> I feel like the stuff that gets called a hyperstimulus is at least equally characterized by missing something as it is by having too much of something.
yeah, good post.
i think the psychoanalytical tradition would serve well here. current discourse around hyperstimulus assume that desire "seeks its own cessation" and that people like, actually want satisfaction from the real instead of stimulus from the image (eg. good sex instead of more porn). but obviously cravings for porn and sex are quite different; people find pleasure in the fantasy of the fantasy.
curious if this vibes w the point you're making here (i don't rly know much about psychoanalysis) but i feel like hyperstimuli can be appealing to someone who is stuck in a sort of numb anhedonic state of not desiring anything, because it *makes* you want something. you can just start eating a bag of doritos and induces a craving, which can feel more pleasurable than not craving anything at all, even if it can't be satisfied
>> To the degree that satisfaction makes you stop, unsatisfying things will succeed in the market better than satisfying things, specifically because they’re unsatisfying.
Would expect there to be some equilibrium with:
Goods and services that underdeliver on long-term satisfaction will reach market saturation will not be subject to repeat purchases.
Can partition the market into:
* Consumers who have first encounter good/service and not yet realized it delivers little long-term satisfaction
* Consumers who have realized it delivers little long-term satisfaction.
* Consumers with addictive/compulsive tendencies who consume despite no long-term satisfaction.
The latter are often what is called "whales" in a product category....the 4% of drinkers who consume 80% of alcohol, 4% of fast-food consumers who consume 80% of fast-food, 4% of gamblers who gamble 80% of money.
This is a very useful insight but you can't simply redefine words like 'pleasure' - this will actually cause more confusion. It's enough to stop at "non-hyperstimuli are pleasurable at one point and then stop being pleasureable at some later point, whereas hyperstimuli don't stop being pleasureable until a much later point if at all" - the concept of satiation is enough.
That said, again it's very valuable to think about the difference between 'bad' cravings, like what are usually called hyperstimuli - porn, junk food etc - and 'good' cravings that are very strong until they are sated. Water can have extreme attraction for the thirsty.
You don't have a physical experience of a concept, and the concept is what's in question here - the name(s) for what you feel. If you notice cravings for different stimuli waxing and waning in different ways, it's just not parsimonious to say that something is more pleasureable if consuming it causes craving to stop than if it doesn't.
I can attest to the power of having useful concepts here: if you apply them, you can make yourself stop craving so hard, and stop feeling so bad about not fulfilling cravings. (the Buddha talks about this)
I'm not sure I would lump all videogames into the unsatisfying but addictive category, any more than I'd lump all food, or all books. There definitely are some addictive ones, but I'd say not all. I can think of a lot that I found very satisfying.
The “addicting” video games are online multiplayer games, in which there are infinite rounds of play but no overarching end or final accomplishment
For TV there are serials, which repeatedly go through story acts 1-3 every episode but deprive the viewer of denouement, inducing the desire to tune in next episode
It’s hard for books to do that and still be enjoyable because they’re bound by the covers. But online writing (fanfics, newsletters, twitter) sometimes does it
Another aspect could be it is close enough to the desired stimulus it's trying to "hack" to make you think you will get closer to the actual satisfaction of having it. Coke Zero tastes sweet but doesn't give me the same hit sugar does. You want to feel accomplished and so accomplish things in a game. You want intimacy and so get a simulacrum of it from porn. These things trigger the same pattern recognizers that compel you towards them as the originals but then don't move the needle up in terms of what you're actually trying to get. Holding a carrot out in front of a donkey you're riding.
Feb 29·edited Feb 29Liked by sympathetic opposition
> Pleasure is satisfying, and satisfaction makes you stop.
This post resonates. I'm thinking about something like alcohol. Why am I able to have one drink in the evening and experience it as satisfying, while others with an addiction, don't know when to stop?
Because for the years I've been kind of slowly starting to notice this & read things that make me look at things this way, getting in the habit of paying attention to this distinction has made my life much easier. I think most people are a lot unhappier than I am about like especially food & exercise. You don't know me obviously so this is not particularly good evidence for you, sorry
This seems true and important, but fits awkwardly into the framework of “pleasure” as an unexplained, pure preference. Neoclassical economics and game theory need an idea of pure consumer preferences, distinct from the inputs to production, in order to model rational agents as engaging in production for the sake of consumption as though these were different and fundamentally unconnected activities. The sort of facts you are drawing attention to here are unexplained coincidences according to that dualistic model.
On the other hand, when I think of myself monistically as a system engaged in self-reproduction through, among other things, eating and sex, it makes sense that my pleasure in those things would be both strongest and most satiable when they’re best suited to helping me increase my capacities, and most deranged, confusing, and addictive when the sensation makes false promises, like glutamate in doritos far out of proportion to their overall protein content, or images implying new sexual opportunity with no possible followup at all. Or when I confuse thirst for hunger and keep eating salty pretzels.
