The Personality Traits That Put You At Risk For Smartphone Addiction (washingtonpost.com) 73
Zorro shares a report from The Washington Post: When the Trump-affiliated firm Cambridge Analytica obtained data on tens of millions of Facebook users, it used the "Big 5" or "Five Factor Model" personality test to target them with ads designed to influence their votes in the 2016 election. The test scores people on five traits -- openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism -- and was used in the election to predict the way a voter would respond to an advertisement. But the Big 5 can predict a lot more -- including how likely you are to even use Facebook or any other social media (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source).
That's because the way you score on the test can tell you how likely you are to become addicted to your screen. Research shows that people who score high on neuroticism, low on conscientiousness, and low on agreeableness are more likely to become addicted to social media, video games, instant messaging, or other online stimuli. Studies have also found that extraverts are more likely to become addicted to cellphone use than introverts. Some of the correlations make sense. Less agreeable people may be more apt to immerse themselves in technology because it does not require the kind of friendly interactions that real life does. Neurotic people have been shown to spend more time online because it validates their desire to belong or be part of a group. Conscientious people are less impulsive and therefore more able to control and organize their time. But then it gets complicated. Because according to a new study out of the State University of New York at Binghamton, specific combinations of those personality traits can mitigate or exaggerate one's propensity to addiction.
That's because the way you score on the test can tell you how likely you are to become addicted to your screen. Research shows that people who score high on neuroticism, low on conscientiousness, and low on agreeableness are more likely to become addicted to social media, video games, instant messaging, or other online stimuli. Studies have also found that extraverts are more likely to become addicted to cellphone use than introverts. Some of the correlations make sense. Less agreeable people may be more apt to immerse themselves in technology because it does not require the kind of friendly interactions that real life does. Neurotic people have been shown to spend more time online because it validates their desire to belong or be part of a group. Conscientious people are less impulsive and therefore more able to control and organize their time. But then it gets complicated. Because according to a new study out of the State University of New York at Binghamton, specific combinations of those personality traits can mitigate or exaggerate one's propensity to addiction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more like - people with good or bad traits saw Hillary for what she really was and voted for the lesser of two evils.
The years-long interrogations and insinuations by Republicans -- resulting in no actionable charges of any wrongdoing -- that Hillary was corrupt and evil didn't help peoples' perceptions of her. And *regardless* of how one might think about that and her, objectively she was -- by far -- the more qualified candidate for the office of President. Trump has pulled a lot of shady stuff during his business career and I would wager that Trump has told more lies during his candidacy and time as President than Hil
Re: (Score:1)
The years-long interrogations and insinuations by Republicans -- resulting in no actionable charges of any wrongdoing
That's the party line from the D side of the aisle, you know that, right? Think for yourself, don't parrot things you heard.
objectively she was -- by far -- the more qualified candidate for the office of President
When she was in office as secretary of state, she started the Libya war. Also she ran it poorly. She also did some good things, traveling the world building goodwill, but starting a war is a huge negative.
and I don't know if he's really the "lesser of two evils"
No kidding, that's because you supported the other person.
Re: (Score:3)
The years-long interrogations and insinuations by Republicans -- resulting in no actionable charges of any wrongdoing
That's the party line from the D side of the aisle, you know that, right? Think for yourself, don't parrot things you heard.
Um, no. It's an objective fact, not hearsay, ding-dong. Contrary to the chants of "Lock her up", she has never been charged or convicted of anything. The whole point of the years-long smear campaign by the Republicans was to tarnish her so badly so as to prevent her from becoming President. Worked pretty well too.
Stop watching Fox News and reading Breitbart and think for *yourself*.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody forced the Clinton crew to bankrupt the Democratic Party, cheat their voters and criminally spike the primaries to keep Bernie Sanders out. Not to mention a corrupt legal system is all that kept the Clinton's out of prison and that was on full public show. Don't brag about not getting convicted in the US, insiders do it all the time with out any problem what so ever, regardless of the crime. Torture, no conviction and everyone knows. Start an illegal war no WMDs and everyone knows. False flags in Syr
Re: This Just In (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For that alone she should have been charged with 100+ counts of negligent mishandling of classified information. I would posit that intentional mishandling would be more appropriate but at a minimum she should have faced charges for negligence. When Dir Comey had his press conference in July of 2012 (just days after the infamous Arizona Tarmac meeting between his Boss Lynch and Bill Cli
Re: (Score:3)
A Democrat Administration refused to investigate Hillary until being embarrassed into it and even then doing everything they can to give her a pass.
Comey had to go out of his way and apparently had to violate FBI procedures to keep from labeling her actions regarding emails as criminal.
Not to mention failed attempts at a clandestine meeting between the fucking AG and Bill Clinton.
If someone had been appointed to investigate Hillary in the same way that Lavrentiy Beria Mueller Trump, she'd probably be on De
Re: (Score:2)
Neither has Trump, but how many like you are watching CNN and reading HuffPost and saying Lock up Trump! Treason! Russia! Impeachment!
