Slashdot Mirror
Hooked On The Web
MT writes "The New York Times is running an interesting article entitled Hooked On The Web: Help is on the Way. It says that internet addiction is being taken more seriously by big business and mental health workers, and affects a large population (6%-10% of all users)." From the article: "Skeptics argue that even obsessive Internet use does not exact the same toll on health or family life as conventionally recognized addictions. But, mental health professionals who support the diagnosis of Internet addiction say, a majority of obsessive users are online to further addictions to gambling or pornography or have become much more dependent on those vices because of their prevalence on the Internet. But other users have a broader dependency and spend hours online each day, surfing the Web, trading stocks, instant messaging or blogging, and a fast-rising number are becoming addicted to Internet video games."
...or did this feel like an intervention focused solely on me?
I don't look at it as an addiction, really. There are those who have an honest drive for information. My life, my job and my hobbies revolve around information. I always think about the "it:" How does it work, where did it come from, why isn't it better, who else likes it?
With new forms of information available so quickly (wikipedia, google, etc) everywhere I go, I often have information in mere moments. I can turn on my PDA phone in about 2 seconds, touch tap (with my super thumb nail) any phrase into Google for PDA, and have a response in under a minute total. Does it mean I am addicted? Not when I am able to take so much of that "useless" information and transform it into a positive: profit or social fun or who knows what? The other day I was wondering what ever happened to those crazy "bubbles" of informational tidbits on TV shows and videos and was thinking how cool it would be to integrate a device with my TV that listens to content and offers instant pop-ups from the web.
People want information. 6-10% of the people thrive on knowing weird things. Does it mean we're hooked? I'm the same kid who loved the encyclopedia as well as odd old books that no one would read. The fact that I can now integrate with billions of others simultaneously adding/revising/editing/deleting the synopses of information that exist is mindblowing. Just 15 years ago I was running a BBS with a thousand or so users and I couldn't believe that one 16 year old kid could interact with so many people in such a large area (a hundred square miles). Now I look at the e-mails I receive from my blogs from people in South Africa and Australia and even Kansas. What is the end game for me? Information.
Insert obligatory "oh my God that guy played Ghandi" Sneakers quote here. I'll let you information addicts look it up.
Yeah but at least obsessive internet users get the frist psot!!!!!!!
But the comments don't come fast enough. Gotta . . . get . . . my . . . fix.
It is a non-issue to realize that most of the modern day losses in productivity come from distracted workers using the internet for personal pleasure rather than company projects. This distraction effort splits the focus of the individual and causes a decrease in the finite amount of cognitive processing ability given to any one task. Marijuana on the other hand results in modification of the reward pathway system in the brain. So there is an actually psychochemical difference in the brain which leads to addiction. Between the two, marijuana actually modifies the brain negatively while email only distracts. I really wish these people had taken the time to realize this before putting out a sensationalist piece of work.
Check out my website: Playfully Clever
because I could stop anytime.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
How can you lump every activity that can be done online and somehow classify it as an addiction?
If I trade stocks over the phone, talk on the phone, and orde rpizza on the phone, does that mean I am addicted to the phone? How is it any different?
I think someone is just trying to drum up some business.
Translation: many more people are online nowadays, a goodly percentage of whom have addictive personalities.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Well exgf
She is hooked on Second life. She has her own business so she only needs to work 1 or 2 days out of the week. The rest of the time is playing the game. I dont mean a few hours a day. Its all day long, all night long, to the point of exhaustion and falling asleep at the keyboard. When I talked with her, on the phone, in game, chat whever, everything was about second life. There was no first life for her.
She would change her work schedule to fit around it. Quit working some days to "get things done" in second life. Her interactions with her children (late teens) is only in game. The list goes on actually.
So it can be real imo.
That's like working in a marijuana test-lab.
