Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 April 2012 09:00:36AM *  2 points [-]

I highly suspect that the reason the internet is so much more addictive is the fact you can improve your status.

But improving your status on the internet takes a lot of time, and is very probably unconnected to the life outside of internet -- most useful things done in real life do not contribute to your internet status, and your internet status does not contribute to things done in real life. That's the problem: time and the disconnectedness. By improving your status in one world you lose your utility in the other world; improving your status tastes so sweet, but the rewards are very limited and can't be converted.

It goes against our insticts, because we expect that increasing status should bring many benefits, and on internet, it does not. (Just like our instincts expect that sugar goes with vitamins.) In real life, if you have a chance to become a king, go for it, because as a king, you will be able to better satisfy your needs that you have temporarily ignored in order to focus more on becoming a king. But as a king of internet, you have nothing... except the pure refined virtual status.

In theory, you can draw some real-life benefits from the virtual status, but I guess most people fail to do it. Because as a first step, you must get outside of the internet for long enough time to create a strategy for real life... but while you are doing it, your internet status is rapidly falling, and your instincts scream at you to come back and rescue it.

Comment author: mjk1093 22 April 2016 06:30:07PM 1 point [-]

(Just like our instincts expect that sugar goes with vitamins.)

We have the instinct to consume sugar because it is the most concentrated form of energy that humans can process, not because it is naturally paired with vitamins.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Dunbar's Function
Comment author: wedrifid 07 June 2012 11:39:09AM 4 points [-]

BMI. Those things are fun. If I spend enough time in the gym I can get myself up to "Obese".

In response to comment by wedrifid on Dunbar's Function
Comment author: mjk1093 22 April 2016 04:54:15PM 0 points [-]

BMI assumes you are the normal semi-sedentary modern person. It's not meant to be used on serious athletes or weightlifters. For 95% plus of the population, BMI is a pretty accurate metric.

In response to Dunbar's Function
Comment author: Z._M._Davis 31 December 2008 03:48:59AM 1 point [-]

"[...] naturally specializing further as more knowledge is discovered and we become able to conceptualize more complex areas of study [...]"

So, how does this spiral of specialization square with living by one's own strength?

Could there be a niche for generalists?

Comment author: mjk1093 22 April 2016 04:51:23PM 0 points [-]

Maybe not generalists, but cross-specialists to work against the silo effect. For example, someone who knew both number theory and quantum physics deeply might make some important discoveries.

Then, these cross-specialists could themselves caucus to create a kind of synthetic "generalist" viewpoint, like a Council of Experts.