Health Journal Online

Tag: Appetites

  • You’re Not Lonely, You’re Just Untargeted: How Algorithmic Sociability is Screwing up our Social Appetites – a thought piece about the potentially negative impacts of social platforms’ targeted advertising on the way we interact with and prioritize human connections.

    You’re Not Lonely, You’re Just Untargeted: How Algorithmic Sociability is Screwing up our Social Appetites – a thought piece about the potentially negative impacts of social platforms’ targeted advertising on the way we interact with and prioritize human connections.

    Introduction

    In the era of social media, it’s easier than ever to connect with others and build relationships. However, beneath the surface of likes, comments, and shares, a more sinister force is at play. Algorithmic sociability, driven by targeted advertising, is manipulating our social appetites and changing the way we interact with each other. In this article, we’ll explore the potentially negative impacts of social platforms’ targeted advertising on human connections and why you’re not lonely, you’re just untargeted.

    The Rise of Algorithmic Sociability

    Social media platforms have become an integral part of our daily lives. We use them to stay connected with friends and family, share our experiences, and discover new content. However, these platforms are not just neutral spaces for social interaction. They are designed to maximize engagement and advertising revenue, using sophisticated algorithms to target specific audiences with tailored content and ads. This is known as algorithmic sociability.

    Algorithmic sociability uses data and machine learning to analyze our online behavior, preferences, and interests. This information is then used to create personalized feeds, recommending content and ads that are likely to engage us. The goal is to keep us hooked, increasing the time we spend on the platform and the likelihood of clicking on ads. However, this targeted approach has a dark side.

    The Homogenization of Human Experience

    Algorithmic sociability creates a bubble of sameness, where we are only exposed to content and people that reflect our existing interests and views. This homogenization of human experience has several negative consequences. Firstly, it reinforces our existing biases and prejudices, making it more difficult to engage with opposing viewpoints and foster empathy. Secondly, it limits our exposure to new ideas, experiences, and perspectives, stifling personal growth and creativity.

    Moreover, the algorithm’s focus on engagement and advertising revenue leads to the amplification of sensational and provocative content. This creates a culture of outrage and polarization, where people are more likely to interact with content that confirms their biases rather than challenging them. The result is a fragmented and divisive online environment, where meaningful conversations and connections are increasingly difficult to establish.

    The Commodification of Human Connections

    Social media platforms have turned human connections into a commodity, using our relationships and interactions as a means to generate advertising revenue. This commodification of human connections has significant consequences for our mental and emotional well-being. When we are reduced to data points and advertising targets, our sense of self-worth and identity becomes tied to our online presence.

    The pressure to present a curated online persona, complete with a highlight reel of achievements and experiences, creates unrealistic expectations and promotes consumerism. We begin to measure our self-worth by the number of likes, comments, and followers we have, rather than the quality of our relationships and experiences. This can lead to feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, and loneliness, even when we are surrounded by people.

    The Illusion of Connection

    Social media platforms create an illusion of connection, making us believe that we are part of a larger community or network. However, this sense of connection is often superficial and lacks depth. We may have hundreds or thousands of online “friends,” but how many of these relationships are truly meaningful and fulfilling?

    The algorithm’s focus on engagement and advertising revenue prioritizes quantity over quality, encouraging us to collect followers and likes rather than nurturing meaningful relationships. This can lead to a sense of disconnection and isolation, even when we are actively engaging with others online. We may feel like we are part of a community, but in reality, we are just a collection of individual users, each interacting with our own personalized feed.

    The Loss of Serendipity and Discovery

    Algorithmic sociability also leads to the loss of serendipity and discovery, as our online experiences become increasingly predictable and tailored to our existing interests. We are no longer exposed to new ideas, experiences, and perspectives, as the algorithm filters out content that is unlikely to engage us.

    This homogenization of online experience stifles creativity, innovation, and personal growth. We are less likely to stumble upon new authors, artists, or musicians, as the algorithm prioritizes content that is already popular or trending. The result is a cultural landscape that is increasingly stagnant and predictable, lacking the diversity and richness that comes from unexpected discoveries and encounters.