I’ve had a few not-fully-explained episodes of (healthy-seeming) weight loss in my life coinciding with various changes in lifestyle, followed by a gradual drift upwards. Recently I started tracking my nutrition in the Cronometer app and focusing on micronutrient adequacy, rather than limiting anything, and for the first time in my life I’m experiencing nonmysterious, intelligible weight loss, as I’m just not interested in eating once my vitamin, mineral, and protein needs are met.
So I think it makes the most sense to talk about pleasure as either being about something, or an integral part of a system that is about something, outside of its own sensations.
Wouldn't this imply that given steak, you'd instantly forget about Doritos and similar with porn vs. sex? The consensus seems to be that the hyperstimuli make you enjoy the "real thing" less
Feb 26·edited Feb 26Liked by sympathetic opposition
Except this article is noting the problem with the "supernormal stimulus" framing - that these stimulus invite craving because they are less-than rather than more-than what is actually wanted - that I think is useful.
I recently read that peole tend to lose weight on holiday despite typically not watching what they eat (often the opposite). Does the novelty and challenge of a new environment provide the payoff that allows the satiation function to work properly, whereas lying in front of the TV with a bowl of chips doesn't?
it’s true the trade off of form and content favors the former for an appearance of excellence that lacks actual quality. in the case of sexual selection, it means an animal has to ride the line between great effort to appear superlative before they risk being eaten by predators for their trouble. unlike market forces, there are checks and balances to keep superstimulus from becoming toxic
the novelty of holidays seems comparable. there has to be some self consciousness of what’s at stake for behaving at extremes for them to really pay off. which suggests superstimulus isn’t a vice in itself but allows for runaway feedback to the lowest common denominator of not kept in check. and that check is what is currently missing
> I feel like the stuff that gets called a hyperstimulus is at least equally characterized by missing something as it is by having too much of something.
yeah, good post.
i think the psychoanalytical tradition would serve well here. current discourse around hyperstimulus assume that desire "seeks its own cessation" and that people like, actually want satisfaction from the real instead of stimulus from the image (eg. good sex instead of more porn). but obviously cravings for porn and sex are quite different; people find pleasure in the fantasy of the fantasy.
curious if this vibes w the point you're making here (i don't rly know much about psychoanalysis) but i feel like hyperstimuli can be appealing to someone who is stuck in a sort of numb anhedonic state of not desiring anything, because it *makes* you want something. you can just start eating a bag of doritos and induces a craving, which can feel more pleasurable than not craving anything at all, even if it can't be satisfied
yeah i back this
>> To the degree that satisfaction makes you stop, unsatisfying things will succeed in the market better than satisfying things, specifically because they’re unsatisfying.
Would expect there to be some equilibrium with:
Goods and services that underdeliver on long-term satisfaction will reach market saturation will not be subject to repeat purchases.
Can partition the market into:
* Consumers who have first encounter good/service and not yet realized it delivers little long-term satisfaction
* Consumers who have realized it delivers little long-term satisfaction.
* Consumers with addictive/compulsive tendencies who consume despite no long-term satisfaction.
The latter are often what is called "whales" in a product category....the 4% of drinkers who consume 80% of alcohol, 4% of fast-food consumers who consume 80% of fast-food, 4% of gamblers who gamble 80% of money.
This is a very useful insight but you can't simply redefine words like 'pleasure' - this will actually cause more confusion. It's enough to stop at "non-hyperstimuli are pleasurable at one point and then stop being pleasureable at some later point, whereas hyperstimuli don't stop being pleasureable until a much later point if at all" - the concept of satiation is enough.
That said, again it's very valuable to think about the difference between 'bad' cravings, like what are usually called hyperstimuli - porn, junk food etc - and 'good' cravings that are very strong until they are sated. Water can have extreme attraction for the thirsty.
it doesnt feel like a redefinition to me, this is expressing my sense of my own physical experience, maybe it's different for other people
You don't have a physical experience of a concept, and the concept is what's in question here - the name(s) for what you feel. If you notice cravings for different stimuli waxing and waning in different ways, it's just not parsimonious to say that something is more pleasureable if consuming it causes craving to stop than if it doesn't.
I can attest to the power of having useful concepts here: if you apply them, you can make yourself stop craving so hard, and stop feeling so bad about not fulfilling cravings. (the Buddha talks about this)
I'm not sure I would lump all videogames into the unsatisfying but addictive category, any more than I'd lump all food, or all books. There definitely are some addictive ones, but I'd say not all. I can think of a lot that I found very satisfying.
The “addicting” video games are online multiplayer games, in which there are infinite rounds of play but no overarching end or final accomplishment
For TV there are serials, which repeatedly go through story acts 1-3 every episode but deprive the viewer of denouement, inducing the desire to tune in next episode
It’s hard for books to do that and still be enjoyable because they’re bound by the covers. But online writing (fanfics, newsletters, twitter) sometimes does it
Lovely essay
Based and Bennett-pilled. Perhaps the Mormons are onto something.
https://extradeadjcb.substack.com/p/9-evils-and-designs
Another aspect could be it is close enough to the desired stimulus it's trying to "hack" to make you think you will get closer to the actual satisfaction of having it. Coke Zero tastes sweet but doesn't give me the same hit sugar does. You want to feel accomplished and so accomplish things in a game. You want intimacy and so get a simulacrum of it from porn. These things trigger the same pattern recognizers that compel you towards them as the originals but then don't move the needle up in terms of what you're actually trying to get. Holding a carrot out in front of a donkey you're riding.
> Pleasure is satisfying, and satisfaction makes you stop.
This post resonates. I'm thinking about something like alcohol. Why am I able to have one drink in the evening and experience it as satisfying, while others with an addiction, don't know when to stop?
I share some of that scepticism. What would give you the sense that this was a more useful framing? I'm particularly thinking about therapeutically.
Because for the years I've been kind of slowly starting to notice this & read things that make me look at things this way, getting in the habit of paying attention to this distinction has made my life much easier. I think most people are a lot unhappier than I am about like especially food & exercise. You don't know me obviously so this is not particularly good evidence for you, sorry
No worries, I appreciate the article.
This seems true and important, but fits awkwardly into the framework of “pleasure” as an unexplained, pure preference. Neoclassical economics and game theory need an idea of pure consumer preferences, distinct from the inputs to production, in order to model rational agents as engaging in production for the sake of consumption as though these were different and fundamentally unconnected activities. The sort of facts you are drawing attention to here are unexplained coincidences according to that dualistic model.
On the other hand, when I think of myself monistically as a system engaged in self-reproduction through, among other things, eating and sex, it makes sense that my pleasure in those things would be both strongest and most satiable when they’re best suited to helping me increase my capacities, and most deranged, confusing, and addictive when the sensation makes false promises, like glutamate in doritos far out of proportion to their overall protein content, or images implying new sexual opportunity with no possible followup at all. Or when I confuse thirst for hunger and keep eating salty pretzels.
I’ve had a few not-fully-explained episodes of (healthy-seeming) weight loss in my life coinciding with various changes in lifestyle, followed by a gradual drift upwards. Recently I started tracking my nutrition in the Cronometer app and focusing on micronutrient adequacy, rather than limiting anything, and for the first time in my life I’m experiencing nonmysterious, intelligible weight loss, as I’m just not interested in eating once my vitamin, mineral, and protein needs are met.
So I think it makes the most sense to talk about pleasure as either being about something, or an integral part of a system that is about something, outside of its own sensations.
Wouldn't this imply that given steak, you'd instantly forget about Doritos and similar with porn vs. sex? The consensus seems to be that the hyperstimuli make you enjoy the "real thing" less
do you not??
Hmm, nice argument. Gonna start looking out for this distinction. Surprised I haven't heard it before.
Not sure this is true in a way that isn't begging the question?
Is it really the case that wanting ceases with positive affective states? Or that positive affect occurs upon satiation?
I’m so excited about this post, I’m sharing it instantly with my partner, who will very likely vibe with it as much as I do. I love your writing.
Really enjoyed this framing. Any good research on this that you know of?
been burnt by the replication crisis too many times to trust psych research like that
I guess. But if not there, where?
the wiki on this concept offers some directions for further reading. Deirdre Barrett’s book on it is a good primer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus
Except this article is noting the problem with the "supernormal stimulus" framing - that these stimulus invite craving because they are less-than rather than more-than what is actually wanted - that I think is useful.
I recently read that peole tend to lose weight on holiday despite typically not watching what they eat (often the opposite). Does the novelty and challenge of a new environment provide the payoff that allows the satiation function to work properly, whereas lying in front of the TV with a bowl of chips doesn't?
it’s true the trade off of form and content favors the former for an appearance of excellence that lacks actual quality. in the case of sexual selection, it means an animal has to ride the line between great effort to appear superlative before they risk being eaten by predators for their trouble. unlike market forces, there are checks and balances to keep superstimulus from becoming toxic
the novelty of holidays seems comparable. there has to be some self consciousness of what’s at stake for behaving at extremes for them to really pay off. which suggests superstimulus isn’t a vice in itself but allows for runaway feedback to the lowest common denominator of not kept in check. and that check is what is currently missing
I tell ya I really expected something different from that first footnote