I second this, at least in theory (rarely do I game). At this juncture in space/time, what is the "real world" that is contrasted with video games? As you stated, various forms of consumption, work, social media, in general, essentially, scripted interactions between groups of people-- family members, friends-- comprise the bulk of "real world" experience.
Can lifestyle choices be destructive? Absolutely. But most of the perceived destruction arises from the delusion that one has more time available than one actually has, and makes false promises across various domains (for example, to a family member, and a boss, and a WoW clan leader). In a sense, life is being rapidly fractalized.
At the risk of sounding cynical, most family interactions revolve around the television anyway (i.e. an average American watches approximately 5 hours of television a day). Together with an 8 hour work day, plus prep time, bathroom time, meal time, transit time, that leaves very little time for 'authentic' interaction. One could say, if you upset your family, because you play video games, or sit in front of a computer for long periods of time, it, more or less, means that you didn't watch television with them.
The tragical quotes (like some mentioned in the article), along the lines of "if I hadn't spend so much time with x, I could have spent more time with y", often arise in moments of introspection (which frequently tend toward the depressive, by the very nature of introspection, or at least by what spurred us to introspect), or during a period of grieving after the loss of a loved one that manifests as regret or as an overly-romanticized view of a fictitious past that might have been, and often the regret would have emerged regardless of what the x or y was, due to the finite and possibly Kierkegaardean nature of being a human being.
Hemingway, Sylvia Plath, Larry David, Kafka, Schubert, Heraclitus, Beckett, Beyonce, William James, Henry James, David Foster Wallace, Winona Ryder, HP Lovecraft, Mozart, Oppenheimer, Rilke, Celine, Faulkner, Baudelaire, Newton, Nietzsche, Rachmanioff, Craig Ferguson.
One of the main thrusts of the article, that incubation of ideas often occurs during divergent thinking, does not entail that one must be in a cheerful mood (in fact, one could view many forms of depression as extended periods of divergent thinking), despite the study referenced therein, which claims "People are more likely to maintain broader attention and solve problems when they’re in a positive mood." Moreover, the studies represent data on a statistical average (and probably apply largely to settings conducive to such studies, like sorting blocks, or playing Jenga in a novel way), while many historical examples of creative minds suffered prolonged periods of depression.
Finally, I wonder, how many man-hours have been wasted on clickbait?
I agree. However, your use of "algorithms", while more technically correct than the average usage, is also in the minority. The article seems to focus on the culture that lauds algorithms. In that context, the interchangability of "God" and "algorithm" converges. Here are a few remarks from that angle, supplementary to your comment.
I think the mainstream use of the term "algorithm" (or nearly any buzzword) is at the mercy of myriad competing forces seeking to impose their interpreation on the phrase. At least one of those forces is marketing, which has incentive to offer parapharsed, sugar-coated snippets of what something is. This plays on a common aspect of human nature, which is to feel more secure in a situation in which one feels confident that things are accounted for. There are remarkable similarities in what priests, scryers, prophets, and oracles once did, and what, presently, the media, marketers, investors, fans, geeks philosophically abstracting from their technical work, and advocates of theories do-- namely, a presentation of truth from a limited set of the inititated to the mass public.
While it is true that algorithms have their place, it is also true that much of what is said about "algorithms" is part aggrandization, part embellishment, part over-simplifcation by marketers, media, non-technical users, or technical users who have a divergent system of beliefs, and invest much thought and effort into a potential future which may or may not occur, and which is not directly related to their technical work (e.g. technological singularity, etc.).
It's always good to (in theory) maintain perspective on such things, and not get carried away by an over-application of a singular idea.
Can lifestyle choices be destructive? Absolutely. But most of the perceived destruction arises from the delusion that one has more time available than one actually has, and makes false promises across various domains (for example, to a family member, and a boss, and a WoW clan leader). In a sense, life is being rapidly fractalized.
At the risk of sounding cynical, most family interactions revolve around the television anyway (i.e. an average American watches approximately 5 hours of television a day). Together with an 8 hour work day, plus prep time, bathroom time, meal time, transit time, that leaves very little time for 'authentic' interaction. One could say, if you upset your family, because you play video games, or sit in front of a computer for long periods of time, it, more or less, means that you didn't watch television with them.
The tragical quotes (like some mentioned in the article), along the lines of "if I hadn't spend so much time with x, I could have spent more time with y", often arise in moments of introspection (which frequently tend toward the depressive, by the very nature of introspection, or at least by what spurred us to introspect), or during a period of grieving after the loss of a loved one that manifests as regret or as an overly-romanticized view of a fictitious past that might have been, and often the regret would have emerged regardless of what the x or y was, due to the finite and possibly Kierkegaardean nature of being a human being.