’m looking into founding a company at the moment. Going to apply to YC. I have a successful CEO friend who I’m talking to soon. It’s kind of a “if you want something done right then you have to do it yourself” situation.
Amen to that. I have been extraordinarily blessed with a company that respects its workers and has proven it through its actions, but prior to finding it I really thought the only means to find a...
Amen to that. I have been extraordinarily blessed with a company that respects its workers and has proven it through its actions, but prior to finding it I really thought the only means to find a good work environment was to make your own. I think in some locations that really is the case, still. Good luck to you!
If you think some more about it, it is very much a class thing. If Netflix is a waste of time, is a vacation to an exclusive beach resort also a waste of time? He probably doesn't think of that as...
If you think some more about it, it is very much a class thing. If Netflix is a waste of time, is a vacation to an exclusive beach resort also a waste of time? He probably doesn't think of that as a problem because it's an "experience" or "living in the moment", but the truth is that it is unaffordable for most and Netflix and other ways to spend leisure time are.
Ive started to wonder whether the perception of reading (fiction) as passtime = good vs videogames/tv = bad boils down to classism. Caveats: laypersons musings, focus on fiction for simplicity,...
Ive started to wonder whether the perception of reading (fiction) as passtime = good vs videogames/tv = bad boils down to classism.
Caveats: laypersons musings, focus on fiction for simplicity, and from my own western context.
But, my thought process is reading wasnt a skill associated with "lowerclass" manual labour type jobs, whereas reading = educated = more "desirable" jobs or upper class. So even today with an extremely high literacy rate, there still seems to be a residual perception that reading stories is a valuable use of time, while watching or playing stories isn't.
I don't doubt there are different parts of the brain activated among each and other nuances, but at the end of the day, we simply have more ways to be told stories today, and they are all perfectly valid means of leasure.
Edit - maybe this is a blatantly obvious thought process, but I was raised by family who drilled the importance and value of reading/being a bookworm.
Even if you cast all these points aside, the argument that Netflix is "too good" seems a bit less relevant in 2024. Their shows are hit-and-miss these days.
Even if you cast all these points aside, the argument that Netflix is "too good" seems a bit less relevant in 2024. Their shows are hit-and-miss these days.
A more reasonable take on that thesis is the Notel Study (I always link the illustrated summary because it is more impactful IMO), which was the only one that was able to observe the impact of...
A more reasonable take on that thesis is the Notel Study (I always link the illustrated summary because it is more impactful IMO), which was the only one that was able to observe the impact of mass deployment of television. Here's the report itself.
Part 2 is where they actually perform the 'after' tests. It's a somewhat shocking look into the impact TV made. In short:
Adults spent almost a minute less trying to solve divergent thinking puzzles
People who did solve the puzzles watched almost half the TV of those who didn't
Children of both genders engaged in physical violence at almost triple the rate from before
Children of both genders were verbally aggressive double the rate from before
People's views towards gender roles became less elegatarian
Reading fluency plummeted in children
The town before TV had more creative children, coming up with more total ideas and more unique ideas than other children. After TV, they reverted to baseline.
It's not really controversial to say that the introduction of TV set societal progress back decades. Netflix is just the natural continuation of that cycle.
Video games at least have an interactive element to them, which give them a far greater depth of possibility than the purely 1-way spoonfeeding of entertainment that videos do.
Here's the divergent thinking puzzle. If you haven't clicked through the links to see it, try for yourself, time to see how long before you give up.
You are given a box of thumbtacks, a candle, and a box of matches. Affix the candle to the wall using any of the objects on the table, so it stays there freely without being held.
I completely agree with the point you're making, but I think people should be free to make suboptimal choices (or even bad ones) for themselves. Whereas I think you're implying — or the author of...
I completely agree with the point you're making, but I think people should be free to make suboptimal choices (or even bad ones) for themselves. Whereas I think you're implying — or the author of the linked article is saying outright, at least — that because TV causes detrimental cognitive effects, it should be compulsorily restricted.
Oh yes, I agree that the author is a bit full of himself, I ended up skimming after the first few paragraphs of rolling my eyes. I was not really intending to imply any forced-regulation aspects...
Oh yes, I agree that the author is a bit full of himself, I ended up skimming after the first few paragraphs of rolling my eyes. I was not really intending to imply any forced-regulation aspects with my statement, although I find your read of my post mildly amusing.
I am torn on the rule-making surrounding it. I broadly agree that people should be able to make bad choices for themselves. However, we (as a society) have few if any qualms heavily regulating and restricting other things that cause massive cognitive harms, especially to children. I think that's part of why you read an implication in my post... there's a deep societal knee-jerk that posits: It's been proven terrible, so therefore we should regulate it to mitigate the damage. We have almost undisputed evidence the harms that passive viewing consumption of media causes, which makes it quite different from books, or even radio. Radio doesn't have the same impact partially because it's easier to multitask with a more-engaging activity since it's not also occupying your eyeballs.
Cognitively speaking, alcohol and TV are within the same breath of each other for developmental impairment. Why is it OK to ban alcohol consumption for children, but not OK to heavily regulate the creation of TV programming targeting children? (rhetorical)
I think it would be prudent to heavily restrict or eliminate screens in schools altogether below a certain grade level. IE: Computer usage is purely in a lab in a single class, not permeating every aspect of every class.
It would be great if we could figure out non-authoritarian ways of encouraging everyone to put down the screens more (because this cognitive decline affects adults as well) and engage more without them. But it is a tricky line to draw, putting it mildly.
