I think I would be willing to play Hilary’s hand here. She is saying that there are drivers within the culture that are creating pathways to “happiness,” or at least, guiding the human experience. For illustration, I would compare and contrast two decades in US cultural history, the 1950’s and the 1980’s. In both resources for the people were plentiful, and at this point I won’t venture into what people did with their spare time and money. But some have argued that the 1980’s was a much more destructive period. The rise of advertising and glamor and how it affected people were unprecedented. Of course, not everyone fell prey to it, but many did. But this shift made fashion companies rich practically overnight. NatGeo had a program called “80’s, The Decade that Made Us.” There was a quote by a journalist that summed up the era perfectly. She said, “This is when we went as a nation from ‘We the people’ to ‘Me the person.” I don’t feel that the 50’s saw this type of cultural shift, though elements were beginning which facilitated the coming of the 80’s. For both eras, people followed their passions, as diverse as they were. But in both cases, or throughout human history, the definition of the proper human experience has yet eluded proper examination.
It's interesting that I really don't disagree with Hilary and the points you just made here. What I struggle with is how to stop it.
The more you poke into the corporatism we have today (not capitalism but corporations in bed with government in bed with corporations) the worse the addiction economy becomes. So clearly we can't expect others to fix the problem for us.
They've figured out how to hack our brains and we haven't even figured out how our brains work.
Interesting, yes I agree. Perhaps also when 'the nanny state' also got invented (perhaps mainly a UK term!) to resist any responses which prioritise 'we' over 'me'
I responded to Michael here in case of interest, I think we fundamentally agree, but think that the personal choice route whilst clearly feeling more empowering in some ways isn't.
Thanks for a thoughtful post. Your thesis - that we have agency, that we can just say no -- runs counter to a lot of widely accepted thinking in the 12 step community. There whole thing is about accepting the idea that willpower is of little use against "cunning, baffling" addiction and that the only way out is to turn, not to ourselves, but to a higher power.
I think the higher power idea is valid. But major religions are all predicated on agency.
For example, the term repentance in the Bible is 'shuv' in Hebrew meaning to turn back. The Torah are guideposts and 'sin' is getting off the path. Followers are expected to individually follow the path which requires agency.
Buddhism has a similar individual agency and expectations for Nirvana. The story of the Buddha is one of personal agency isn't it?
I think the higher power is a good way to empower agency and not try to do it alone but the 12 step programs are also all about building accountability with others in the community and your friends. .
In my experience, it does take a lot of personal ummph to sit down and meditate. Meditation is hard and committing to it takes dedication. That said, Buddhists will tell you that people who meditate regularly will discover that the self as an individual construct that has agency doesn´t exist.
Sam Harris makes a case against personal agency which says we are basically hormonally encoded meat robots with no free will. If that's true, then the addiction economy is feeding us what we need based on a larger optimization algorithm. The bigger question is what makes individuals think that optimization algorithm is actually bad? But it all comes back. How, other than personal agency, can you stop that algorithm?
Yes, the whole free will thing is tricky. In case of interest we try to address it a bit, though not by name here in our response to Michael. I think we fundamentally agree, but think that the personal choice route whilst clearly feeling more empowering in some ways isn't.
I don´t pretend to have any answers but I´ll throw out some thoughts.
For many, part of the definition of addiction is having made an attempt to stop. We know we´re addicted if we´ve tried to apply our agency and failed. The failure of agency is baked into the very essence of what it means to be addicted.
Could it be that one of the most effective ways to apply our agency is to accept it´s limits? Ours is a culture of addiction and also a culture of powering through: these tendencies are related and neither serve us. We are in the realm of paradox. Addiction requires us to get really humble and acknowledge our vulnerability.
I agree with the second half. That is critically important.
I would challenge that the definition of addiction wasn't the application of agency but getting your brain wired in ways that cause you to foresake agency. As I mentioned in the essay, every step into addiction took agency. You had to chose to take the things. You had to chose to listen to the influencers.
What we found through regulatory mechanisms is that it hasn't stopped the opioid epidemic. That started with legal pharmacuticals and once they prevented the adicts from getting the pills, the addicts turned to black market fentynal and heroine. Maybe we need to involuntarily incarcerate them into facilities to dry them out?
