« Trusting the foxes: Rob Eshman on the challenge of opening our hearts | Main | Field not level: Scott Martelle on NCAA and California »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Nellie Bowles, the author of the article, characterized Nir Eyal, the technological consultant, in 2 different ways from the year 2014 and present. In 2014, she characterized him as the man behind all of our addictions to technology, as if it was him to blame for all of the addictions to our devices, apps and such. She characterized him in the present quite similarly, as a person who is doing this for his own personal gain. Bowles states how he is trying to persuade people that his methods stated in his new book, “Incubator,” do in fact help with our addictiveness. His reasoning is that it is not the technology to blame, but ourselves. He also mentions that if we are to rely on technology becoming less addictive then we’ll just “suffocate ourselves”. He does have a valid point because we do live in a capitalistic environment. Therefore, businesses will do anything to make money, and we as consumers, have to decide how we are to manage the addictiveness of technology that will continue to advance. So although people may blame him for being “the drug dealer that somehow now has the cure,” it is important that we self reflect on ourselves as Eyal mentions in his book. People have to realize that we live in a society where we are the ones making choices and our choices dictate how businesses go about selling their products or services to us. So if people really do care, they would manage their time and money according to what they think is right. If they believe that their phones are the problem, they have the free choice to buy a phone that may be less addictive, and therefore can solve many of our personal issues.

Britany Mandujano

1.Eyal in 2014 wrote “Hooked: How to build habit-forming products” this book was based upon helping companies create products people would not be able to put down. This time was simpler, this was when phone apps were an exciting good idea. In 2019 Eyal came out with a new book called “Indistractable: How to control your
attention and choose your life” which was essentially a “how-to-undo” from his previous book “Hooked”. Eyals whole consensus in 2019 is based on how technology is not a problem, we are. Since Eyal has one certain viewpoint that he has concluded, it is mentioned throughout the whole article. Harris, a former Google ethicist believes that technology is “addictive and ‘hijacking’ brains”. Harris's viewpoint is how technology itself is addictive, the individual is not at fault. These differences contrast how individuals view screen addiction including who they believe is at fault. In this article, it is either believed it is our own fault or it is a technology's fault. Being addicted to technologies can be psychological but some agree technology is the main problem.

2.Freeds speculation refutes Eyal’s argument because Freeds argument is about how people who have overcome their technology addiction, showing how everyone can do so as well. These people are the ones who have advocated the whole issue of technology addiction. Bowles included Freed’s statement, “I’m sure the cigarette industry said there's just a certain number of people with a propensity for lung disease” because it provides a counterclaim of Eyal's view of technology addiction. The statement explains how addiction is not psychological but different for every person because not everyone is the same nor has the same tendencies, which is something the cigarette industry must say about people have cigarette addiction. Freed's statement also correlates to a quote Bowles references earlier in the article about how being tied to mobile phones is a “low status behavior, similar to smoking” this statement by Fogg supports Freed's statement which is why Bowles included it into the article.

3.Bowle uses near repetition in this article by mentioning how Eyal believes that technology is not the problem, the issue is us as individuals. This mentioned a couple of times in the article. The article includes how Eyal believes that people can get rid of their addiction step by step even though it takes time. The article contributes what others beliefs based on screen addiction, as well as who’s should be at fault. A couple people contradict Eyals statement because they disagree with him. In chapter 8 along with Bowles article incorporates repetition to highlight the purpose of the argument being made.

4.I tend to rely on technology often particularly when I am by myself. Eyal is relatively accurate in my case since I am anxious when alone, I feel like people in my surroundings are staring at me which makes me uncomfortable but when I look at my phone it seems like I am occupied. Whenever I am bored I reach for my phone because being alone cause my thoughts to wonder. Although throughput the years my habit of using my phone when bored, alone in public or when I can not fall asleep has decreased. Now I am more inclined to grab something to read or just look at my surroundings than just grab my phone. I found that looking at screens less has made me more content with being by myself. The descriptions in Bowles's essay moderately apply to me in 2019. In my younger years they did apply to me on a greater scale. Bowles essay includes many statements that apply to people everywhere in the 20th century chiefly because when anything funny happens there will be someone taking a video to post on social media, screen addiction is a real issue that some may not even realize they have. This essay by Bowles made me realize how much time I actually spend on technology.