    The Impact on Mental Health

    The negative impacts of algorithmic sociability on mental health are well-documented. The constant stream of curated and manipulated content can create unrealistic expectations and promote consumerism, leading to feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, and anxiety.

    The pressure to present a perfect online persona can also lead to burnout and exhaustion, as we struggle to maintain a facade of happiness and success. Moreover, the lack of meaningful connections and the illusion of community can exacerbate feelings of loneliness and isolation, even when we are surrounded by people.

    Breaking Free from Algorithmic Sociability

    So, how can we break free from the constraints of algorithmic sociability and cultivate more meaningful human connections? Firstly, we need to recognize the ways in which social media platforms are manipulating our social appetites and priorities. By understanding the algorithms that drive these platforms, we can begin to resist their influence and seek out more diverse and authentic online experiences.

    Secondly, we need to prioritize quality over quantity, focusing on nurturing meaningful relationships and connections rather than collecting followers and likes. This may involve taking breaks from social media, engaging in offline activities, and seeking out new experiences and perspectives.

    Finally, we need to demand more from social media platforms, advocating for algorithmic transparency and accountability. By promoting diversity, inclusivity, and creativity, we can create a more vibrant and dynamic online environment, one that values human connections and community over advertising revenue and engagement.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, algorithmic sociability is screwing up our social appetites, manipulating our priorities and interactions in ways that are detrimental to our mental and emotional well-being. By recognizing the negative impacts of targeted advertising and the homogenization of human experience, we can begin to break free from the constraints of social media platforms and cultivate more meaningful human connections.

    It’s time to take back control of our social lives, prioritizing quality over quantity and seeking out diverse and authentic online experiences. By doing so, we can create a more vibrant and dynamic online environment, one that values human connections and community over advertising revenue and engagement. Remember, you’re not lonely, you’re just untargeted.

    FAQs

    Q: What is algorithmic sociability?
    A: Algorithmic sociability refers to the use of algorithms and data to analyze and manipulate human behavior, particularly in the context of social media platforms.

    Q: How does algorithmic sociability affect human connections?
    A: Algorithmic sociability can lead to the homogenization of human experience, limiting our exposure to new ideas and perspectives, and creating a culture of outrage and polarization.

    Q: What are the negative impacts of targeted advertising on mental health?
    A: Targeted advertising can create unrealistic expectations, promote consumerism, and lead to feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, and anxiety.

    Q: How can we break free from algorithmic sociability?
    A: We can break free from algorithmic sociability by recognizing its influence, prioritizing quality over quantity, and seeking out diverse and authentic online experiences.

    Q: What can social media platforms do to promote more meaningful human connections?
    A: Social media platforms can promote algorithmic transparency and accountability, prioritize diversity and inclusivity, and create features that encourage meaningful interactions and community-building.

  • Hijacking Our Appetites 

    Hijacking Our Appetites 

    I debunk the myth of protein as the most satiating macronutrient.

    The importance of satiety is underscored by a rare genetic condition known as Prader-Willi syndrome. Children with the disorder are born with impaired signaling between their digestive system and their brain, so they don’t know when they’re full. “Because no sensation of satiety tells them to stop eating or alerts their body to throw up, they can accidentally consume enough in a single binge to fatally rupture their stomach.” Without satiety, food can be “a death sentence.”

    Protein is often described as the most satiating macronutrient. People tend to report feeling fuller after eating a protein-rich meal, compared to a carbohydrate- or fat-rich one. The question is: Does that feeling of fullness last? From a weight-loss standpoint, satiety ratings only matter if they end up cutting down on subsequent calorie intake, and even a review funded by the meat, dairy, and egg industries acknowledges that this does not seem to be the case for protein. Hours later, protein consumed earlier doesn’t tend to end up cutting calories later on.