I think all these addictive products are different and often the same route to un-addiction can't be applied. Opioids really are hugely addictive chemically where say gambling is different, even cigarettes and vapes. I am quite taken with the work of Allan Carr's EasyWay which reckons to have allowed millions of people to turn away from their addictions including to cigarettes and alcohol, without a backward glance through a 'cognitive restructuring' approach which inspires us to decide it doesn't do anything for us and we don't need it in our lives. Incl my husband who gave up booze totally after 50 years of drinking, but verging on being a 'functional alcoholic'.
Hi that's a very interesting perspective I hadn't thought of. I have a few friends who would have liked to go to AA except all this higher power stuff put them off. I don't agree at this moment in our research, it feels really disempowering and self-serving. I like the approach of Allan Carr's Easyway which is ultimately just what Michael is advocating for - re-framing addiction and choosing not to.
In case of interest I replied to this post here. I think we fundamentally agree, but think that the personal choice route whilst clearly feeling more empowering in some ways isn't.
"Just say no!" turns out to be the only thing the war on drugs got right. It really should be up to the individual, and anything that gets in the way of that is going to be ineffective... and probably more harmful than not. Prohibition is the clear, obvious example (besides the overwhelming evidence you mention from the war on drugs itself).
I think a good niche for you is, "I agree mostly with what this author says, but not this one thing", and then have that author's supporters get mad. It's like a fun little game!
Haha, 'moral posturing' as clickbait by Michael too, surely not!
I think this 'nanny state - it should be up to the individuals' is going out of fashion now, certainly in relation to some addictions such as cigarettes (8 million deaths a year is alot for no benefit to anyone, even the user), gambling, opioids and social media etc.
In case of interest, here is my response to Michael and perhaps to your perspective too.
Thanks, Hilary! I liked what I read in your piece. I think it gives everyone a lot to consider.
I'm not convinced that cigarettes, gambling, etc offers no benefit to anyone, even the user. I'm just going to leave it at that for now, because I don't think you mean to imply that 100% of people who gamble do so because they are somehow duped into it, without understanding the potential addictive nature, etc.
Perhaps the best way to take power from corporations is to remove the monetary system. We saw what happened after the creation of the Federal Reserve. The government influence in economy is as old as industrial policy and state security. Social engineering and DEI are fairly new. Corporations, overall, make money by fulfilling some perceived need, including the use of chemical addiction. But imagine, if you will, a life in which basic physical needs were met, as has been promised by the AI and android revolution. What next for human evolution? History is useful to predict what humans will do. In other circles internal reflection and spiritual enlightenment was a worthwhile pursuit — an area where organized religion has yet to evolve.
Honestly, sometimes I think that might be the way to go. I would diagree that the Federal Reserve took power away from the corporations because it was the corporations, specifically big banks, who wanted the federal reserve to be there to bail them out of their bad decisions.
Firstly, Hillary is dead wrong about “it’s not us—it’s them.” Flat wrong.
Addiction is simple—it’s coping. We do it because it works—it takes us out of our own discomfort. Whatever the discomfort and whatever the substance or behavior—we are practicing the behavior to cope with our own internal discomfort. Giving a locus of control over external forces is simply a recipe for furthering that discomfort.
I like your discussion about agency and free will vis-vis higher power and 12-step.
I’ve been through it all. First an addict must stop the behavior—with help—with community—with letting go and giving it up to whatever higher power they envision. Once they fully stop and their brain becomes able to rationally process the external forces—and examine their own internal discomfort—that’s when the agency can kick in. While an addict is in the grip of their amygdala and their coping behavior is running full-steam ahead—there is no rational processing and therefore no agency.
It’s not an “addiction vs. agency” equation—it’s a process.
We’re all addicts—by current definitions—in one way or another—positive or negative behaviors notwithstanding.
I like that. You're absolutly right on that true addicts have ceded their agency and sometimes need an intervention. Still, once that happens, it's their fight and we can't rely on governments to take that role.
Just like we can’t rely on government to regulate food, pharma, guns, news, sex, or anything else that people use addictively. The evidence is clear that they fail miserably at protecting us from ourselves.
I agree - for anything about personal agency, the commitment of the individual is essential. Your example is good in that it shows that it's possible to do it, even in the face of adversity, but it does not show that everybody can do it. And whether or not a given individual can do it is influenced by external factors, at least some of which are outside of their control: health, supportive social networks, money (should it be needed), and so on.
It's like getting rich (and I'm aware that I'm heading us into the rehashing of old arguments): in principle, anybody can get rich. Some people do. But you are more likely to be able to achieve that if you have a decent education, starting capital, good health, etc.
So yes, the individual is central, and yes, some people succeed even though everything seems set against them. But this type of success (and I think this goes both for beating addiction and for becoming wealthy) is strongly influenced by things that go beyond the individual.
Good points. That was kind of the purpose of this essay was to, hopefully, highlight where it starts. Even if that agency is identifying that a person might struggle to do it alone, that's a big step of not being a victim of someone else.
I think knowing you have agency is the first step to understanding who's controlling you. I think about it like this: If I'm in a position and I have no idea that 1. I'm being controlled or 2. That I have agency, I'll never do anthing about it.
If I'm told I'm being controlled but don't have agency, then I'm a pure victim.
If I'm told I have agency and can control things I'm now armed to identify where I'm being controlled AND I have an onus to do something about it.
It's a solid critique but the book Demon Copperhead was based on reality in a place based on interviews and real people. The Wizard of Oz was pure fantasy. Yet even then looking for the man behind the curtain contains strong truths for how to look deeper.
I admit the comparison was not the best one. I meant that selecting a character from a novel to demonstrate your point was not - at least to me - the most convincing approach. One could, for example, pick a book in which characters fail to escape addiction - let's say, Hubert Selby, Jr's, "Requiem for a Dream" - to make the opposite argument. I regret to say that I haven't read Demon Copperhead but I suppose that it would have been a different story if the character hadn't been able to exert agency and deal with his addiction, in which case you would probably not have used this example.
More broadly, I thought you could have taken the issue around inequality more seriously. There is evidence to show that some people - for example, people (and especially young people) with autism or ADHD - are more likely to be affected by social-media addiction, to suffer more harm as a result, and to find that addiction harder to break. Aside from such personal factors, people with fewer resources to draw on - whether those resources are material or social - tend to fare worse when faced with addiction and other problems. (I can send you references if those would be of interest.)
So I guess my point is that you could, if you think inequalities are not important here, have made a more robust rebuttal than "Demon Copperhead turned out okay".
I get that, I used the example because I just read the book and felt it apropos. Agree with your point on the example but I would merely ask, if not you, then who? when it comes to personal agency.
Thanks Michael, your article was very helpful in making ourselves clearer.
Here is our response:
In summary our view is that it although it can be upsetting, even a bit embarrassing, to realise how easily we can be manipulated, it can also be empowering to see more clearly just how and why it happens and that we are not as weak, or lacking in will power as we are often made to feel. Millions, in fact billions of ‘normal’ people are addicted to these products for very good reasons of economics and power.
We argue that the Addiction Economy model is both disempowering and empowering, but that this framing ultimately leads to the most empowering & effective solutions of all - changing the environment that allows addictive companies to flourish - regulation.
I'm super glad it's helping make your case clearler. That was truly my goal on this. Get people to think about it and see how they can make it better whether personaly or holding officials accountable to make the right changes.
I've been wrangling with this for the past hour but I can't get around that the only way we can stop it is to demand it be stopped. It has to be ME who makes the demand. My skin crawls with the "It's not you it's them." But then who stops it? "I need them to fix it?" No wonder we are in this pickle.
Hi, in case of interest here is our response to Michal, which tries to make the point a bit more clearly. Agree 'It's not you it's them' is a bit cringeworthy, it was actually a bit for fun and a bit trying to be provocative, but actually responding to the prevailing academic, political and social tendency to blame the individual for their addiction and not the environment which creates it and allows it to flourish.
It's certainly true. I covered some of your concerns on that bias, specifically in AI/ML earlier and yes, I agree we need to have an honest conversation about it as well as identifying whether these people are opperating as we'd like.
I think I would be willing to play Hilary’s hand here. She is saying that there are drivers within the culture that are creating pathways to “happiness,” or at least, guiding the human experience. For illustration, I would compare and contrast two decades in US cultural history, the 1950’s and the 1980’s. In both resources for the people were plentiful, and at this point I won’t venture into what people did with their spare time and money. But some have argued that the 1980’s was a much more destructive period. The rise of advertising and glamor and how it affected people were unprecedented. Of course, not everyone fell prey to it, but many did. But this shift made fashion companies rich practically overnight. NatGeo had a program called “80’s, The Decade that Made Us.” There was a quote by a journalist that summed up the era perfectly. She said, “This is when we went as a nation from ‘We the people’ to ‘Me the person.” I don’t feel that the 50’s saw this type of cultural shift, though elements were beginning which facilitated the coming of the 80’s. For both eras, people followed their passions, as diverse as they were. But in both cases, or throughout human history, the definition of the proper human experience has yet eluded proper examination.
It's interesting that I really don't disagree with Hilary and the points you just made here. What I struggle with is how to stop it.
The more you poke into the corporatism we have today (not capitalism but corporations in bed with government in bed with corporations) the worse the addiction economy becomes. So clearly we can't expect others to fix the problem for us.
They've figured out how to hack our brains and we haven't even figured out how our brains work.
Interesting, yes I agree. Perhaps also when 'the nanny state' also got invented (perhaps mainly a UK term!) to resist any responses which prioritise 'we' over 'me'
I responded to Michael here in case of interest, I think we fundamentally agree, but think that the personal choice route whilst clearly feeling more empowering in some ways isn't.
https://www.theaddictioneconomy.com/news-insights/economicmodelofaddiction-wz42s
Thanks for a thoughtful post. Your thesis - that we have agency, that we can just say no -- runs counter to a lot of widely accepted thinking in the 12 step community. There whole thing is about accepting the idea that willpower is of little use against "cunning, baffling" addiction and that the only way out is to turn, not to ourselves, but to a higher power.
Do you disagree with this approach?
I think the higher power idea is valid. But major religions are all predicated on agency.
For example, the term repentance in the Bible is 'shuv' in Hebrew meaning to turn back. The Torah are guideposts and 'sin' is getting off the path. Followers are expected to individually follow the path which requires agency.
Buddhism has a similar individual agency and expectations for Nirvana. The story of the Buddha is one of personal agency isn't it?
I think the higher power is a good way to empower agency and not try to do it alone but the 12 step programs are also all about building accountability with others in the community and your friends. .
In my experience, it does take a lot of personal ummph to sit down and meditate. Meditation is hard and committing to it takes dedication. That said, Buddhists will tell you that people who meditate regularly will discover that the self as an individual construct that has agency doesn´t exist.
Sam Harris makes a case against personal agency which says we are basically hormonally encoded meat robots with no free will. If that's true, then the addiction economy is feeding us what we need based on a larger optimization algorithm. The bigger question is what makes individuals think that optimization algorithm is actually bad? But it all comes back. How, other than personal agency, can you stop that algorithm?
Yes, the whole free will thing is tricky. In case of interest we try to address it a bit, though not by name here in our response to Michael. I think we fundamentally agree, but think that the personal choice route whilst clearly feeling more empowering in some ways isn't.
https://www.theaddictioneconomy.com/news-insights/economicmodelofaddiction-wz42s
If agency doesn't exist and we have an economy feeding addiction then there is no mechanism to fix it is there?
I don´t pretend to have any answers but I´ll throw out some thoughts.
For many, part of the definition of addiction is having made an attempt to stop. We know we´re addicted if we´ve tried to apply our agency and failed. The failure of agency is baked into the very essence of what it means to be addicted.
Could it be that one of the most effective ways to apply our agency is to accept it´s limits? Ours is a culture of addiction and also a culture of powering through: these tendencies are related and neither serve us. We are in the realm of paradox. Addiction requires us to get really humble and acknowledge our vulnerability.
I agree with the second half. That is critically important.
I would challenge that the definition of addiction wasn't the application of agency but getting your brain wired in ways that cause you to foresake agency. As I mentioned in the essay, every step into addiction took agency. You had to chose to take the things. You had to chose to listen to the influencers.
What we found through regulatory mechanisms is that it hasn't stopped the opioid epidemic. That started with legal pharmacuticals and once they prevented the adicts from getting the pills, the addicts turned to black market fentynal and heroine. Maybe we need to involuntarily incarcerate them into facilities to dry them out?
I think all these addictive products are different and often the same route to un-addiction can't be applied. Opioids really are hugely addictive chemically where say gambling is different, even cigarettes and vapes. I am quite taken with the work of Allan Carr's EasyWay which reckons to have allowed millions of people to turn away from their addictions including to cigarettes and alcohol, without a backward glance through a 'cognitive restructuring' approach which inspires us to decide it doesn't do anything for us and we don't need it in our lives. Incl my husband who gave up booze totally after 50 years of drinking, but verging on being a 'functional alcoholic'.
Hi that's a very interesting perspective I hadn't thought of. I have a few friends who would have liked to go to AA except all this higher power stuff put them off. I don't agree at this moment in our research, it feels really disempowering and self-serving. I like the approach of Allan Carr's Easyway which is ultimately just what Michael is advocating for - re-framing addiction and choosing not to.
In case of interest I replied to this post here. I think we fundamentally agree, but think that the personal choice route whilst clearly feeling more empowering in some ways isn't.
https://www.theaddictioneconomy.com/news-insights/economicmodelofaddiction-wz42s
Great write up. From the attention economy to the addiction economy
True. I mean, the economy is going to sell you things... The economy can't force you to buy it typically.
Yes, that was our inspiration Matthew! In case of interest here is our response to Michael, we are in many ways in total agreement, but a few points of contention! https://www.theaddictioneconomy.com/news-insights/economicmodelofaddiction-wz42s
"Just say no!" turns out to be the only thing the war on drugs got right. It really should be up to the individual, and anything that gets in the way of that is going to be ineffective... and probably more harmful than not. Prohibition is the clear, obvious example (besides the overwhelming evidence you mention from the war on drugs itself).
I think a good niche for you is, "I agree mostly with what this author says, but not this one thing", and then have that author's supporters get mad. It's like a fun little game!
Lol. Just wait until this hits LinkedIn
Haha, no my followers won't be angry, if anything they will give you a thoughtful critique in response! Which is why I am not on twitter!
Twitter...gag...talk about addiction economy. Outrage addiction methinks.
Haha, 'moral posturing' as clickbait by Michael too, surely not!
I think this 'nanny state - it should be up to the individuals' is going out of fashion now, certainly in relation to some addictions such as cigarettes (8 million deaths a year is alot for no benefit to anyone, even the user), gambling, opioids and social media etc.
In case of interest, here is my response to Michael and perhaps to your perspective too.
https://www.theaddictioneconomy.com/news-insights/economicmodelofaddiction-wz42s
Thanks, Hilary! I liked what I read in your piece. I think it gives everyone a lot to consider.
I'm not convinced that cigarettes, gambling, etc offers no benefit to anyone, even the user. I'm just going to leave it at that for now, because I don't think you mean to imply that 100% of people who gamble do so because they are somehow duped into it, without understanding the potential addictive nature, etc.
Perhaps the best way to take power from corporations is to remove the monetary system. We saw what happened after the creation of the Federal Reserve. The government influence in economy is as old as industrial policy and state security. Social engineering and DEI are fairly new. Corporations, overall, make money by fulfilling some perceived need, including the use of chemical addiction. But imagine, if you will, a life in which basic physical needs were met, as has been promised by the AI and android revolution. What next for human evolution? History is useful to predict what humans will do. In other circles internal reflection and spiritual enlightenment was a worthwhile pursuit — an area where organized religion has yet to evolve.
Honestly, sometimes I think that might be the way to go. I would diagree that the Federal Reserve took power away from the corporations because it was the corporations, specifically big banks, who wanted the federal reserve to be there to bail them out of their bad decisions.
Yes, it all starts and ends with GDP and Neo-liberal capitalism measuring only money.
Huh? Wow.
Good essay Michael.
Firstly, Hillary is dead wrong about “it’s not us—it’s them.” Flat wrong.
Addiction is simple—it’s coping. We do it because it works—it takes us out of our own discomfort. Whatever the discomfort and whatever the substance or behavior—we are practicing the behavior to cope with our own internal discomfort. Giving a locus of control over external forces is simply a recipe for furthering that discomfort.
I like your discussion about agency and free will vis-vis higher power and 12-step.
I’ve been through it all. First an addict must stop the behavior—with help—with community—with letting go and giving it up to whatever higher power they envision. Once they fully stop and their brain becomes able to rationally process the external forces—and examine their own internal discomfort—that’s when the agency can kick in. While an addict is in the grip of their amygdala and their coping behavior is running full-steam ahead—there is no rational processing and therefore no agency.
It’s not an “addiction vs. agency” equation—it’s a process.
We’re all addicts—by current definitions—in one way or another—positive or negative behaviors notwithstanding.
I like that. You're absolutly right on that true addicts have ceded their agency and sometimes need an intervention. Still, once that happens, it's their fight and we can't rely on governments to take that role.
Just like we can’t rely on government to regulate food, pharma, guns, news, sex, or anything else that people use addictively. The evidence is clear that they fail miserably at protecting us from ourselves.
💯
I agree - for anything about personal agency, the commitment of the individual is essential. Your example is good in that it shows that it's possible to do it, even in the face of adversity, but it does not show that everybody can do it. And whether or not a given individual can do it is influenced by external factors, at least some of which are outside of their control: health, supportive social networks, money (should it be needed), and so on.
It's like getting rich (and I'm aware that I'm heading us into the rehashing of old arguments): in principle, anybody can get rich. Some people do. But you are more likely to be able to achieve that if you have a decent education, starting capital, good health, etc.
So yes, the individual is central, and yes, some people succeed even though everything seems set against them. But this type of success (and I think this goes both for beating addiction and for becoming wealthy) is strongly influenced by things that go beyond the individual.
Good points. That was kind of the purpose of this essay was to, hopefully, highlight where it starts. Even if that agency is identifying that a person might struggle to do it alone, that's a big step of not being a victim of someone else.
I think knowing you have agency is the first step to understanding who's controlling you. I think about it like this: If I'm in a position and I have no idea that 1. I'm being controlled or 2. That I have agency, I'll never do anthing about it.
If I'm told I'm being controlled but don't have agency, then I'm a pure victim.
If I'm told I have agency and can control things I'm now armed to identify where I'm being controlled AND I have an onus to do something about it.
Does that make sense?
“Demon, in the book, comes from that level of inequality in spades. Yet he exerted his agency and righted his own ship”
People say that travelling to a magical faraway kingdom is impossible. But Dorothy, in the book, is carried to one by a cyclone!
“I read a novel in which somebody did it so it must be possible” does not seem like the strongest of arguments.
It's a solid critique but the book Demon Copperhead was based on reality in a place based on interviews and real people. The Wizard of Oz was pure fantasy. Yet even then looking for the man behind the curtain contains strong truths for how to look deeper.
I admit the comparison was not the best one. I meant that selecting a character from a novel to demonstrate your point was not - at least to me - the most convincing approach. One could, for example, pick a book in which characters fail to escape addiction - let's say, Hubert Selby, Jr's, "Requiem for a Dream" - to make the opposite argument. I regret to say that I haven't read Demon Copperhead but I suppose that it would have been a different story if the character hadn't been able to exert agency and deal with his addiction, in which case you would probably not have used this example.
More broadly, I thought you could have taken the issue around inequality more seriously. There is evidence to show that some people - for example, people (and especially young people) with autism or ADHD - are more likely to be affected by social-media addiction, to suffer more harm as a result, and to find that addiction harder to break. Aside from such personal factors, people with fewer resources to draw on - whether those resources are material or social - tend to fare worse when faced with addiction and other problems. (I can send you references if those would be of interest.)
So I guess my point is that you could, if you think inequalities are not important here, have made a more robust rebuttal than "Demon Copperhead turned out okay".
I get that, I used the example because I just read the book and felt it apropos. Agree with your point on the example but I would merely ask, if not you, then who? when it comes to personal agency.
Thanks Michael, your article was very helpful in making ourselves clearer.
Here is our response:
In summary our view is that it although it can be upsetting, even a bit embarrassing, to realise how easily we can be manipulated, it can also be empowering to see more clearly just how and why it happens and that we are not as weak, or lacking in will power as we are often made to feel. Millions, in fact billions of ‘normal’ people are addicted to these products for very good reasons of economics and power.
We argue that the Addiction Economy model is both disempowering and empowering, but that this framing ultimately leads to the most empowering & effective solutions of all - changing the environment that allows addictive companies to flourish - regulation.
https://www.theaddictioneconomy.com/news-insights/economicmodelofaddiction-wz42s
I'm super glad it's helping make your case clearler. That was truly my goal on this. Get people to think about it and see how they can make it better whether personaly or holding officials accountable to make the right changes.
I've been wrangling with this for the past hour but I can't get around that the only way we can stop it is to demand it be stopped. It has to be ME who makes the demand. My skin crawls with the "It's not you it's them." But then who stops it? "I need them to fix it?" No wonder we are in this pickle.
Hi, in case of interest here is our response to Michal, which tries to make the point a bit more clearly. Agree 'It's not you it's them' is a bit cringeworthy, it was actually a bit for fun and a bit trying to be provocative, but actually responding to the prevailing academic, political and social tendency to blame the individual for their addiction and not the environment which creates it and allows it to flourish.
https://www.theaddictioneconomy.com/news-insights/economicmodelofaddiction-wz42s
Yeah, still it's about agency. It is you. Anything else is kind of a sad passing the responsibility.
It's certainly true. I covered some of your concerns on that bias, specifically in AI/ML earlier and yes, I agree we need to have an honest conversation about it as well as identifying whether these people are opperating as we'd like.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/eliminating-bias-in-aiml