I like the idea of surgeon general's warnings for TV programming, because I think they draw a good balance between freedom and providing sufficient information to make a good choice. "Watching TV for more than 1 hour a day as been linked to severe cognitive decline, especially in children. Watch at your own risk."
I watch a lot of TV, but think I was able to come up with a solution pretty quickly. Could be way off-base here though. puzzle soln Light the candle, let it melt a bit and get some of the melted...
I watch a lot of TV, but think I was able to come up with a solution pretty quickly. Could be way off-base here though.
puzzle soln
Light the candle, let it melt a bit and get some of the melted wax running down the side of the candle. Use the melted wax to adhere the candle to the wall. Decorate with thumb-tacks.
To be clear, this was a physical test they did, so you'd have to trial and error it. In theory what you say could work, but I suspect the ability for it to do so would depend heavily on the exact...
To be clear, this was a physical test they did, so you'd have to trial and error it. In theory what you say could work, but I suspect the ability for it to do so would depend heavily on the exact things provided.
A birthday candle would work. A 2 in x 6 in candle probably wouldn't.
tack the matchbox to the wall to make a little shelf? This would probably only work with a really really small candle.... Okay melt the sides of the candle enough to make it malleable. Shove the...
tack the matchbox to the wall to make a little shelf? This would probably only work with a really really small candle....
Okay melt the sides of the candle enough to make it malleable. Shove the non pointy end of the tacks into the melty part. Let it harden. Push tack laden candle into wall.
Many possible solutions immediately occur, it's a fun puzzle! Three Force the candle inside the matchbox and tack the matchbox to the wall, using it as a holding structure. Four Press matches...
Many possible solutions immediately occur, it's a fun puzzle!
Three
Force the candle inside the matchbox and tack the matchbox to the wall, using it as a holding structure.
Four
Press matches diagonally against the candle and use thumbtacks to tack their ends to the wall creating a rigging that uses friction to keep the candle in place.
Five
Light the candle to melt wax and gradually stick matches to the candle using melted wax to create a series of handholds for the candle, then tack them to the wall.
Six
Melt the entire candle against the wall, ensuring all the wax drips onto it, fulfilling the spirit of the challenge.
I understand and agree with what the author is saying in general, but I'm not sure this comparison is fair. The second drink doesn't continue the story of the first one. It's only reasonable that...
The problem with modern TV is that for many, it is closer to alcoholism than a one-off drink. One you watch that first episode—take that first drink—it often doesn’t stay at one episode—as it doesn’t stay at one drink.
I understand and agree with what the author is saying in general, but I'm not sure this comparison is fair. The second drink doesn't continue the story of the first one. It's only reasonable that if I start a new show and I like it, I will at some point watch the second episode. If I like a drink I can enjoy just that one and I'm not missing the ending.
I think author is trying to join the addictive part of it. TV show weren't designed to binge watch. This is no secret that Netflix and other streaming companies wants to increase their...
I think author is trying to join the addictive part of it. TV show weren't designed to binge watch. This is no secret that Netflix and other streaming companies wants to increase their consumption, this is why 8 episode format has become more popular with cliffhanger at the end of each episode.
TV shows from the past might not have been made to be binged, but that didn't prevent me from watching show after show before Netflix. I just feel that the alcoholism analogy is weak, I can agree...
TV shows from the past might not have been made to be binged, but that didn't prevent me from watching show after show before Netflix. I just feel that the alcoholism analogy is weak, I can agree more to the comparison with videogames.
That is more of "YOUR" choice. Creators didn't tried to trap you, so that you'll spend more time on the application. There is difference between you choosing and being manipulated to perform an...
That is more of "YOUR" choice. Creators didn't tried to trap you, so that you'll spend more time on the application.
There is difference between you choosing and being manipulated to perform an action.
Why do you think the case of video game is more suitable here?
I understand that, but watching endless hours of TV was also common before Netflix for a reason. Shows were also trying to catch you back then, albeit the tactics might have changed. Videogames...
I understand that, but watching endless hours of TV was also common before Netflix for a reason. Shows were also trying to catch you back then, albeit the tactics might have changed. Videogames are also psychologically addictive, without the physical factor both in the addiction making and in the consequences to your internal organs.
I feel like video games are addictive in the same way card games are addictive. Some are designed with mechanics that keep you in a dopamine loop. Others are such that you play with friends to...
I feel like video games are addictive in the same way card games are addictive. Some are designed with mechanics that keep you in a dopamine loop. Others are such that you play with friends to socialize. Others present a challenge that you might enjoy overcoming on your own. Typically when people make blanket statements about all video games, they actually have a specific genre in mind, but they throw the entire medium in there. I think world of warcraft is addictive as fuck, I never touched it for that reason. But I play so many video games that to me are just a thrilling experience, like a good tv series. 60 hours worth of story, but I get to be more engaged. That is no different than watching 70 hours of game of thrones. It's art. There are also a few that I play to stay in touch with friends oversees. And 1 in particular that my partner plays that is excellent for making new friends. I watched him get super good at the last Mortal Kombat game and it actually made him realize he can be ambidextrous. Master that game is as complex as learning some instruments, and the community around it is great. I wouldn't say card games are psychologically addictive just because a few of them are highly correlated with gambling. I get where you're coming from because highly addictive video games do certainly exist, I just hate to see blanket statements like that because I know how positive video games as a whole are for a lot of people, myself included <3
Yeah, I don't think all videogames are psychologically addictive, the same way I don't think all Netflix content is either. But if I have to choose to compare Netflix addiction to something, it's...