[sig]
pornography and gambling is one thing, instant messaging and blogging is another. one enriches your life, one destroys it. i mean, as long as you are relating to your fellow human beings socially, i don't think you can call it addiction. you can go to a pub or a dry academic conference and talk to your fellow human beings: is this addiction?
the only difference is the forum
so we need to focus on the behaviors on the internet, not the internet itself. i do not think a nonstop blogger is in the same league as a nonstop gambler. i think that the internet is still "new and different" so people are still talking about it like social activists talked about the "new phenomenon" of pool halls in the early 20th century: a dangerous and degenerate influence on young folks to drink and have sex
yes, pool halls were thought of as a grave social influence at one time. of course today, we know it's just a place to play pool. that a pool hall makes you have risky sex or take illicit drugs is just a silly idea. but when something is new, people have trouble separating the old-as-cave paintings-and-rock-carvings basic human vices, from just another new forum to engage in that
focus on the BEHAVIOR not the FORUM
one is as old as time and happens independently of any forum
the other has positive and negative behavior potential
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ever wondered why both drug addicts and internet geeks are called "users"?
[sig]
Mental Health Workers are clearly addicted to making major announcements about the deleterious effects of whatever the current fad is. Rewind to 1977: "Interstate Truckers Addicted to CB Radio pose hazard for health, family, and traffic safety".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
How many of us have been addicted (yes, and we've used that word) to the beautiful, different world in a MUD or other online multiplayer game? You say you just like to play and/or to interact with the community, but when you shut out your loved ones to play a game or to chat online, it's a problem.
Yes, as the article mentioned, people with internet addictions usually have addictive personalities (and so have other addictions like gambling or sex or food) and/or have other mental problems (depression, anxiety, etc).
If you're the loved one of such a person, realize that they can't help themselves. Don't be overbearing or guilting, just try to get that person help, and to convince that person to consent to help. You may only notic the internet addiction, but there's likely far more to it. If that person felt well enough to get help, then s/he would have already. Help your loved one.
But, they say, the Internet's omnipresent offer of escape from reality, affordability, accessibility and opportunity for anonymity can also lure otherwise healthy people into an addiction.
It's not that the Internet is becoming an escape from reality.
It's that the Internet is becoming reality.
Look around a house: There's a thing called a bookshelf. That's where all the books go. When you want to go read a book, you go to a physical space, that's entirely so that you can read.
In another corner, there's where the telephone is hooked to the wall. That's where you go to talk with people.
When you want to play games, you pull out the board game, or the Nintendo, or something.
"Oh, I feel like drawing." You pull out the pens, pencils, paper. Those too, are in a special location in the house.
For everything that you want to do, there's a place in the house.
But now, pretty much everything but the bathroom and the kitchen fits nicely, (and much more affordably,) within the computer.
So, if you hear about "Internet Addiction," just think to yourself: "World Addiction."
Does somebody have an "online gambling problem?" Just call it for what it is: a gambling problem.
Does somebody look at porn so much, that they can't get themselves to go to work? Call it a porn problem.
For whatever problem you have, and then attach the word "online" to it, just strip off that "online" word, and attack the problem.
I use my computer for online banking.
I read/send email to friends, family, and colleagues.
I buy items online.
My job includes web development, so I am constantly looking up information and building web pages and CGIs.
I find activities and events in my area using local search services.
I catch up on all my sports via sports websites.
Well, that's it... I'm an addict!
How do they control for the fact that more and more people are getting Internet access every day and those that have it are using it in more new and varied ways? Do they even really know how much time a person spends in "addictive" web use? Sure, if a guy is spending 16 hours a day downloading pr0n, then perhaps he has a problem. Same with the dude spending 45 hours straight playing World of Warcraft.
Addicition though is a heavy-handed designation. It means you're sick somehow. And frankly I see the Internet as a facilitator of current addicitions, not as an addiction in itself. If you're a gambler with a computer, you'll probably gravitate toward online casions, if you like titty bars then you'll probably like pr0n sites, etc.
As usual, people are ready to jump to conclusions without careful study. One study does not make a case. A lot more research needs to be done before anyone can make such an all-encompassing claim.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
At least internet addicts are usually at home and quiet. Mobile phone junkies are Everywhere! Yapping and yapping and driving cars through red lights and onto sidewalks. They have the same distracted, glassy eyed look as heroin addicts and are just as difficult to communicate with. They're constantly babbling crap that has nothing to do with the conversation you're trying to have with them.
