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."

Web, a Distraction at Work

[PlayfullyClever]

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.

gf hooked for sure

[objwiz]

Well exgf

She is hooked on Second life [secondlife.com]. 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.

Re:Is it just me...

[SparafucileMan]

Only one problem with having that information so easily accessible: people tend to look things up instead of thinking it through for themselves. Information is only worth something if you understand it.

As Einstsin's saying goes "people who read alot of books are stupid" or something like that. Google couldn't find the quote for me fast enough. ;p

I would agree with this

[AutopsyReport]

I recently wrote a paper on the addictions to pornography, my thesis proposing that the availability of pornography on the Internet has amplified the harm typically caused by viewing porn (desentiziations, misrepresentations of sexuality, corrosion of relationships, etc.). Online porn is so widely available (it takes all of five seconds to start looking at it), and the sense of privacy that comes along with it is a selling point. Since porn is so readily available, I read that addiction to pornography may be considered harder to break than an addiction to heroin (reference [family.org]). This is pretty crazy.

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."

Re:Is it just me...

[Chosen Reject]

But let's ask the real questions then.

Are you sometimes distracted from gettings things done? Are you sometimes tempted to put off work?

Oh wait, that sounds like almost everyone. So one person decides to be distracted by the internet. Others may be by books. I know a lot of people who put off work by sleeping, and I mean more than the regular 8 hours per night. Let's just all find the things that distract us or pick those things we do while putting off work and call ourselves addicted. It is getting to be a sham.

I'm not saying that there is no such thing as addiction. I'm also not saying that addictions aren't serious things. But let's stop calling things addictions when they are simply things people do. That actually lessens the seriousness of real addictions that people have.

Re:Is it just me...

[Azi Dahaka]

I think this is the one you mean:

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.

Re:Is it just me...

[CFTM]

I have an addicitive personality; I've been addicted to the internet; I've been addicted to alcohol. You may think that the consequences are different but they are not. You may not get a DUI/DWI or kill someone [other than yourself] while on the internet but it has the ability to consume a person and when that happens the social connections that are severed come with the same consequences as those severed by people who drink to excess.

On slashdot we resort to calling psychology a "pseudo-science" because they're saying something that makes us uncomfortable. When I was addicted to the internet, I would rationalize my behavior by saying that many kids my age were out "drinking, smoking and using illicit drugs" whilst I was at home using my own "drugs" that just happened to be legal [dopamine is dopamine and last I checked it's the major thing stimulated by most things we enjoy]. So maybe instead of name calling we need to look in the mirror a little harder and maybe I'm generalizing my own shortcoming across the slashdot community.

Re:Is it just me...

[theStorminMormon]

What you say is true to an extent, but I'd point out that "physical" and "psychological" are not distinct things, just different regions along a spectrum. The guy at the gym is a good case in point. There are theories that long-distance runners get addicted to the endorphines. There you have a measurable physiological change (the endorphines), so clearly it's not just "psychological", but at the same time I'm not saying that addiction to your own endorphines is the same as addiction to heroine. You can't just neatly divide "physical" and "psychological" into two neat containers. For other examples just look at the placebo effect and the other numerous documented instances of something psychological - like mood or attitude - having a measurable effect on something physical.

Finally, the generalization about treating an illness in terms of symptoms vs. cause is also inadequate. You don't go far enough. In your example you took it back to "plaque in the arteries or whatever". But isn't that in turn just a symptom of deeper ailments? Some, like lifestyle, may be rooted in "psychological" causes. Others, like genetic predisposition, not so much. But the point is that the distinction between "symptom" and "cause" is also largely an artificial one that depends on our definition.

I deinitely think that we let pscyhologists get away with far too much - especially when they start doling out medicine of questionable effect. How much more effective are SSUI (selective seretonin uptake inhibitors) like Prozac then placebo's? The counseling? Then counseling and lifestyle coaching? Nobody knows - it's easier to take a pill than to take responsibility.

The only conclusion that we can safely draw is that the easy answers are wrong, and we have a lot more to learn about the interations between the physical and psychological before we can really make safe distinctions about addictions.

-stormin