> 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.
>> 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.
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.
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?
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
> 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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
I tell ya I really expected something different from that first footnote