Britney Rowe

Eyal in 2014 wrote “Hooked: How to build habit-forming products” this book was designed to help companies in creating products that would essentially make people addicted to certain types of apps and etc. At this point and time phones and apps on phones were new and exciting, not addictive and controlling. Somewhere in the year 2019 Eyal decided to write a new book called “Indistractable: How to control your attention and choose your life” which was basically reacting to his first book, telling people how to fix what he first created in his first book “Hooked” this would be a “how-to-undo”. Eyals morals in 2019 were based around his book that technology is not a problem, humans are. Eyals viewpoint was declared throughout the entire article. Harris, a former Google ethicist believes technology to be “addictive and ‘hijacking’ brains”. Harris’s viewpoint is that technology itself is very addictive and it is never the person's fault for being seduced. Even though Harris has a reasonable argument it contrasts how individual people view screen addiction, it even includes who people believe is at fault. In this article, it is either the technologies fault or it is not, there is no inbetween. In the end being addicted to technology can be psychological but others agree that technology is the main problem at hand.

Freed claims that Eyal’s argument is false. The reason Freed believes this is because his argument is about people who have overcome technology addiction, displaying the fact that others can do the same. These people are the ones who supported and conveyed the issue of technology addiction. Bowles included Freed's statement, “I’m sure the cigarette industry said there’s just a certain number of people with a propensity for lung disease” to provide a contradiction to Eyal, and his views on technology addiction. This quote is describing to people that addiction is not psychological but is in fact different for every person. The reason it is different is because not a single person on the planet is the same, nor have the same tendencies, which is something the cigarette industry most likely said about people with cigarette addiction. Not only that but Freed’s statement also makes the connection between the quote Bowles references earlier in the article about how bring tied to phones is a “low status behavior, similar to smoking” this quote by Fogg helps Freed’s declaration which is why Bowles includes it into his article.
Bowle uses excessive repetition in this article when he announces how Eyal believes technology is not the issue at hand, the issue is people as individuals. This was laced through the document only mentioned a few times. The article includes Eyals belief that people are able to stop their addiction by following a step by step guide. The article does not only have what Eyal says, but other people also play a huge role in the article, and it is what others believe is at fault for screen addiction. A few people contradict Eyals statement because they simply do not agree with Eyals viewpoint. A couple of times in the article it includes the repetition to emphasize the purpose of the argument being constructed.
People immediately rely on technology, especially if they are by themselves. People are anxious when they are alone making Eyals argument almost considered accurate in this case. People rely on phones when they feel uncomfortable or awkward when they are alone, once they look at their phone it eases them. The second someone is alone and bored they almost immediately use their phone, giving them entertainment and feeling less lonely. People in current time are less likely to grab something to read than grab their phone. People will find that looking less at there screen over time will allow them to be more happy with themselves. People will agree that the descriptions in Bowles’s essay somewhat apply to how people are in 2019. The younger people are, the more likely they are to agree with Bowle’s argument. His essay includes many agreeable quotes, the reason this is true is because social media is everywhere, and it only takes two seconds to take your phone out to create something. Screen addiction is not fake news, some tend to be more oblivious to it, making it harder to spot but just as real. This article makes people aware just how important technology is to society in the modern age.

Janine Dial

1. Eyal believed in getting people hooked on products in 2014 while today he believes in getting people unhooked from technology. He wrote two books: “Hooked: How to build habit-forming products” and “Indistractable: How to control your attention and choose your life.” Both have totally opposite ideas surrounding technology and technology addiction. Eyal comes to the conclusion of believing that people are responsible for their own addiction to technology.
2. Freed’s speculation refutes Eyal’s argument. Bowles included Freed’s statement of “I’m sure the cigarette industry said there's just a certain number of people with a propensity for lung disease” because it opposes Eyal’s opinions. Everyone has a different reaction to technology and uses it differently. Not everyone has an addiction to it.
3. Bowles uses repetition when she numerously quotes Nir Eyal. All his current ideas surround the idea of society being the one to blame for being addicted to technology. This repetition contributes to the meaning of Bowles argument.
4. I would say I’m addicted to my phone. On average, I have about 7 hours of screen time. I use it everywhere I go. I agree with Nir Eyal that the problem is not my phone, it’s me. I could choose to use it less, my phone doesn’t force me to use it.