Yeah, I don't think all videogames are psychologically addictive, the same way I don't think all Netflix content is either. But if I have to choose to compare Netflix addiction to something, it's closer to videogames than to alcohol. BTW, I love watching tv (both before streaming and now), I love videogames and I love board games too. I have no intention on stopping because I agree with you that there are great aspects to these hobbies. I also recognize that I might spend too much time on them and I could have a better balance with other kinds of activities.
What are you talking about? Charles Dickens wrote serially in order to get his readers to buy the next issue every month. TV shows were written, directed, advertised, and aired in order to get...
What are you talking about? Charles Dickens wrote serially in order to get his readers to buy the next issue every month. TV shows were written, directed, advertised, and aired in order to get audiences to tune in to the next episode. These things were 100% crafted in order to hook audiences. Yes, apps like Instagram and TikTok are crafted to keep you in the app today, but that is not a new desire. TV shows have always had bumps trying to retain audiences into the next show that was airing. Look at Days of Our Lives and General Hospital. These shows are not morally superior in some way to modern television. They literally never end.
You no more choose to watch another reel than you choose to watch another episode, or read another chapter.
Wouldn't the 8-episode format with a cliffhanger on each episode be a design choice in production specifically designing it to be binge-watched? Ending on a cliffhanger in particular is a...
TV show weren't designed to binge watch.
Wouldn't the 8-episode format with a cliffhanger on each episode be a design choice in production specifically designing it to be binge-watched? Ending on a cliffhanger in particular is a long-established tactic to increase viewership (I just need to see how it ends). Having shorter seasons totalling 8 hours instead of 12/18/24 make it bingible in a day or two instead of several. Designing an entire series that way is very much leaning into an addictive trait instead of being a byproduct of dumping something that used to retain engagement over a whole year.
Really? I get soooo tired of others telling me what is aceptable to do with MY time. I binge watch Netflix and other streaming services. I watch F1 and MotoGP, I cheer for my Packers and watch a...
Really? I get soooo tired of others telling me what is aceptable to do with MY time. I binge watch Netflix and other streaming services. I watch F1 and MotoGP, I cheer for my Packers and watch a lot of NFL. I discover stuff on youtube and hit Tildes and Pinterest regularly. I read. A lot. I also have a job along with finishing up renovations on our house. I'm a creative and have a few projects in the works and I cook most of my food from scratch.
So apparently, after I do those 'acceptable' things, I should be not doing the things I enjoy? I have a really nice quality of life and life balance. Fuck anyone who says you should live your life in any way that's not what makes you happy as an individual. Netflix is not an addiction. Nor is reading 3 novels a week, or watching sports. Or gaming. Or just watching clouds. All y'all do you! After all, it's what makes us each different and fulfilled.
Contrary to what he suggests, I found that there is little on Netflix that grabs me. When I was spending more time looking for shows to watch than I spent actually watching them, I stopped using...
Contrary to what he suggests, I found that there is little on Netflix that grabs me. When I was spending more time looking for shows to watch than I spent actually watching them, I stopped using Netflix altogether. That was several years ago.
According to him, therefore, I must surely be spending more of my free time being "productive". But what exactly does he mean by that? I am not being any more productive when I read a book rather than watch a show; my output is still exactly nil.
Maybe one could argue that I am being more productive when I, say, paint a picture instead of watch a show. But it's not like I'm going to sell the picture. It's just a thing I have now, which I'll file away and probably never look at again because the whole point is to paint, not to have a new picture. I could just buy a picture — and probably a much better one for a lot less money than I spend on art supplies — if the picture itself was the point. And thus my productivity remains effectively nil even when I do pursue a creative hobby.
His example of productivity is writing a book to sell. OK, fair; that is indeed a productive activity. But he seems to have not really thought this through. Producers do not exist without consumers; if the whole world were busy writing books, who would buy them and read them? Suddenly writing is just as unproductive as drawing doodles.
Maybe he's asking for a world where the ratio of producers to consumers is higher; maybe he thinks there are simply too many people reading and not enough people writing. But that really does not appear to be the case. Otherwise, writing (or painting, acting, singing, developing apps, etc., etc.) should be dependable career paths — and yet creative fields are famous for paying poorly and having serious discoverability issues, precisely because there aren't enough interested consumers for the vastness of humanity's creative output.
Maybe he thinks reading is valuable because it expands your knowledge. He seems like he has a list of hobbies that educated people do, and hobbies that uneducated people do. But like... a good tv...
Maybe he thinks reading is valuable because it expands your knowledge. He seems like he has a list of hobbies that educated people do, and hobbies that uneducated people do. But like... a good tv show can expand your social knowledge. You spend a chunk of time pondering humanity, and human experiences, and thinking about why people do shit. That can be as productive as reading a book in my opinion. Or painting a landscape. But this guy obviously doesn't value pondering humanity any farther than how he can extract their money. These venture capital bros are freaks and weirdos. They straight up think about the masses as food for their algorithms. They would put us all in the matrix if it meant getting capital.
Not just that, but even for the lowest-tier brain candy reads, it still is engaging your mind in a way that triggers your imagination. The processing required for reading results in increased...
reading is valuable because it expands your knowledge
Not just that, but even for the lowest-tier brain candy reads, it still is engaging your mind in a way that triggers your imagination. The processing required for reading results in increased creativity and reading skill in a way that watching video doesn't.
For a quick example, let's take my favorite book quote which was then used in a horrible, horrible movie adaptation:
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.
For people who haven't seen the movie or read the book, no two people will picture the exact same 'man in black' and 'gunslinger'. For people who have, they're more likely to picture Matthew McConaughey and Idris Elba. More realistically, they're not picturing anything because the movie was so bad it probably killed interest in the source material, but I digress. Another character who didn't make it into the movie, Eddie, probably has as many faces as there are constant readers.
Videos puts rails on our creativity. People who read Game of Thrones before the series came out probably had a far greater variety of what the cast looked like in their heads than people who read afterwards. It's harder to imagine a new character when the character has been presented for you in vivid detail on screen.
And your brain is a muscle like any other. The more you think creatively, the easier it is to do. There's a reason writers are voracious readers as well, and vice versa.
Literature and film are different mediums that can convey different things with various strengths. I would say a well acted scene in a movie can convey a ton of subtle complex emotions or state of...
Literature and film are different mediums that can convey different things with various strengths. I would say a well acted scene in a movie can convey a ton of subtle complex emotions or state of mind that can't be summed up in words alone. There is some truth in a picture says more than a 1000 words. I have been vowed more by the concepts, ideas and poetic language in books, but been more emotionally overwhelmed by movies. If anything, the best is to expose yourself to different kinds of artistic expressions. If you only read books and never watch movies or listen to music for example, I think ones creativity muscle is also being limited.
You're not wrong, but there's a difference between periodically exposing oneself to different media, and sitting and watching 30+ hours a week of TV. The majority of the USA does the latter and...
You're not wrong, but there's a difference between periodically exposing oneself to different media, and sitting and watching 30+ hours a week of TV. The majority of the USA does the latter and not the former. And it doesn't help that we allow/encourage TV producers to make their product as addictive as possible to increase engagement.
There's a reason why pediatricians will tell parents over and over and over to limit screen-time for kids to under an hour a day, but why they won't ever say that about reading. And if you jump back to one of my cousin posts about Notel, we've seen that TV viewing generally serves more to increase stereotypical views than to broaden people's horizons. For every time somebody is genuinely moved and enlightened by a video, there's 1000 times that a harmful stereotype is further hammered into the audiences mind. I venture a guess to say that it has something to do with the inability to imagine beyond the scope of what is shown on the screen...and is part of why having actual diversity onscreen matters so much.
That is more about the content and less about the medium I would say. Junk in, junk out always applies. Extreme example I know, but if you read nothing but Breitbart many hours per day, you are...
That is more about the content and less about the medium I would say. Junk in, junk out always applies. Extreme example I know, but if you read nothing but Breitbart many hours per day, you are not expanding your horizon that much. But you are right, that in the commercial market, there is way more videobased junk being produced than literature. And physical inactivity is a problem regardless. If a kid is never physically active but sits down and reads most waking hours of the day, a pediatrician will likely also recommend some exercise at least.
Meh. I like to create stuff, and there are times I do nothing else. There are also times where I just want to zone out and watch stuff endlessly. Saying people will stop being creative because of...
Meh. I like to create stuff, and there are times I do nothing else. There are also times where I just want to zone out and watch stuff endlessly. Saying people will stop being creative because of Netflix, is just silly.
This almost reads like a Netflix ad. It's as if Netflix was applying to be your streaming platform and you ask them what their weakness is, and their response is that they're too entertaining, too...
This almost reads like a Netflix ad. It's as if Netflix was applying to be your streaming platform and you ask them what their weakness is, and their response is that they're too entertaining, too reliable, and too great of a value.
Modern shows are different from classic TV in two key ways. First, they are much more engrossing. Netflix shows are just on a different level in terms of quality than what TV once offered. Second, they are bingeable.
I get that compared to a lot of your typical network or even basic cable TV, many of these shows probably are better, if not for the fact that the programming of the past was sort of a limitation to how they could tell stories, also the advertisers played a role too but now Netflix has ads so not sure how much that matters either. While Netflix might have a little more experience since they started earlier than the others, everyone else is doing streaming these days, and what others consider great programming on Netflix does not compare to what I consider great programming, and I don't necessarily say that to look down on anyone, I say it in the sense that I just don't see how Netflix is so head and shoulders above the others to single out Netflix rather than streaming in general. Even some of the older content that wasn't designed for binging is what bootstrapped Netflix to begin with back when companies were willing to license their best to Netflix.
Also in my experience, TV has always had a 'stink' around it for being a timesink, a bad timesink that was bad for your mind. I don't see how anyone is excusing Netflix or that Netflix has somehow escaped that stigma. It's not uncommon to see people criticize parents for letting the TV be the babysitter or 'vegging' out in front of the TV, which my interpretation of that has always been to turn your brain off, not eat a bunch of vegetables. I've never known TV to have any kind widespread acceptability for unlimited watch time, from people I interact with IRL or what I read online, it seems to be fairly well acknowledged spending a lot of time watching TV isn't inherently a healthy hobby.
I had to go double check to see if they had a referral link to sign up on Netflix on that page. Maybe I'm wrong about it being an ad.
Reminds me of the drug scene from Walk Hard [after Dewey accidentally barges in a room filled with smoke and groupies] Sam : [coughs] Get outta here, Dewey! Dewey Cox : What are y'all doin' in...
This almost reads like a Netflix ad. It's as if Netflix was applying to be your streaming platform and you ask them what their weakness is, and their response is that they're too entertaining, too reliable, and too great of a value.
Reminds me of
the drug scene from Walk Hard
[after Dewey accidentally barges in a room filled with smoke and groupies]
Sam : [coughs] Get outta here, Dewey!
Dewey Cox : What are y'all doin' in here?
Sam : We're smoking reefer and you don't want no part of this shit.
Dewey Cox : You're smoking reefers?
Sam : Yeah, 'course we are; can't you smell it?
Dewey Cox : [Dewey doesn't have a sense of smell] No, Sam. I can't.
Reefer Girl : Come on, Dewey! Join the party!
[takes a hit off a joint]
Sam : No, Dewey, you don't want this. Get outta here!
Dewey Cox : You know what, I don't want no hangover. I can't get no hangover.
Sam : It doesn't give you a hangover!
Dewey Cox : Wha-I get addicted to it or something?
Sam : It's not habit-forming!
Dewey Cox : Oh, okay... well, I don't know... I don't want to overdose on it.
Sam : You can't OD on it!
Dewey Cox : It's not gonna make me wanna have sex, is it?
Sam : It makes sex even better!
Dewey Cox : Sounds kind of expensive.
Sam : It's the cheapest drug there is.
Dewey Cox : [at a loss and out of excuses] Hmm.
Sam : You don't want it!
Dewey Cox : I think I kinda want it.
Sam : Okay, but just this once. Come on in.
The thesis statement:
This is silly.
For starters, it's downright offensive to equate watching Netflix and alcoholism. The original temperance movement was (among other things) a response to real harms caused by alcohol abuse, including domestic violence, child neglect, poverty, and serious health risks. The dangers of watching "too much" TV don't begin to compare.
Second, this kind of paternalism has no place in a modern liberal society. Who is Leopold Aschenbrenner to tell anyone else how best they ought to be spending their time? It's none of his business. So what if he thinks my brainpower would be better spent on something productive? Is productivity the sole measure of a person's worth? Should leisure be disparaged? This reeks of the protestant work ethic. The machinery of capitalism is squeezing every drop of monetizable output from us every day at work... can we not attempt to commodify our every fleeting moment of downtime at home too?
This guy's tone is so repulsive to me... he obviously doesn't understand other people. He comes off as an upper class snob, looking down on leisure time as something for the poors. He doesn't even seem aware that he doesn't understand other people. The tone is such that it makes me wonder if he considers 'the uneducated' as people in the same way he sees himself as a person. Some really condescending stuff here. "Wouldn't the world be so much more productive if the uneducated masses would stop giving in to their base desires, the way we ivy leagues have"
I rolled my eyes so hard at this, lol...
Update: i found this article about the author. He is a rich tech bro who got fired from OpenAI for leaking a security issue to the board, and being racist. Now he's starting an investment firm. He wishes he was elon musk but his parents didn't own an emerald mine.
https://maxread.substack.com/p/who-is-leopold-aschenbrenner
I'm in the same boat, I found the whole article ridiculous. I could also tell within about a minute that the author is exactly the kind of person I would detest in real life: completely sure of himself despite having very little real life experience or capacity for empathy.
He thinks that everyone in the world is either just like him, or aspires to be just like him, and as such, the personal, individual issues he's identified with himself are so general that they represent some sort of existential threat to humanity.
Not everyone is addicted to Netflix. I don't really like watching television shows for more than an episode now and again, despite being part of "the educated class." Most content on Netflix doesn't really interest me, and I haven't had a subscription in years.
Many people I know are in the same boat. There are other non productive things I do with my leisure time, but unlike Leo, I don't ascribe some moral failing to that, because leisure time is for leisure, not for producing shareholder value.
This whole article reads like the author one day said "I binged 12 hours of Brigerton and feel like a piece of shit. This is netflix's fault, and represents a threat to humanity". Like, how self-involved can one person be?
I just got fired yesterday by a guy like this. Honestly I’m glad to be done with him.
Woah, are you okay?
Yup! Plenty of savings. Plenty of options.
That is good to hear, and I hope you find a place that treats you how you deserve to be treated!
I’m looking into founding a company at the moment. Going to apply to YC. I have a successful CEO friend who I’m talking to soon. It’s kind of a “if you want something done right then you have to do it yourself” situation.
Amen to that. I have been extraordinarily blessed with a company that respects its workers and has proven it through its actions, but prior to finding it I really thought the only means to find a good work environment was to make your own. I think in some locations that really is the case, still. Good luck to you!
If you think some more about it, it is very much a class thing. If Netflix is a waste of time, is a vacation to an exclusive beach resort also a waste of time? He probably doesn't think of that as a problem because it's an "experience" or "living in the moment", but the truth is that it is unaffordable for most and Netflix and other ways to spend leisure time are.
Ive started to wonder whether the perception of reading (fiction) as passtime = good vs videogames/tv = bad boils down to classism.
Caveats: laypersons musings, focus on fiction for simplicity, and from my own western context.
But, my thought process is reading wasnt a skill associated with "lowerclass" manual labour type jobs, whereas reading = educated = more "desirable" jobs or upper class. So even today with an extremely high literacy rate, there still seems to be a residual perception that reading stories is a valuable use of time, while watching or playing stories isn't.
I don't doubt there are different parts of the brain activated among each and other nuances, but at the end of the day, we simply have more ways to be told stories today, and they are all perfectly valid means of leasure.
Edit - maybe this is a blatantly obvious thought process, but I was raised by family who drilled the importance and value of reading/being a bookworm.
Gosh darn those epsilons always on those soma drugs.
Even if you cast all these points aside, the argument that Netflix is "too good" seems a bit less relevant in 2024. Their shows are hit-and-miss these days.
A more reasonable take on that thesis is the Notel Study (I always link the illustrated summary because it is more impactful IMO), which was the only one that was able to observe the impact of mass deployment of television. Here's the report itself.
Part 2 is where they actually perform the 'after' tests. It's a somewhat shocking look into the impact TV made. In short:
It's not really controversial to say that the introduction of TV set societal progress back decades. Netflix is just the natural continuation of that cycle.
Video games at least have an interactive element to them, which give them a far greater depth of possibility than the purely 1-way spoonfeeding of entertainment that videos do.
Here's the divergent thinking puzzle. If you haven't clicked through the links to see it, try for yourself, time to see how long before you give up.
I completely agree with the point you're making, but I think people should be free to make suboptimal choices (or even bad ones) for themselves. Whereas I think you're implying — or the author of the linked article is saying outright, at least — that because TV causes detrimental cognitive effects, it should be compulsorily restricted.
Oh yes, I agree that the author is a bit full of himself, I ended up skimming after the first few paragraphs of rolling my eyes. I was not really intending to imply any forced-regulation aspects with my statement, although I find your read of my post mildly amusing.
I am torn on the rule-making surrounding it. I broadly agree that people should be able to make bad choices for themselves. However, we (as a society) have few if any qualms heavily regulating and restricting other things that cause massive cognitive harms, especially to children. I think that's part of why you read an implication in my post... there's a deep societal knee-jerk that posits: It's been proven terrible, so therefore we should regulate it to mitigate the damage. We have almost undisputed evidence the harms that passive viewing consumption of media causes, which makes it quite different from books, or even radio. Radio doesn't have the same impact partially because it's easier to multitask with a more-engaging activity since it's not also occupying your eyeballs.
Cognitively speaking, alcohol and TV are within the same breath of each other for developmental impairment. Why is it OK to ban alcohol consumption for children, but not OK to heavily regulate the creation of TV programming targeting children? (rhetorical)
I think it would be prudent to heavily restrict or eliminate screens in schools altogether below a certain grade level. IE: Computer usage is purely in a lab in a single class, not permeating every aspect of every class.
It would be great if we could figure out non-authoritarian ways of encouraging everyone to put down the screens more (because this cognitive decline affects adults as well) and engage more without them. But it is a tricky line to draw, putting it mildly.
I like the idea of surgeon general's warnings for TV programming, because I think they draw a good balance between freedom and providing sufficient information to make a good choice. "Watching TV for more than 1 hour a day as been linked to severe cognitive decline, especially in children. Watch at your own risk."
I watch a lot of TV, but think I was able to come up with a solution pretty quickly. Could be way off-base here though.
puzzle soln
Light the candle, let it melt a bit and get some of the melted wax running down the side of the candle. Use the melted wax to adhere the candle to the wall. Decorate with thumb-tacks.To be clear, this was a physical test they did, so you'd have to trial and error it. In theory what you say could work, but I suspect the ability for it to do so would depend heavily on the exact things provided.
A birthday candle would work. A 2 in x 6 in candle probably wouldn't.
Okay melt the sides of the candle enough to make it malleable. Shove the non pointy end of the tacks into the melty part. Let it harden. Push tack laden candle into wall.
Many possible solutions immediately occur, it's a fun puzzle!
Three
Force the candle inside the matchbox and tack the matchbox to the wall, using it as a holding structure.Four
Press matches diagonally against the candle and use thumbtacks to tack their ends to the wall creating a rigging that uses friction to keep the candle in place.Five
Light the candle to melt wax and gradually stick matches to the candle using melted wax to create a series of handholds for the candle, then tack them to the wall.Six
Melt the entire candle against the wall, ensuring all the wax drips onto it, fulfilling the spirit of the challenge.Hahahaha the last one!! That's the best answer...
I understand and agree with what the author is saying in general, but I'm not sure this comparison is fair. The second drink doesn't continue the story of the first one. It's only reasonable that if I start a new show and I like it, I will at some point watch the second episode. If I like a drink I can enjoy just that one and I'm not missing the ending.
I think author is trying to join the addictive part of it. TV show weren't designed to binge watch. This is no secret that Netflix and other streaming companies wants to increase their consumption, this is why 8 episode format has become more popular with cliffhanger at the end of each episode.
TV shows from the past might not have been made to be binged, but that didn't prevent me from watching show after show before Netflix. I just feel that the alcoholism analogy is weak, I can agree more to the comparison with videogames.
That is more of "YOUR" choice. Creators didn't tried to trap you, so that you'll spend more time on the application.
There is difference between you choosing and being manipulated to perform an action.
Why do you think the case of video game is more suitable here?
I understand that, but watching endless hours of TV was also common before Netflix for a reason. Shows were also trying to catch you back then, albeit the tactics might have changed. Videogames are also psychologically addictive, without the physical factor both in the addiction making and in the consequences to your internal organs.
I feel like video games are addictive in the same way card games are addictive. Some are designed with mechanics that keep you in a dopamine loop. Others are such that you play with friends to socialize. Others present a challenge that you might enjoy overcoming on your own. Typically when people make blanket statements about all video games, they actually have a specific genre in mind, but they throw the entire medium in there. I think world of warcraft is addictive as fuck, I never touched it for that reason. But I play so many video games that to me are just a thrilling experience, like a good tv series. 60 hours worth of story, but I get to be more engaged. That is no different than watching 70 hours of game of thrones. It's art. There are also a few that I play to stay in touch with friends oversees. And 1 in particular that my partner plays that is excellent for making new friends. I watched him get super good at the last Mortal Kombat game and it actually made him realize he can be ambidextrous. Master that game is as complex as learning some instruments, and the community around it is great. I wouldn't say card games are psychologically addictive just because a few of them are highly correlated with gambling. I get where you're coming from because highly addictive video games do certainly exist, I just hate to see blanket statements like that because I know how positive video games as a whole are for a lot of people, myself included <3
Yeah, I don't think all videogames are psychologically addictive, the same way I don't think all Netflix content is either. But if I have to choose to compare Netflix addiction to something, it's closer to videogames than to alcohol. BTW, I love watching tv (both before streaming and now), I love videogames and I love board games too. I have no intention on stopping because I agree with you that there are great aspects to these hobbies. I also recognize that I might spend too much time on them and I could have a better balance with other kinds of activities.
What are you talking about? Charles Dickens wrote serially in order to get his readers to buy the next issue every month. TV shows were written, directed, advertised, and aired in order to get audiences to tune in to the next episode. These things were 100% crafted in order to hook audiences. Yes, apps like Instagram and TikTok are crafted to keep you in the app today, but that is not a new desire. TV shows have always had bumps trying to retain audiences into the next show that was airing. Look at Days of Our Lives and General Hospital. These shows are not morally superior in some way to modern television. They literally never end.
You no more choose to watch another reel than you choose to watch another episode, or read another chapter.
And they're doing their best to force feed you options and keep you inside the app.
Wouldn't the 8-episode format with a cliffhanger on each episode be a design choice in production specifically designing it to be binge-watched? Ending on a cliffhanger in particular is a long-established tactic to increase viewership (I just need to see how it ends). Having shorter seasons totalling 8 hours instead of 12/18/24 make it bingible in a day or two instead of several. Designing an entire series that way is very much leaning into an addictive trait instead of being a byproduct of dumping something that used to retain engagement over a whole year.
I'm going to netflix even harder now
I believe in you. Go hard!
Really? I get soooo tired of others telling me what is aceptable to do with MY time. I binge watch Netflix and other streaming services. I watch F1 and MotoGP, I cheer for my Packers and watch a lot of NFL. I discover stuff on youtube and hit Tildes and Pinterest regularly. I read. A lot. I also have a job along with finishing up renovations on our house. I'm a creative and have a few projects in the works and I cook most of my food from scratch.
So apparently, after I do those 'acceptable' things, I should be not doing the things I enjoy? I have a really nice quality of life and life balance. Fuck anyone who says you should live your life in any way that's not what makes you happy as an individual. Netflix is not an addiction. Nor is reading 3 novels a week, or watching sports. Or gaming. Or just watching clouds. All y'all do you! After all, it's what makes us each different and fulfilled.
Contrary to what he suggests, I found that there is little on Netflix that grabs me. When I was spending more time looking for shows to watch than I spent actually watching them, I stopped using Netflix altogether. That was several years ago.
According to him, therefore, I must surely be spending more of my free time being "productive". But what exactly does he mean by that? I am not being any more productive when I read a book rather than watch a show; my output is still exactly nil.
Maybe one could argue that I am being more productive when I, say, paint a picture instead of watch a show. But it's not like I'm going to sell the picture. It's just a thing I have now, which I'll file away and probably never look at again because the whole point is to paint, not to have a new picture. I could just buy a picture — and probably a much better one for a lot less money than I spend on art supplies — if the picture itself was the point. And thus my productivity remains effectively nil even when I do pursue a creative hobby.
His example of productivity is writing a book to sell. OK, fair; that is indeed a productive activity. But he seems to have not really thought this through. Producers do not exist without consumers; if the whole world were busy writing books, who would buy them and read them? Suddenly writing is just as unproductive as drawing doodles.
Maybe he's asking for a world where the ratio of producers to consumers is higher; maybe he thinks there are simply too many people reading and not enough people writing. But that really does not appear to be the case. Otherwise, writing (or painting, acting, singing, developing apps, etc., etc.) should be dependable career paths — and yet creative fields are famous for paying poorly and having serious discoverability issues, precisely because there aren't enough interested consumers for the vastness of humanity's creative output.
Maybe he thinks reading is valuable because it expands your knowledge. He seems like he has a list of hobbies that educated people do, and hobbies that uneducated people do. But like... a good tv show can expand your social knowledge. You spend a chunk of time pondering humanity, and human experiences, and thinking about why people do shit. That can be as productive as reading a book in my opinion. Or painting a landscape. But this guy obviously doesn't value pondering humanity any farther than how he can extract their money. These venture capital bros are freaks and weirdos. They straight up think about the masses as food for their algorithms. They would put us all in the matrix if it meant getting capital.
Not just that, but even for the lowest-tier brain candy reads, it still is engaging your mind in a way that triggers your imagination. The processing required for reading results in increased creativity and reading skill in a way that watching video doesn't.
For a quick example, let's take my favorite book quote which was then used in a horrible, horrible movie adaptation:
For people who haven't seen the movie or read the book, no two people will picture the exact same 'man in black' and 'gunslinger'. For people who have, they're more likely to picture Matthew McConaughey and Idris Elba. More realistically, they're not picturing anything because the movie was so bad it probably killed interest in the source material, but I digress. Another character who didn't make it into the movie, Eddie, probably has as many faces as there are constant readers.
Videos puts rails on our creativity. People who read Game of Thrones before the series came out probably had a far greater variety of what the cast looked like in their heads than people who read afterwards. It's harder to imagine a new character when the character has been presented for you in vivid detail on screen.
And your brain is a muscle like any other. The more you think creatively, the easier it is to do. There's a reason writers are voracious readers as well, and vice versa.
Literature and film are different mediums that can convey different things with various strengths. I would say a well acted scene in a movie can convey a ton of subtle complex emotions or state of mind that can't be summed up in words alone. There is some truth in a picture says more than a 1000 words. I have been vowed more by the concepts, ideas and poetic language in books, but been more emotionally overwhelmed by movies. If anything, the best is to expose yourself to different kinds of artistic expressions. If you only read books and never watch movies or listen to music for example, I think ones creativity muscle is also being limited.
You're not wrong, but there's a difference between periodically exposing oneself to different media, and sitting and watching 30+ hours a week of TV. The majority of the USA does the latter and not the former. And it doesn't help that we allow/encourage TV producers to make their product as addictive as possible to increase engagement.
There's a reason why pediatricians will tell parents over and over and over to limit screen-time for kids to under an hour a day, but why they won't ever say that about reading. And if you jump back to one of my cousin posts about Notel, we've seen that TV viewing generally serves more to increase stereotypical views than to broaden people's horizons. For every time somebody is genuinely moved and enlightened by a video, there's 1000 times that a harmful stereotype is further hammered into the audiences mind. I venture a guess to say that it has something to do with the inability to imagine beyond the scope of what is shown on the screen...and is part of why having actual diversity onscreen matters so much.
That is more about the content and less about the medium I would say. Junk in, junk out always applies. Extreme example I know, but if you read nothing but Breitbart many hours per day, you are not expanding your horizon that much. But you are right, that in the commercial market, there is way more videobased junk being produced than literature. And physical inactivity is a problem regardless. If a kid is never physically active but sits down and reads most waking hours of the day, a pediatrician will likely also recommend some exercise at least.
Meh. I like to create stuff, and there are times I do nothing else. There are also times where I just want to zone out and watch stuff endlessly. Saying people will stop being creative because of Netflix, is just silly.
This almost reads like a Netflix ad. It's as if Netflix was applying to be your streaming platform and you ask them what their weakness is, and their response is that they're too entertaining, too reliable, and too great of a value.
I get that compared to a lot of your typical network or even basic cable TV, many of these shows probably are better, if not for the fact that the programming of the past was sort of a limitation to how they could tell stories, also the advertisers played a role too but now Netflix has ads so not sure how much that matters either. While Netflix might have a little more experience since they started earlier than the others, everyone else is doing streaming these days, and what others consider great programming on Netflix does not compare to what I consider great programming, and I don't necessarily say that to look down on anyone, I say it in the sense that I just don't see how Netflix is so head and shoulders above the others to single out Netflix rather than streaming in general. Even some of the older content that wasn't designed for binging is what bootstrapped Netflix to begin with back when companies were willing to license their best to Netflix.
Also in my experience, TV has always had a 'stink' around it for being a timesink, a bad timesink that was bad for your mind. I don't see how anyone is excusing Netflix or that Netflix has somehow escaped that stigma. It's not uncommon to see people criticize parents for letting the TV be the babysitter or 'vegging' out in front of the TV, which my interpretation of that has always been to turn your brain off, not eat a bunch of vegetables. I've never known TV to have any kind widespread acceptability for unlimited watch time, from people I interact with IRL or what I read online, it seems to be fairly well acknowledged spending a lot of time watching TV isn't inherently a healthy hobby.
I had to go double check to see if they had a referral link to sign up on Netflix on that page. Maybe I'm wrong about it being an ad.
Reminds me of
the drug scene from Walk Hard
[after Dewey accidentally barges in a room filled with smoke and groupies]
Sam : [coughs] Get outta here, Dewey!
Dewey Cox : What are y'all doin' in here?
Sam : We're smoking reefer and you don't want no part of this shit.
Dewey Cox : You're smoking reefers?
Sam : Yeah, 'course we are; can't you smell it?
Dewey Cox : [Dewey doesn't have a sense of smell] No, Sam. I can't.
Reefer Girl : Come on, Dewey! Join the party!
[takes a hit off a joint]
Sam : No, Dewey, you don't want this. Get outta here!
Dewey Cox : You know what, I don't want no hangover. I can't get no hangover.
Sam : It doesn't give you a hangover!
Dewey Cox : Wha-I get addicted to it or something?
Sam : It's not habit-forming!
Dewey Cox : Oh, okay... well, I don't know... I don't want to overdose on it.
Sam : You can't OD on it!
Dewey Cox : It's not gonna make me wanna have sex, is it?
Sam : It makes sex even better!
Dewey Cox : Sounds kind of expensive.
Sam : It's the cheapest drug there is.
Dewey Cox : [at a loss and out of excuses] Hmm.
Sam : You don't want it!
Dewey Cox : I think I kinda want it.
Sam : Okay, but just this once. Come on in.