Hillary supporters are every bit as bad as trump supporters with their ill wishes and jumping to conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a frequent claim by her supporters. And, on the surface, she does have a fairly impressive pedigree. Professional career as a lawyer, wife of a governor and President, US Senator, and Secretary of State. And if were just going on the jobs she's had, she would be a shoe-in. But only if you refrain from looking at the effectiveness and her jud
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Today's NYT Editorial Board:
There's not a word in here that couldn't have been written in 2015.
How Trump Channels the 1970s [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Stupid people voted for either one of them.
The stupidest people didn't vote at all.
Smart people voted for some other candidate, regardless of them having a chance to win.
Don't you get it? 2016 was a no-win scenario for the entire country. Trump may have technically won, but every single American citizen was a big, big loser, whether they realize it or not.
Some of them who voted for Trump are starting to realize it. They're getting addicted to opioids because o
Re: (Score:2)
Smart people voted for some other candidate, regardless of them having a chance to win.
That's every bit as stupid as not voting
Negative ads (Score:2)
The point of negative ads isn't to get people to change their vote.
Negative ads are used to discourage voters from supporting their party's candidate. Hillary was an easy target for negative ads, every time dirt was tossed her way it stuck. Plus, she never had much support outside of the DNC. Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama in 2008 stayed home in 2016 because Clinton wasn't who they wanted for President.
So, just about everybody online these days? (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's almost like smartphones were invented for people who were too stupid to use a real computer (kind of like all Apple products).
You mean all current Apple products. I have fond memories of the original Apple II, which came with a circuit diagram for the motherboard, and with a big stack of manuals that explained how to write programs in BASIC. I assume that all that printed documentation was Woz's idea--it was Jobs who wanted the computer to be a dumbed-down appliance.
Re: (Score:1)
Jobs was a big fan of the original Macintosh, which couldn't even be opened without special tools that were difficult to obtain.
I've always replaced that torx screw in the handle with a phillips of the same size any time I've acquired another dinkyscreen Mac. I have four or five of them at present. (of course, retaining the torx screw because it's part of the original equipment.)
Re: (Score:1)
I own a phone (Score:1)
When I look at others, I notice they stare at their phones like 18 hours everyday
I tried staring at my phone, and I gave up, after 5 minutes or so
Oh yes, I do have a phone
I can make calls with it
I can even send text messages with it
And that's all
I dunno why I can't stare at my phone longer
Probably there is very wrong with me
Help !!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I own a phone (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I own a phone (Score:5, Funny)
If 95% of the people "have a problem", can you really be considered normal?
Way more people are dead than alive. Perhaps the former is the "normal" state. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
James Damore was Right (Score:2, Interesting)
Progressive-left media like the Washington Post were foaming at the mouth in their attempts to discredit former Google engineer James Damore's infamous memo that made extensive reference to the Big Five Personality Traits, regarding it as discredited and junk science.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I always loved this:
https://i.redd.it/ramn68p9csdz... [i.redd.it]
So you're saying people without strong social ties (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the summary more carefully. It doesn't mention any assessment of social ties, it just talks about personality traits.
Sure, there's correlation -- someone who is disagreeable, neurotic, and irresponsible may tend to have weaker social ties. But showing that an easily measurable personality trait has predictive value has significant utility. That's really the whole point of personality psychology, isn't it? To make inferences about future behaviors from readily observable past behaviors.
addiction to media in general (Score:2)
if you pay attention to a lot of media from sports news to youtube personalities like casey neistat to pulp like BGR or Ars Technica, they live on clickbait and making enemies for you or complaints how some product is bad or some coach needs to be fired.
I don't understand people (Score:1)
If I wasn't running a business, I'd have a fucking flip phone, if that. I look around to all of these people *buried* in their phones, all the fucking time, walking up
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm on a bus or a train, is wasting time on a phone somehow worse than staring into space?
Re: (Score:2)
-- Blaise Pascal
Re: (Score:2)
I can sit quietly. But, again, why? How does it help? Who does it help?
Re: (Score:2)
"A witty saying proves nothing."
-- Voltaire
How about other addictive tendencies? (Score:1)
Let me guess: (Score:2)
Prime Traits of those at risk:
- being a fat lonely awkward average frustrated chump
- being a beautiful but nevertheless unfathomly insecure inexperienced girl/young lady living off selfies
- being latently bipolar/adhd
- being ugly
- having not discovered the joy of going outside
- being a nerd / wuss / wannabe
- not having a regular job or non-computer passion
Do I get my PhD in Psychology now?
For max irony, take this test! (Score:2)
[ Are you in danger of online addiction? Take the Big 5 test ]
So, in the middle of a story about how a company used quizzes to harvest data, we have a link to the quiz that would most help them. *sigh*
(I removed the hyperlink itself... you can go read the article if you want to click on it.)
Addicts (Score:2)
At least heroin and addicts of other opiods go somewhere to shoot up. You damn mobile addicts are shooting up ALL THE BLOODY TIME.
And if you've *ever* texted while driving, or on a date, you're a fucking addict, and need to go cold turkey, and get into rehab.
(And I have and use my flipphone, so don't think I'm a hypocrite).
Like, say, of Natalie Portman? (Score:2)
There's a similar test to see if you use the media platform Slashdot:
1. Do you masturbate chronically?
2. Do you play computer games chronically?
3. Are you over 300 lbs.?