That's a dangerous and often overlooked "addiction" that is causing real harm to other productive non-addicted members of society.
sed s/Internet/Television/g
Things have changed since you had to walk into a public store and purchase a mag, and not for the better. Internet porn is really an epidemic on a more quiet level, I believe. I like what J.G. Ballard had to say about pornography: "a widespread taste for pornography means that nature is alerting us to some threat of extinction."
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
mental health professionals found to have no shortage of work due to loose definition of "addiction."
In your analogy to reading, you said, "WE MUST BAN READING! Train people to STOP READING, and if they can't medicate them out of the habit. A couple doses of Thorazine mixed with Xanax will probably do the trick!"
Psychologists are not looking to ban anything, or even to prevent behavior. This is a common misconception likely forwarded as a result of sensationalist reporting and the misuse of studies by special interest groups. For example, many anti-drug crusaders have latched onto reports that marijuana can instigate schizophrenic episodes. What they don't tell you is that the studies have only shown a casual connection and even then mostly in individuals with genetic predisposition and other risk factors.
Later in your rant, you said, "There is no such thing as an obsession, unless you view it as such, or said behaviour adversely impacts the lives of others." The funny thing is that even though you thought you were disagreeing with psychologists on this point, you were actually stating (approximately) the accepted psychological definition of an addiction. From wikipedia: "Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm'; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as 'addiction'."
Finally, in your last paragraph you said, "These 'psychologists' are the same bunch of lame boneheads who write scripts for ADHD at the least sign of impatience or Social Anxiety Disorder because of simple shyness or apprehension." This is a very incorrect statement. Psychologists cannot and do not write prescriptions. They do frequently have knowledge of the effects of drugs used to treat mental health problems. A psychologist studies the mind and (sometimes) offers therapy (of the "talking" variety) to help those with mental health problems. Psychiatrists are individuals who have been trained in both psychological practices and medical pratices. Psychiatrists must complete medical school (like other doctors) before prescribing medication.
Like doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, programmers, etc., etc., psychologists and psychiatrists can act ethically and professionally, or they can act unethically and unprofessionally. Just as antibiotics were once over-prescribed for apparent bacterial infections (which could just have easily been viral infections), psychiatrists (and even many doctors) have over-diagnosed and over-treated the different forms of attention deficit disorder and depression. Does that make all psychology/psychiatry crap? Hardly. It means that the practitioners of this science are human like the practitioners of any other science.
Taft
To me much of the hype surrounding Internet addiction, as with tyhe more salacious "porn addiction" fails to ask the qone essential question; what should we do about it? Most of the people I have seen crusading against such 'new' addictions come armed with preexisting (and often horrible) 'solutions' ranging from banning such things altogether, to restricting all porn to some specified 'ports', etc.
I remain skeptical about most of these stories. While I believe that there are some people who are obsessive-compulsive enough to be addicted to the internet, porn, gambling, etc, I doubt both the numbers being thrown around ("hudreds of thousands", "6-10%", "Millions") because most of them have been based upon bad science, or no science. In order to adequately grasp how widespread something is you have to sample randomly from the general population and see how many people are affected in a real way (I.E. according to some clinical, quantitative, and unabiguously-applied metric). Then you can start to talk about rates. All of the 'studies' that I have seen up to this point consist of interviews with self-identified 'victims' combined with some anecdotal estimates or outright assumptions about rates.
That having been said this story seems to be more upfront about it than most stating that there is little hard scientific evidence on the rates, amounts, etc. It also seems to shie away from letting any one "advocate" propose the sweeping issues that past articles have.
In my opinion, Even if the problem is 10% to 50% of the population I believe that 'national mandates' such as shunting porn to specific ports is not the solution. They have never worked in the past (e.g. Prohibition, the War on Drugs, banning prostitution, etc.) The solutuion as with any addiction is individual education and care. If your life has been ruined by addiction to anything then direct individual help (with recognition from your employer, friends, etc.) is what you need and I hope you get it. A law sending you to jail or installing a timer/filter on your computer is, in my opinion, not going to help.
One U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said (paraphrase) that the function of laws to protect children cannot be to make adults act like children or to treat them that way. In my opinion, laws that treat everyone like an addict do nothing to help real addicts, they only harm everyone else.