Net Posting as a Search for Significance, Meaning, Impact; Related Cell Phone Addictions

I've pondered this a lot . . . as a participant observer . . . observing many thousands of posts by many 100's of familiar posters . . . and as a PhD in clinical psych.

As I've considered making a thread about this with some of my comments and observations, I was reminded of an old after dinner speech by

DR MURRAY BANKS--former head of New York Mental Hospital . . . that he gave in Phoenix when I was in undergrad school. I used to almost have it memorized I'd played it for so many classes.

Now it's on youtube. And the part I was reflecting on is at about 4:45 here:

www.youtube.com...

HOW TO LIVE WITH YOURSELF OR WHAT TO DO UNTIL THE PSYCHIATRIST COMES.

[Sorry I forgot to insert the link]


GUY MALONE’S YOUTUBE LIST OF VIDS:


www.youtube.com... 0...1ac.1.11.youtube.pul-p6LCH2I

"Did you ever see a little boy who goes swimming or skating? . . . WATCH ME MOMMY, WATCH ME! . . . now we do it with our cars, clothes . . . Now skunk will keep you just as warm as mink . . . "

Another bit of background is that from Henry Wright's statement that ALL ADDICTIONS arise out of insufficient [quality and amount] love from the father.

Certainly it is true that a significant amount of ATTACHMENT DISORDER results in a markedly decreased low self-esteem; low self-worth; feelings of inadequacy etc. etc. etc.

So . . . WHY DO YOU THINK

that so many of us slavishly scan for message replies on the net? . . . to our posts and/or our PM's?

Why do so many people have their eyes glued to their texting?

Why is every blinking cell phone twerp, call, msg etc. INSTANTLY responded to by what 97% of the population?

We didn't used to do such things. Why do we do them now?

It's easy to say that it's because of the technology.

WHAT ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY pulls that kind of behavior; triggers that kind of behavior out of us?

I contend that

1. It provides a form of INSTANT GRATIFICATION that . . . SOMEONE SOMEWHERE NOTICED THAT WE EXIST and thought enough to bother responding--even in hostility--at least, it's a RESPONSE TO ME! lil ol me!

1.1 I'm responded to, therefore I must exist and have meaning. I'm not an empty fog vanishing in the Phoenix sun.

2. And the cell phone texts and calls . . . even men are seduced by them . . . how is it that men talk so much more freely on the cell phone than face to face?

2.1 Because of !CONTROL!? They can hang up if it gets toooo emotional? They don't feel so trapped or likely to be trapped?

2.2 People risk getting killed or killing others while driving to what . . . talk chit chat on a phone glued to their ears? Why? What's the significance? Why the obsession?

2.3 imho . . . BECAUSE it demonstrates that they are worth someone's attention. They feel MORE worth something amidst a thousand feelings and messages that they are an insignificant cog in a vast horrible meaningless machine.

3. Yeah, we can say . . . how shallow . . . but the pull, to some degree, is there for all of us . . . and particularly those with significant degrees of ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

4. I rarely let a phone intrude on a shared meal with someone. But the other persons I eat with tend to . . . oh what . . . 80% of them . . . tend to give the phone their attention immediately regardless. That's incredible to me. I see it with couples all the time. I'm tempted to intrude and challenge them on their callousedness to their partner.

4.1 There people are eating presumably with someone they love, cherish, value. And they rudely turn away from that person to attend to a phone from whomever . . . about what drivel? Why?

4.2 I think it's because we have become--too many have--conditioned to the bell like Pavlov's dog. The bell signals that we are SIGNIFICANT, WORTH SOMETHING. And we have to salivate immediately in response. We have to affirm the bell ringer so they'll keep ringing the bell--proving to our impoverished self-worth that we REALLY ARE WORTH SOMETHING!

5. I think it would pay FAR GREATER DIVIDENDS OF SELF WORTH CURRENCY if we focused instead on LOVING ON THOSE CLOSEST TO US . . . in persistent, practical, affectionate, verbally affirming; acts of service; giving ways. THEN we'd feel worth something because we'd actually done something significant to EARN it.

Maybe I'll have some suggestions on such scores after pondering a bit more.

What do y'all think? Why such obsessions with such techy tools?

.

Looks like an interesting thread but I'll have to read it later....I'm on the phone!

a reply to: minkmouse

I look forward to your comments when it's convenient.

Blessings,

I tend to see it as television in some ways because of the way it totally hypnotizes people but now, it's interactive...twice the addictive punch. You raise some interesting points in your argument that I'll have to think about. We are "Dedicated followers of fashion" en mass but how that argument applies to what I observe is still unclear. The fodder you bring to chew is worth consideration.

I agree with everything you said. I have seen the couple in the restaurant that are ignoring each other and steadily doing something on their phones. They come in, eat, and leave without ever saying a word. It's weird to watch, but I come from a time where we didn't have cellphones. We had rotary phones that you had to stand up to use most of the time because the cord was too short to move anywhere else.