Avery Leusch

1. In 2014, Eyal believed that technology was the problem, while today he believes people are the problem, not the technology. During these two time periods, he wrote two books explaining his views at the time on the topic. "Hooked" shows the addiction to technology is because of the electronic, while "Indistractable" shows that people are the issue, not technology.
2. The speculation from Freed does not coincide with Eyal's argument. Bowles includes Freed's refuting statement to show the two opinions in the argument over technology and its controversy. In reality, the effect technology plays on people and their lives are different, leaving room for speculation on what the proclaimed "problem" is.
3. The repetition used by Bowle is he quoting Nir Eyal and his ideas on technology. She continuously quotes his beliefs in an effort to demonstrate the reasoning behind Eyal change in opinion and reason for writing his second book.
4. Personally, I think I am addicted to my phone but to an extent. I can go weeks without my phone as long as I know I am in a safe, secure environment. For instance, I go to a summer camp over the summer and phones are not permitted, this encourages me to be more in touch with my surrounds rather than an electronic. I will admit to checking my phone out of lack of entertainment.

noah myers

1. The two opposing attitudes of Nir Eyal, a technology writer and consultant, are shown and evaluated by Nellie Bowles. In her article about the addiction of technology, she depicts the difference in his opinion over time by a then and now comparison. At first, in 2014, Nir Eyal was working as an app / game advertiser and was focused on getting people hooked to the product at hand. In an effort to consolidate and publish his tips and tricks he released hooked as a book informing the reader of different strategies used to tweak the psychology of customers in order to get them addicted and always coming back for more. She embodies the differences by showing his own beliefs in the different times and how she's he sees relevance in both together. She helps describe the differences between the ideas of current yeah and others by showing his first personal thoughts on the matter including how technology itself isn't the problem, we are. He believes that when talking about the addiction to technology self-reflection is necessary while others believe it's just a matter of self-control. others May defend that they just have an addiction and blame it on that alone when near thanks that it is more of a internal issue that cannot be fixed by the downfalls of human nature.

2. The use of the source from Freed in Bowles perspective refutes Eyal's argument in that he claims that no one is born with a certain set of traits that make them more susceptible to an addiction to technology. The other reference to smoking mentions that smoking is viewed as a low class action in regards to how the overuse of technology will be viewed the same way.

3. First, the third paragraph shows near repetition as a connecting device using a quote from Eyal showing an example of a concept discussed in the book, variable rewards, to tie into how the book succeeded because of its profound knowledge about consumer psychology. Second, the seventh paragraph is another example of this sort of joint connection writing which helps the article flow into the discussions of his new book,"Undistractable". Finally, the subject changing connecting paragraph is also used in the tenth paragraph to switch into Nir Eyal's contradicting beliefs about technology in that we are the problem instead of the very devices we get addicted to.

4. I personally don't use my phone as much as the average user my age. The opportunities of use are heavily restricted by school policies which I personally don't mind, but have proven controversial across our student body. I must admit that I do use my phone in times of certain social tension as a shield if I need it, and I've found that hiding in my personal bubble can fully isolate myself from any uncomfortable situation I want to get out of. With that also the resorting to it for comfort takes away any human error in certain relationships by the natural shift of your attention to other things admist the overload of media I have come to hate and wish to improve on not relying on it in the future.

Taylor Mills

1. Bowles characterizes the difference between Eyal in 2014 and Eyal now as she describes how he got successful, by writing a book about how to entrap the minds of the general public, and then showing what he has decided to do with his success, by describing how he has put his entire career on the line in order to show something he believes. She shows that while others tend to believe that technology is a plague, an addiction we cannot control, Eyal tells that it is something we have to do ourselves and cannot wait around for more powerful people to believe something is wrong.

2. Freed's analogy supports Eyal's argument as Eyal believes that we all have control over what we decide to turn our attention to but we have decided that it wasn't our choice at all that had done so but rather what we were predetermined to do, showing how companies can spin information to make us believe that we are simply doing our best and it is not within our power to change.

3. It is currently almost 11 o'clock at night and I am having a hard time distinguishing what makes any of this important. Bowles's article shows how other people think a then compares it to the way Eyal thinks, after opening with a more objectively point of view on the subject.