    Fiber-rich foods, on the other hand, can suppress appetite and reduce subsequent meal intake more than ten hours after consumption—even the next day—because their site of action is 20 feet down in the lower intestine. Remember the ileal brake from my Evidence-Based Weight Loss lecture? When researchers secretly infused nutrients into the end of the small intestine, study participants spontaneously ate as many as hundreds fewer calories at a meal. Our brain gets the signal that we are full, from head to tail.

    We were built for gluttony. “It is a wonderful instinct, developed over millions of years, for times of scarcity.” Stumbling across a rare bounty, those who could fill themselves the most to build up the greatest reserves would be more likely to pass along their genes. So, we are hard-wired not just to eat until our stomach is full, but until our entire digestive tract is occupied. Only when our brain senses food all the way down at the end does our appetite fully dial down.

    Fiber-depleted foods get rapidly absorbed early on, though, so much of it never makes it down to the lower gut. As such, if our diet is low in fiber, no wonder we’re constantly hungry and overeating; our brain keeps waiting for the food that never arrives. That’s why people who even undergo stomach-stapling surgeries that leave them with a tiny two-tablespoon-sized stomach pouch can still eat enough to regain most of the weight they initially lost. Without sufficient fiber, transporting nutrients down our digestive tract, we may never be fully satiated. But, as I described in my last video, one of the most successful experimental weight-loss interventions ever reported in the medical literature involved no fiber at all, as you can see here and at 2:47 in my video Foods Designed to Hijack Our Appetites.

    At first glance, it might seem obvious that removing the pleasurable aspects of eating would cause people to eat less, but remember, that’s not what happened. The lean participants continued to eat the same amount, taking in thousands of calories a day of the bland goop. Only those who were obese went from eating thousands of calories a day down to hundreds, as shown below and at 3:22 in my video. And, again, this happened inadvertently without them apparently even feeling a difference. Only after eating was disconnected from the reward was the body able to start rapidly reining in the weight.

    We appear to have two separate appetite control systems: “the homeostatic and hedonic pathways.” The homeostatic pathway maintains our calorie balance by making us hungry when energy reserves are low and abolishes our appetite when energy reserves are high. “In contrast, hedonic or reward-based regulation can override the homeostatic pathway” in the face of highly palatable foods. This makes total sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In the rare situations in our ancestral history when we’d stumble across some calorie-dense food, like a cache of unguarded honey, it would make sense for our hedonic drive to jump into the driver’s seat to consume the scarce commodity. Even if we didn’t need the extra calories at the time, our body wouldn’t want us to pass up that rare opportunity. Such opportunities aren’t so rare anymore, though. With sugary, fatty foods around every corner, our hedonic drive may end up in perpetual control, overwhelming the intuitive wisdom of our bodies.

    So, what’s the answer? Never eat really tasty food? No, but it may help to recognize the effects hyperpalatable foods can have on hijacking our appetites and undermining our body’s better judgment.

    Ironically, some researchers have suggested a counterbalancing evolutionary strategy for combating the lure of artificially concentrated calories. Just as pleasure can overrule our appetite regulation, so can pain. “Conditioned food aversions” are when we avoid foods that made us sick in the past. That may just seem like common sense, but it is actually a deep-seated evolutionary drive that can defy rationality. Even if we know for a fact a particular food was not the cause of an episode of nausea and vomiting, our body can inextricably tie the two together. This happens, for example, with cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Consoling themselves with a favorite treat before treatment can lead to an aversion to their favorite food if their body tries to connect the dots. That’s why oncologists may advise the “scapegoat strategy” of only eating foods before treatment that you are okay with, never wanting to eat again.

    Researchers have experimented with inducing food aversions by having people taste something before spinning them in a rotating chair to cause motion sickness. Eureka! A group of psychologists suggested: “A possible strategy for encouraging people to eat less unhealthy food is to make them sick of the food, by making them sick from the food.” What about using disgust to promote eating more healthfully? Children as young as two-and-a-half years old will throw out a piece of previously preferred candy scooped out of the bottom of a clean toilet.

    Thankfully, there’s a way to exploit our instinctual drives without resorting to revulsion, aversion, or bland food, which we’ll explore next.



    Source link