I think we have forgotten how to enjoy our alone time. We have forgotten how to entertain ourselves as well. We use cellphones and other gadgets to keep from having to interact with strangers on the bus, at the Dr.'s office, etc. It's almost like a buffer of sorts.

I abuse the technology myself at times. I think we all do if we are honest with ourselves. I don't think there is any way to turn it around at this point either. Technology is increasing and the ways we are learning how to use it are also increasing. It's become next to impossible to not have internet access whether it is used for school, paying bills, etc. It can be done, but it is getting more difficult as time goes on.

Short of an EMP or the like, wiping out our power grid for an extended period of time... I don't think we can realistically go back. People are not going to give up these things on their own.

While I like the convenience of the devices I have, I sometimes do miss "the good old days". It's a double edged sword.

originally posted by: minkmouse
I tend to see it as television in some ways because of the way it totally hypnotizes people but now, it's interactive...twice the addictive punch. You raise some interesting points in your argument that I'll have to think about. We are "Dedicated followers of fashion" en mass but how that argument applies to what I observe is still unclear. The fodder you bring to chew is worth consideration.

Thanks for your kind words.

I think you make a great point. The interactive RESPONSIVENESS--PARTICULARLY THE IMMEDIATE responses on a phone and the fairly quick responses on a net dialogue are EXTREMELY REINFORCING.

Thanks.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I think you make many excellent points about the technology.

What do you think about the reinforcing aspects of the technology?

What is the most reinforcing aspect of using the technology in those ways?

Why is it sooooo reinforcing?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I think you make many excellent points about the technology.

What do you think about the reinforcing aspects of the technology?

What is the most reinforcing aspect of using the technology in those ways?

Why is it sooooo reinforcing?

It's instant gratification and we have become a society that seeks out things that are instantly gratifying. It can also be an ego stroker for some. Take the "selfie" phenomenon... It screams look at me and just like that!!! People are looking at you with some kind of "thumbs up" reward system as the cherry on top.

It's so reinforcing because the companies that make and invent these devices have spent millions to find out the best way to make people want more and NEED more. In doing so, their profit margins read like it's Christmas morning every day. They constantly come up with new ways to suck folks in. Without those reinforcements people would not line up for 5 days to get the new iPhone that is exactly the same as the last iPhone with a different button.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

AGREED.

Would you please elaborate on your perspective about such experiences with the tech and people via the tech

BEING AN EGO STROKER.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

AGREED.

Would you please elaborate on your perspective about such experiences with the tech and people via the tech

BEING AN EGO STROKER.

I don't have any personal experiences with the ego stroking myself as I have never taken a selfie and you will not ever find a full photo of me anywhere on the net. You would be hard pressed to find a pic of me IRL. I do not like attention like that. But plenty of folks do.

The ego stroking can come from Facebook, Instagram, etc. One posts a half nude photo of themselves and instantly 200 people "like" it and start messaging about how hot, fine, sexy they are. Even if they are not simply because they are "thirsty". The person on the other end is just eating it up. Without technology such as we have now... nobody would be able to get that many folks panting after them at once. Some folks feed off of that attention to an extent that it somewhat becomes an addiction.

We have to post pictures of our new cars, our big houses, our kid's trophies, and what we are even eating constantly. We stroke our own egos just in the ASSumption that anybody gives a damn about any of that. People feel obligated to leave comments on how beautiful that car, house, child, is even when they don't want to for fear of "offending" the ego of the poster.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Good points.

Isn't the instant or near instant FEEDBACK . . . of ATTENTION by the net or phone . . . isn't that inherently ego stroking?

a reply to: BO XIAN

The first we saw of personal phones, they were used by characters in movies then TV. Rich characters, 'important people'. Movers and shakers. Early on as they filtered their way down the economic ladder and Mr. Everyday began affording them, I used to notice a certain cockiness, a bit of "I'm better look at me" from the users. And as might be expected. I also recall a bit of jealousy on my part. Of course I had been waiting for my own Dick Tracy wrist communicator since I was a child in the 50's.

Our economic system, being built on increasing consumption of, more and bigger and better, is constantly seeking fancier geegaws with which to tantalize the consumer. No, the unconscious consumer.

You mention the 97% figure in pointing out how so many of us react in a Pavlovian way to the ringing of the bell. This to me suggests that the 3% are either just immune to these unconscious tuggings or have managed to consciously withstand those Pavlovian pressures.

I find it interesting that that figure of 97% bears a close resemblance to the figures being arrived at by George Lakoff in determining how much behavior and thought of each individual can be categorized as conscious and unconscious. As I recall his findings and assumptions, 97 or 98% of human thought and action is patterned behavior. Stuff we do without thinking first. Indeed from my reading, this conjecture is still edging ever higher in those studies being done.

Taking this premise, that most of what we as humans think and do is just repetition without real, cognizant consideration, I can suppose the sense of worthiness you mention goes deeper and is indeed a constant reinforcement that we exist at all. And to conjecture even further, in the face of a cosmos which is increasingly depicted as a a whole lot of whirling nothingness, with birth in chaotic explosion and death in cold dispersal, what ever that small percentage of what we might consider to be consciousness will cling to whatever hopes of existence we can drum up, even if it is Pavlovian.

As you mention Jesus several times up there near your avatar, I guess you may consider yourself a Christian. I would be interested in your understanding of clinical psychology and how so much of what we think and do, Lakoff aside, seems to be Pavlovian and how the devil fits into this picture. I would seem to me that with all of the breakthroughs in psychology and neuro-psychology and the rest of the "consciousness" schools of study, which to my mind explain our Ecclesiastical weaknesses, that the need to explain our faults as caused by a devil would just fade away.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: BO XIAN

The first we saw of personal phones, they were used by characters in movies then TV. Rich characters, 'important people'. Movers and shakers. Early on as they filtered their way down the economic ladder and Mr. Everyday began affording them, I used to notice a certain cockiness, a bit of "I'm better look at me" from the users. And as might be expected. . . .

Yes, I've noticed that over the years, too. Sad that. Human nature has enough of a bent toward cockiness . . . and all the more so given the epidemic of ATTACHMENT DISORDER and the cockiness compensating for inner feelings of worthlessness resulting therefrom.

Our economic system, being built on increasing consumption of, more and bigger and better, is constantly seeking fancier geegaws with which to tantalize the consumer. No, the unconscious consumer.

That PRESS to BUY, BUY, BUY is unrelenting. The related addictions are merciless.

You mention the 97% figure in pointing out how so many of us react in a Pavlovian way to the ringing of the bell. This to me suggests that the 3% are either just immune to these unconscious tuggings or have managed to consciously withstand those Pavlovian pressures.

That was a guesstimate figure from my own experiences and observations. I wonder what the accurate figure would be.

I know that some researchers claim that 80% of folks are more or less immune to some kinds of propagandizing, mental brain washing, 'psychic manipulations' even from the fallen angel sorts of critters and technologies. I hope 20% are immune.

I allowed that 3% might not be so influenced by such conditioned Pavlovian knee-jerk reflexes because it seems like about that many among my students and in my social network seem to be relatively independent and free of most such pressures.

I find it interesting that that figure of 97% bears a close resemblance to the figures being arrived at by George Lakoff in determining how much behavior and thought of each individual can be categorized as conscious and unconscious. As I recall his findings and assumptions, 97 or 98% of human thought and action is patterned behavior. Stuff we do without thinking first. Indeed from my reading, this conjecture is still edging ever higher in those studies being done.

Interesting. I can believe that--particularly for those unused to critical thinking etc.

Taking this premise, that most of what we as humans think and do is just repetition without real, cognizant consideration, I can suppose the sense of worthiness you mention goes deeper and is indeed a constant reinforcement that we exist at all. And to conjecture even further, in the face of a cosmos which is increasingly depicted as a a whole lot of whirling nothingness, with birth in chaotic explosion and death in cold dispersal, what ever that small percentage of what we might consider to be consciousness will cling to whatever hopes of existence we can drum up, even if it is Pavlovian.

Logical.

Thankfully, I have a different cosmology and construction on reality.

As you mention Jesus several times up there near your avatar, I guess you may consider yourself a Christian. I would be interested in your understanding of clinical psychology and how so much of what we think and do, Lakoff aside, seems to be Pavlovian and how the devil fits into this picture. I would seem to me that with all of the breakthroughs in psychology and neuro-psychology and the rest of the "consciousness" schools of study, which to my mind explain our Ecclesiastical weaknesses, that the need to explain our faults as caused by a devil would just fade away.

I think Dr Caroline Leaf's research might be worth considering in such regards:

www.drleaf.com...

archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...

Her research is primarily dealing with toxic thoughts and their horrific impact on our general physical health; facilitating/triggering disease; and how to prevent/overcome such patterns.

Philippians 4:8 New Living Translation
And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise.

"Whatsoever things are pure, of good report . . .Think on these things."

She offers a 21 day brain detox program:

21daybraindetox.com...

In terms of the OP . . . we have been conditioned by such tech and the oligarchy's propaganda from hell to focus on non-essentials--to major in minors and minor in majors . . . and to feed on that mentally, which is actually destructive to us.

I believe there is also brain research which indicates that our brains were designed to be in communication with God. I don't have that handy at the moment.

Certainly satan's passion is to detach as many from God as possible and to prevent attachment to God for as many as possible as his only way of vengeance against God for being kicked out of Heaven for his PRIDE.

The seduction that we can be our own god; successfully do our own thing; create our own values [the oligarchy has successfully sold the lie from hell that there is no right or wrong etc]; . . . all results in slavish robotization whether it's addictions to tech to glean scraps of pseudo-worth from the attention . . . or addictions to alcohol etc. to get a dopamine high because we are not getting our designed thrill and joy from a dialogue with and intimacy with God.

There is no comparison with technology thrills and addictions vs the thrills and joys and creativity from a walk with God. It's like comparing dog poo to caviar, peaches and cream and fillet minion.