4. I have begun to use my phone less and less over the past few months, starting by deleting all social media then slowly purging all of the things I do not need, but yet I still find myself reaching for my phone when I feel as though I could be judged in any situation, I stare at my blank screen and attempt to find a small mistake where I may have forgotten to delete something that could almost manage to distract me from the having to look inwardly and deem myself worthy of someone's attention, I only manage to partially sud due the constant thought that I will never be good enough.


I understand the article a hundred percent because it's no one's fault why we as humans tend to get hooked to our phones. Maybe there something about the screen programming that amazes the brain to make us pick up our phone and look at for hours and hours. Of distraction and a brief pause in our life to look at Facebook, Instagram, games, and enticing ads that keeps drawing us back and back like there a drug dealing selling us drugs virtually. Reprogramming the brain to focus on your mobile device then actually life if it's dealing with family having a firm communicating or not procrastinating on obstacles that we have to handle on a daily day basis. Not having that self-control of monitoring yourself and just getting lost in your phone can get you hooked trying to be this person for social-media that your not because you're having a lonely perception of life.
How social-media winning at this moment try to reprogram people to be who their not because they are so hooked to their phone. You can hardly talk to people nowadays if you go out to get someone taking pictures or their food for Instagram. Sometimes we need to unhook for our phones and realize what we are missing has humans. After I read this article, I observe myself and need to reprogram my mind to do more things like read, write, play chess, and enjoy life try to unhook from the phone and be myself.


I was very interested in reading the Nellie Bowles article, “Addicted to Screen? That’s Really a You Problem. " It was very interesting how the author described and showed how Nir Eyal, who is the author of the book “Hooked” and “indistractable”, changed his mind about technologies and their dependencies. If in the beginning he thought that technology is the cause of addiction then later, he realized that the problem is not in technology but in people and their solutions. Sometimes it seems to me that in our time if you pick up a phone from a person, he will begin a big breakup. After reading this article, I particularly analyzed myself and how often I take my phone. The results surprised me very much because I was sure that I had no addiction. Every morning, when I just opened my eyes, I immediately pick up my phone and check my social networks. I really realized that the problem is in me. In what priorities I set for myself and what I try to run away from and hide in my phone. I really liked how Nir Eyal gave a little advice. The essence of which is that we can buy a less advanced and sophisticated phone and see how often we will spend our time on the phone. Indeed, we ourselves dictate what companies should sell, because if there is a big demand then there is a big import. I always liked the phrase when they say, everything is good and everything is useful if it is in moderation. Indeed, from the very beginning the phone was created to make calls and to be in touch, but over time this unique technology has become not only useful, but to some extent also harming, but not without the influence of the people themselves. After all, only we ourselves are responsible for our life and our pastime. No one can force us to do what we don’t like or how we ourselves decide what we like and what not.
No one will think about our health, our time except ourselves, and only for we decide how expensive our time is for us.


During these times a large majority of people are spending hours on hours on their phone and this is usually daily which made Nir Eyal wonder if the fault is towards the developer or the person. At the beginning of the article “Addicted to Screen? That’s Really a You Problem." written by Nir Eyal, he said that technology was the cause for the people's addiction towards their electronics but later Eyal changed his views and said that he believes that technology is not the problem, the issue is us as individuals. Eyal wrote “Hooked: How to build habit-forming products” in 2014 which was based on helping companies create an app that made people not want to put down their phones. Remember that the book was published in 2014 which was before people said that phones were an additive and controlling device which seemed like a great idea. In late 2019, Eyal then published "Indistractable: How to control your attention and choose your life" which told people how to fix their addiction problem. Both of the books had the opposite idea surrounding technology addiction. Eyal then concludes believing that people are responsible for their addiction to technology. The viewpoint that Eyal had in 2019 was mainly based on how technology isn't the problem, humans are. Eyals viewpoint was shown numerous amounts of times throughout the article. Tristan Harris, a former Google in-house ethicist, believes that technology was“addictive and ‘hijacking’ brains” which made him believe that technology itself is very addictive and it isn't the person's fault. Although I do agree with Harris, this argument just shows how individuals view screen addiction. While many believe that it is the person's fault others blame it on the technology or even the developers of the app.

