You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on November 2012 Media Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: RobertLumley 02 November 2012 06:13AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (88)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2012 10:11:30AM 2 points [-]

I found the addictiveness to fall off after a few days of play (as the time horizon of my ingame goals stretched out).

Addictiveness? Falls off after a few days? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Do we still call it inflationary if the word actually means something close the opposite of that which it is used for?

Comment author: Alicorn 04 November 2012 04:11:27PM 0 points [-]

I mean that for a few days it looked like it was going to eat my life, and then it stopped. Had it carried on being as compulsive as it was at first, I would classify it as addictive-for-me. It did something else instead. (Was that really unclear?)

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2012 10:44:52PM *  1 point [-]

being as compulsive as it was at first

Was that really unclear?

It was clear that the word "compulsive" would work perfectly.and that we have inflated "addictive" enough that is used in contexts that make me double take at the irony of the contrast between the usage and the actual meaning.

Comment author: MixedNuts 04 November 2012 11:36:04PM 0 points [-]

Addictive means "creates compulsion which increases with use", right? So it's addictive at first and then compulsive but not addictive and then neither.