Kadence Kenyon

In "Addicted to Screen? That's Really a You Problem." by Nellie Bowles, the author talks about Nir Eyal and how he change his opinion on who's really at fault for screen addiction. In Eyal's first book, "Hooked", Eyal claims that the companies are responsible for making people addicted to apps. He even goes on to list many ways that these companies hook people. However, in Eyal's second book, "Indistractable", he explain that it's really the user's fault for being addicted. Eyal claims that users are trying to distract themselves and that "...many times we look at phones because we are anxious and bad at being alone - and that's not the phone's fault." Eyal claims that the solution must come from the users and that it involves self-reflection to see why the users are distracting themselves. While I do think that for some people the issue is with themselves, I disagree with Eyal's opinion that all users are to blame. I think that companies design their apps to be addicting and that is mostly why so many people are glued to their phones.

Clara Asher

I disagree with this article. While some users are to blame, not everyone is. Companies purposely design their apps to be addictive in order to keep users coming back for more. They want people to be glued to their phones and the users just can not help themselves. While Eyal's solution could work, at least for some users, his reasoning behind blaming the users instead of the app making companies, may not be one hundred percent accurate. If the companies did not make their apps addictive, they may not be able to make as much of a profit, which is why they continue to make their users addicted their products.

keirsten dinnan

In my opinion I disagree with this article. Yes some people are to blame for the addiction to the screens or the device, but on the other hand some designers of the apps make them addictive. The designers think of it as if my apps not addictive they won't keep coming back and I wont profit what I should off the app, which is why it is addictive. While Eyal's solution is help prevent this will work I believe the reasoning behind the addictviness to the apps is wrong. For example, my parents always claim I have my nose stuck in my phone which to them may look right but to me I fell like I don't get enough time. Thats is what is wrong with todays society, kids are glued to their devices. Some kids choose to be others can't help how addictive it is to them. I personally believe kids should have a limit on how long they can be on their electronics and slowly wedge them off of them .
I mainly am on my phone when i'm bored or waiting for something. I also noticed I tend to pick up my phone when i'm nervous and alone, first day of school I didn't know anyone in class so I resorted to my phone, which is not healthy. I feel as if looking down at my phone is my "safe" place ,i check my phone about 60 times a day or more if I'm going to be honest. With this being said coming from a student myself I believe it is the designers of the apps and not the children themselves.

Lixzy Cabrera

After reading the article “Addicted to Screens? That’s really a you problem", I understood the point of view of Nir Eyal article but I disagree with the article. The author talks about the technological consultant Nir Eyal, he states in his second book “Indistractable” that it's the user fault for being addicted. He also claims that users are trying to distract themselves and that “many times we look at phone because we are anxious and bad at being alone- and that’s not the phone fault. Nir Eyal has a point we use our phone either for distractions, bored or because were alone, but in my opinion, I understand that we have in control of what we do on a daily basis but in this case no. I believe yes that some of us are addicted to our phones, but designers and developers of apps make the apps addictive. They make apps that will catch everyone's attention and will get them want to go on their phone more. They make the apps so that people have a reason to want to go on our phones and go on their apps. For example, social media apps are things we look at on a daily basis and why is that? well I believe the designers made these social apps so that everyone can go on it every day. Nowadays all we see if everyone on their phones, even little kids, they make apps for every age range and more and more people get addicted each day. I disagree with Eyal’s opinion of all users are to blame, because yes some of us are addicted to our phone and can't help to look, but others pick up their phone for the reason that is because companies make these apps that makes us be stuck to our phones.

Hailey Cutrone

4. As stated in Bowles article Addicted to Screens? That’s Really a You Problem, he accurately states that “many times we look at phones because we are anxious and bad at being alone.” I often find myself stuck in this situation especially when I am alone. I feel awkward at times because now you're just standing there in silence and the only way I feel I break up that awkward tension is by going on my phone and looking at random things. I also feel that if I'm not preoccupied by my phone, people are staring at me and judging me. In addition, I fall into the hole of when I am bored, I go on my phone just to pass the time. Just as Eyal states he found himself doing the same thing and when he tried to detox from his phone usage he found himself doing the most random things. I also agree with Eyal in that the phone itself isn't the problem but rather the user, because I know for myself I get so caught up on what I'm doing on my phone that hours and hours go by and I don't even realize it. Screen addiction is a real issue that some may not even realize they have. This essay by Bowles made me realize how much time I actually spend on technology.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan