Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder (1996) [pdf](netaddiction.com)
netaddiction.com
Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder (1996) [pdf]
https://www.netaddiction.com/articles/newdisorder.pdf
81 comments
Sometimes I wonder if the tech withdrawal people experience is more related to the inconvenience of not having tech like smart phones and computers, rather than an actual addiction.
For example, when my car is at the garage I feel like I'm going through a kind of drug withdrawal. It really bothers that I can't just jump in my car and go somewhere and instead I now need to catch a bus or walk. Before having a car this would have been normal to me, but am I now addicted to my car or is it more that having a car is really convenient and now I'm experience the inconvenience of not having access to one?
Similarly, when I'm home I rarely ever use my phone and it will often run out of battery without me noticing until I want to set my morning alarm before bed. But when I'm out of the house I get really stressed when my phone is low on battery or flat. Again, I don't think I'm addicted it's just annoying that I can't easily order a taxi or map my way to some place I need to go without a phone. Having a phone is an extremely useful tool when you're out of the house.
I'm not denying some people have addictions, but I wonder why in general we don't see our relationship with other technologies in a similar way. Am I addicted to electric lights and central heating? When does a recognising and appreciating the connivance of a technology -- perhaps even to the point where you can't imagine living without it -- become an addiction? If it's having a negative impact your life then I get it, but recently there seems to be a push to label anyway -- even kids -- who simply enjoy using tech as "addicts".
For example, when my car is at the garage I feel like I'm going through a kind of drug withdrawal. It really bothers that I can't just jump in my car and go somewhere and instead I now need to catch a bus or walk. Before having a car this would have been normal to me, but am I now addicted to my car or is it more that having a car is really convenient and now I'm experience the inconvenience of not having access to one?
Similarly, when I'm home I rarely ever use my phone and it will often run out of battery without me noticing until I want to set my morning alarm before bed. But when I'm out of the house I get really stressed when my phone is low on battery or flat. Again, I don't think I'm addicted it's just annoying that I can't easily order a taxi or map my way to some place I need to go without a phone. Having a phone is an extremely useful tool when you're out of the house.
I'm not denying some people have addictions, but I wonder why in general we don't see our relationship with other technologies in a similar way. Am I addicted to electric lights and central heating? When does a recognising and appreciating the connivance of a technology -- perhaps even to the point where you can't imagine living without it -- become an addiction? If it's having a negative impact your life then I get it, but recently there seems to be a push to label anyway -- even kids -- who simply enjoy using tech as "addicts".
I think it has to do with the number of people who've adopted the advancement. I've spent hours a day online since before this article came out, and it's much less of a social 'problem' than it used to be because now it's understood that sometimes people check things + I can easily do so on the go vs. being tethered to the desktop (and wired Internet).
Plus more 'normal' people are 'addicts' now. The only people spending tons of time online back in the 90s were weirdos who were REALLY into some aspect of it (for me, it was web design and UI/UX though of course I had no idea there was a term for it). We're not addicted to electricity, but I bet people were side-eyeing the first people who were obsessed enough to learn wiring and hook up their houses themselves.
We also had a similar reaction to television, which followed a similar pattern: My grandfather who was born in the 1910s was a factory worker who was OBSESSED with TVs when they were invented. His basement was full of parts and Franken-TVs. He was an 'addicted weirdo' in the 1930s and 1940s but by the time he died in the 1990s EVERYBODY was spending hours a day in front of a TV.
Plus more 'normal' people are 'addicts' now. The only people spending tons of time online back in the 90s were weirdos who were REALLY into some aspect of it (for me, it was web design and UI/UX though of course I had no idea there was a term for it). We're not addicted to electricity, but I bet people were side-eyeing the first people who were obsessed enough to learn wiring and hook up their houses themselves.
We also had a similar reaction to television, which followed a similar pattern: My grandfather who was born in the 1910s was a factory worker who was OBSESSED with TVs when they were invented. His basement was full of parts and Franken-TVs. He was an 'addicted weirdo' in the 1930s and 1940s but by the time he died in the 1990s EVERYBODY was spending hours a day in front of a TV.
If you spent over half your day watching cat videos and posting low-effort Hacker News comments and the other half feeling bad for doing it, you wouldn't be wondering that.
I wasn't denying that people can be addicted to the internet, my comment was in response to whether what the parent commenter was saying is even that analogous to addiction.
Internet addiction is a term that seems to get thrown around a lot these days, especially at kids and teens, but I think what people tend to label internet addiction isn't really an addiction at all or even directly damaging -- it's just people understandably wanting to take advantage of having access to the internet and smart phones to stay connected to friends or to entertain themselves. If it gets to the point where kids aren't doing school work, or if an adult rather play video games than get a job, then sure that's a problem. But if a guy likes to come home from work and spend 80% of his evening catching up with friends on Facebook and playing video games I don't think that's an any less valid way to spend an evening than say reading a fiction book. And again, we don't accuse people who spend most of their free time reading sci-fi books as being addicts, even if taking their sci-fi books from them would send them into a state of withdrawal while they found something else to replace their reading "addiction" with.
Internet addiction is a term that seems to get thrown around a lot these days, especially at kids and teens, but I think what people tend to label internet addiction isn't really an addiction at all or even directly damaging -- it's just people understandably wanting to take advantage of having access to the internet and smart phones to stay connected to friends or to entertain themselves. If it gets to the point where kids aren't doing school work, or if an adult rather play video games than get a job, then sure that's a problem. But if a guy likes to come home from work and spend 80% of his evening catching up with friends on Facebook and playing video games I don't think that's an any less valid way to spend an evening than say reading a fiction book. And again, we don't accuse people who spend most of their free time reading sci-fi books as being addicts, even if taking their sci-fi books from them would send them into a state of withdrawal while they found something else to replace their reading "addiction" with.
> Again, we don't accuse people who spend most of their free time reading sci-fi books as being addicts, even if taking their sci-fi books from them would send them into a state of withdrawal while they found something else to replace their reading "addiction" with.
Parents and adults did do this back in the 90s, at least to me. I read books when I didn't have computer access and both were considered 'problems'. I had books taken away and was forbidden from reading because I would rather do that than socialize. I know I'm not the only one either.
Parents and adults did do this back in the 90s, at least to me. I read books when I didn't have computer access and both were considered 'problems'. I had books taken away and was forbidden from reading because I would rather do that than socialize. I know I'm not the only one either.
By the same logic, aren't some people addicted to socialising? But I never heard it be called that.
>For example, when my car is at the garage I feel like I'm going through a kind of drug withdrawal. It really bothers that I can't just jump in my car and go somewhere and instead I now need to catch a bus or walk. Before having a car this would have been normal to me, but am I now addicted to my car or is it more that having a car is really convenient and now I'm experience the inconvenience of not having access to one?
"Addiction" is probably not the right way of framing it, since it applies more to the place you live rather than some aspect of your character. The place you live may be car-dependent, if walking/cycling/public transport are not adequate substitutes even temporarily.
"Addiction" is probably not the right way of framing it, since it applies more to the place you live rather than some aspect of your character. The place you live may be car-dependent, if walking/cycling/public transport are not adequate substitutes even temporarily.
Not to be too pedantic, but isn't "addiction" essentially a state of having adjusted to something to a point where its removal causes some level of distress?
That's an interesting anecdote compared to my experience disappearing to a cottage in northern Finland for a few days. At home I spend -way- too many hours on the computer pretty much constantly. But when I went to the cottage, I forgot about all of that and I was just in the moment.
Admittedly I was with someone I was interested in and we were basically always out doing something, which is a different experience than when I go visit family and there are long stretches where I'm left to my own devices (at which point I usually go back to a computer), so maybe the social engagement (and how we fill lack thereof with internet connectivity?) is the common factor?
Admittedly I was with someone I was interested in and we were basically always out doing something, which is a different experience than when I go visit family and there are long stretches where I'm left to my own devices (at which point I usually go back to a computer), so maybe the social engagement (and how we fill lack thereof with internet connectivity?) is the common factor?
Some cognitive scientists are saying that smartphones are extensions of our mind/body now, so taking them away is like taking away the artificial limb of an amputee - it makes you feel incapacitated.
Some go further, and say that taking away smartphones from prisoners for example could be classified as psychological torture.
Some go further, and say that taking away smartphones from prisoners for example could be classified as psychological torture.
Are there any citations to back up those claims?
> Dependents spent a M = 38.5, SD = 8.04 hours per week compared to Non-Dependents who spent M= 4.9, SD = 4.70 hours per week.
Rookie numbers.
Rookie numbers.
If someone had told me back in 1996 that in 11 years I would spend 2 full months of 2007 playing WoW I would have laughed in their face.
The SF is the standard deviation. The dependent group was spending 5.5 hours a day.
Though I probably spend over 24 glowing rectangles-hours per day, soooo…
https://www.theonion.com/report-90-of-waking-hours-spent-sta...
Though I probably spend over 24 glowing rectangles-hours per day, soooo…
https://www.theonion.com/report-90-of-waking-hours-spent-sta...
An average white collar worker today probably spends more than that just doing their job.
I spend around 12 (sometimes 48) hours a day on the Internet.
8.04 hours per week is nothing... ~1 hour per day. That is nothing.
8.04 hours per week is nothing... ~1 hour per day. That is nothing.
It's 38.5 hours per week (with a standard deviation of 8.04 hours). Still doesn't sound like too much today.
Oh sorry, my bad! Still, that does not sound much either.
Came here to read exactly this comment, thanx for not letting me down.
Have we collectively forgotten that Ivan Goldberg coined this term as a joke?
It was also an ironic commentary on the overreach of addiction metaphors to encompass everything that existing social structures, especially established structures of productivity and wealth extraction, found disruptive.
In that sense, the advent of "internet addiction" as a frame of reference was also part of the internet moral panic, which itself was just another iteration of all technology panics that have accompanied every shift in communication technologies, including the TV, movies, radio, novels, and book printing (which was the original fake news panic).
So, grain of salt.
It was also an ironic commentary on the overreach of addiction metaphors to encompass everything that existing social structures, especially established structures of productivity and wealth extraction, found disruptive.
In that sense, the advent of "internet addiction" as a frame of reference was also part of the internet moral panic, which itself was just another iteration of all technology panics that have accompanied every shift in communication technologies, including the TV, movies, radio, novels, and book printing (which was the original fake news panic).
So, grain of salt.
Strange reasoning. If I make a joke about holodeck addiction, then it can't be a real thing after the holodeck is invented? Or should every doctor refer to my joke?
The point is about psychiatric colonization of making sense of things that need not be framed that way, and where that framing is not only stigmatizing, but also defends "legacy" ways of doing things against existing social power structures.
Ivan Goldberg was criticizing that in the 90s, by making that joke: look, all the things they take as "symptoms of addiction", if you transfer that to what we, we realize that these need not be symptoms at all - just a form of passionate action in something." And boy, did that backfire.
Psychiatry has a long history of being a structurally conservative field that frames the action of people as "symptomatic" when it irritates existing hegemonic social expectations; there are great texts by Erving Goffman on how psychiatric framing defends our ideas of social normality against disruption, and tends to make it "just an individual disease problem". That completely ignores social change and, more importantly, social power structures in which suffering has much deeper contextual roots than just "this person is sick". (Goffman calls this an "illegitimized state of being "away", as opposed to legitimized ones like praying or working) [0].
Literature in game studies/critical education notes that declaring teenagers "addicted" because they use the little time school and homework leaves them - later at night - to game with friends rather than sleep stigmatizes their free use of time, their social connections outside of school, and their impudence of daring to try to decide over their time themselves rather than just submit to school-ordered ideal time management ideas.[1, but German].
Ivan Goldberg was trying to fight against the internet being stigmatized in the wake of yet another technology panic, and he did it after it was invented. And without intending to, he became the unofficial father of medicalizing it.
[0] Erving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places. [1] Michael Dellwing, Alessandro Tietz Pathologisierte Sozialität: „Spielsucht“ als institutionelle Verteidigung. In: Dellwing und Harbusch, Pathologisierte Gesellschaft? Weinheim: Beltz.
Ivan Goldberg was criticizing that in the 90s, by making that joke: look, all the things they take as "symptoms of addiction", if you transfer that to what we, we realize that these need not be symptoms at all - just a form of passionate action in something." And boy, did that backfire.
Psychiatry has a long history of being a structurally conservative field that frames the action of people as "symptomatic" when it irritates existing hegemonic social expectations; there are great texts by Erving Goffman on how psychiatric framing defends our ideas of social normality against disruption, and tends to make it "just an individual disease problem". That completely ignores social change and, more importantly, social power structures in which suffering has much deeper contextual roots than just "this person is sick". (Goffman calls this an "illegitimized state of being "away", as opposed to legitimized ones like praying or working) [0].
Literature in game studies/critical education notes that declaring teenagers "addicted" because they use the little time school and homework leaves them - later at night - to game with friends rather than sleep stigmatizes their free use of time, their social connections outside of school, and their impudence of daring to try to decide over their time themselves rather than just submit to school-ordered ideal time management ideas.[1, but German].
Ivan Goldberg was trying to fight against the internet being stigmatized in the wake of yet another technology panic, and he did it after it was invented. And without intending to, he became the unofficial father of medicalizing it.
[0] Erving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places. [1] Michael Dellwing, Alessandro Tietz Pathologisierte Sozialität: „Spielsucht“ als institutionelle Verteidigung. In: Dellwing und Harbusch, Pathologisierte Gesellschaft? Weinheim: Beltz.
Usually isn't addiction also defined in terms of some harm to the person? Damaging relationships, getting fired, going broke, and so forth.
And having some guidance that Bob spending too much time on the internet is something serious and should follow an addiction recovery treatment plan is a net good thing (by a lot).
And having some guidance that Bob spending too much time on the internet is something serious and should follow an addiction recovery treatment plan is a net good thing (by a lot).
Those are all socially constructed to a degree, though.
When I was growing up in the 90s, my strong preference for online communication prevented me from making/doing some connections that were, at the time, considered mandatory: It was thought that there was no way I would meet a mate or land/keep a job if I spent my time online instead of partaking in a more 'acceptable' activity.
Such harm can also vary based on the person and their place in society. I'm female and one reason my time online was so disparaged was that it 'wasn't useful' and my interest in/passion for web development was seen as WRONG and a sign of possible sexual deviancy (I AM a lesbian...). I was also gently guided towards being a librarian because that was an 'acceptable' career for a smart girl who liked reading, and reading was an 'acceptable' odd pastime for a girl as opposed to my other obsessions (Tech! Building! Math!).
Some problems are socially constructed.
When I was growing up in the 90s, my strong preference for online communication prevented me from making/doing some connections that were, at the time, considered mandatory: It was thought that there was no way I would meet a mate or land/keep a job if I spent my time online instead of partaking in a more 'acceptable' activity.
Such harm can also vary based on the person and their place in society. I'm female and one reason my time online was so disparaged was that it 'wasn't useful' and my interest in/passion for web development was seen as WRONG and a sign of possible sexual deviancy (I AM a lesbian...). I was also gently guided towards being a librarian because that was an 'acceptable' career for a smart girl who liked reading, and reading was an 'acceptable' odd pastime for a girl as opposed to my other obsessions (Tech! Building! Math!).
Some problems are socially constructed.
Some problems are socially constructed, yes. But in the study over half the respondents listed "severe" impairment across academic, relationship, financial, and occupational domains. Some of that is surely because their use butts up against social norms (e.g., if everyone is telling you that you spend too much time online, I'm guessing you'd be more likely to rate your anxiety about internet use as high), but I think it might be dangerous to handwave all behavioral disorders as benign because of social constructs. The definition of addition here is "impairment" not "non-normative".
If a person loses their house to a gambling addiction, it's probably not a good framework to just say they're just not living up to the socially constructed norm of having a roof over one's head.
If a person loses their house to a gambling addiction, it's probably not a good framework to just say they're just not living up to the socially constructed norm of having a roof over one's head.
My point is that the respondents may have been a self-selecting group due to a third factor, or they may just be people in general becoming more aware of this type of behavior. People who were internet addicts in the 90s are a skewed population.
My life is functionally impaired due to my homosexuality: Finding a partner is logistically difficult when your dating pool is, at best, 4% of that of others. This causes major financial and logistical impairments. Is my homosexuality the problem or is the problem a society which makes being single a difficulty? Likewise, 100 years ago, I would have spent my whole life blind. Now I live a normal life with very little in the way of visual accommodation. You cannot separate impairment from human society; humans are social animals.
Are the people in the article impaired because the internet is a problem, because of an external predisposition to addiction manifesting through internet use, or because society is impairing them?
It may be that the internet is a problem, but we aren't going to be able to answer that question unless we get rid of confounding variables.
My life is functionally impaired due to my homosexuality: Finding a partner is logistically difficult when your dating pool is, at best, 4% of that of others. This causes major financial and logistical impairments. Is my homosexuality the problem or is the problem a society which makes being single a difficulty? Likewise, 100 years ago, I would have spent my whole life blind. Now I live a normal life with very little in the way of visual accommodation. You cannot separate impairment from human society; humans are social animals.
Are the people in the article impaired because the internet is a problem, because of an external predisposition to addiction manifesting through internet use, or because society is impairing them?
It may be that the internet is a problem, but we aren't going to be able to answer that question unless we get rid of confounding variables.
>My point is that the respondents may have been a self-selecting group due to a third factor
The article addresses this:
"It is possible that those individuals classified as Dependent experienced an exaggerated set of negative consequences related to their Internet use compelling them to respond to advertisements for this study."
You seem to be losing focus on what the article is about, namely non-intoxicant addiction. "addiction can be defined as an impulse-control disorder which does not involve an intoxicant." If you were talking about a sexual addiction rather than a sexual preference, it would be an apt analogy.
To your point, yes, the context of impairment is being adaptive to the society in which one lives. The hermit living off the grid in Montana would probably be classified as maladaptive to modern society even if they think that society exhibits negative traits. That is a distinctly different claim as to whether that modern society exhibits certain favorable characteristics. This study was about the former point and made no claims to the latter.
The respondents characterized the Internet addiction as akin to cigarette cravings. I think it's possible (or even likely) there are confounding factors that drive this, but I think this study was asking a much simpler question of "Does Internet use display negative behavioral manifestations that align with other non-substance addictions, like gambling." To that point, either of those (Internet use or gambling) could be driven by societal factors.
The article addresses this:
"It is possible that those individuals classified as Dependent experienced an exaggerated set of negative consequences related to their Internet use compelling them to respond to advertisements for this study."
You seem to be losing focus on what the article is about, namely non-intoxicant addiction. "addiction can be defined as an impulse-control disorder which does not involve an intoxicant." If you were talking about a sexual addiction rather than a sexual preference, it would be an apt analogy.
To your point, yes, the context of impairment is being adaptive to the society in which one lives. The hermit living off the grid in Montana would probably be classified as maladaptive to modern society even if they think that society exhibits negative traits. That is a distinctly different claim as to whether that modern society exhibits certain favorable characteristics. This study was about the former point and made no claims to the latter.
The respondents characterized the Internet addiction as akin to cigarette cravings. I think it's possible (or even likely) there are confounding factors that drive this, but I think this study was asking a much simpler question of "Does Internet use display negative behavioral manifestations that align with other non-substance addictions, like gambling." To that point, either of those (Internet use or gambling) could be driven by societal factors.
no, rather that its funny how a term coined was so far from the reality of the situation just a few years down the timeline.
initially the internet was a bit of an enemy, and turns out they were right eveyone became internet addicted.
initially the internet was a bit of an enemy, and turns out they were right eveyone became internet addicted.
I hadn't heard this before, and was curious (especially since the paper being discussed is from 1996, 25 years ago) so I did a quick Google to see what was out there. This paper [0] describes how Goldberg first mentioned the idea on the PsyCom BBS (which he founded) in 1995, apparently as a response to his issues with the DSM IV, which had just been published the year before.
So, I learned that today - thanks, 'bigger_inside ;)
0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776584/
So, I learned that today - thanks, 'bigger_inside ;)
0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776584/
But the context of the article is not disruption to the economy or power structure, but an impulse control disorder which does not involve an intoxicant and has negative impacts on one's life. If you can believe something like gambling is addictive, I think the term "addition" in the context of the study is apt.
"Internet addiction" doesn't strike me as a particularly unique expression, so I doubt he was the only one to come up with it. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I'd never heard of it before I first thought of myself as "computer-addicted" when I was a child, before I even knew what the Internet was (and then, soon enough, I would see myself as "Internet-addicted" as well).
It was talked about, but this was either the first or one of the first academic articles to mention it, if I recall correctly (I may not). Similar to how discussions about how to save things online bubbled up before IA was established or there were a lot of talks about what made a webpage valuable before Google and Page Rank came on to the scene. Lots of collective consciousness going on.
One of those old scares which seems a little quaint now, not because the fears were unfounded, but because the feared thing came to pass and is normal.
Similar to old fears that family time would turn into TV time.
Similar to old fears that family time would turn into TV time.
And in the meantime suicide and depression keep climbing
Suicide rates worldwide have been consistently dropping. The same is true for Europe.
The US is an outlier, the suicide rate has increased by 10% between 1996 and 2017.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/suicide
I'm not sure that there is comparable data available for depression since our understanding of it has changed over the last 30 years and getting consistent data is very difficult.
The US is an outlier, the suicide rate has increased by 10% between 1996 and 2017.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/suicide
I'm not sure that there is comparable data available for depression since our understanding of it has changed over the last 30 years and getting consistent data is very difficult.
Our World in Data is not a suitable source for suicide statistics, especially if you're comparing different countries across time.
They don't tell you what populations they're using; they don't tell you how these different countries are counting suicide; they don't tell you whether the methods for counting have changed over time in these countries.
They don't tell you what populations they're using; they don't tell you how these different countries are counting suicide; they don't tell you whether the methods for counting have changed over time in these countries.
The data source is the World Health Organization. The data quality from different countries is included in their report.
The data for western Europe and the US is of high quality.
Which data would be of higher quality?
The data for western Europe and the US is of high quality.
Which data would be of higher quality?
If it is the case that suicide and depression is lower in the EU, then we would want to compare internet addiction in the US vs EU.
If the US is higher, this supports the argument, not refutes it
If the US is higher, this supports the argument, not refutes it
Yes, but the source of that is not the symptom.
Back in 2009 some French website wrote an article about a man they call Marc L and they showed they were able to tell a very big chunk of his private life based on what he had posted on the internet. At the time everyone was shocked after reading this article. Nowadays everyone's life is out there on Instagram, FB, YT, ...
Just an other of these feared things that came to pass and are now normal.
Link to the article (in French) : http://www.le-tigre.net/marc-l.html
Just an other of these feared things that came to pass and are now normal.
Link to the article (in French) : http://www.le-tigre.net/marc-l.html
You could add the matrix. We used to wonder if we were living in a simulation. I run often into teens running after VR goggles and explain they want to live tethered into virtual life to enjoy whatever life is possible without fear of death. And just last week a dude was too proud to explain that playing video games was better than looking outside because his neighborhood was too sad. Talk about escapism.
There was a time when the impact of Novels (fiction books) on young women's health was a topic of hot debate. When this "Internet addiction" label got pasted onto the same old "be scared of the new fad" it coincided with Nancy's "Just Say No" campaign and sought tailwind from the term "addiction"; oddly just as "addiction by prescription" began its meteoric rise.
Nor should we forget all the Internet Sex Predators; small town sheriffs all over the country getting their rocks of role playing then busting their playmates when they need a news story. That movement drew some of the worst elements of our society into just exactly the positions of power we didn't need them to be. Many are still there, i think.
Nor should we forget all the Internet Sex Predators; small town sheriffs all over the country getting their rocks of role playing then busting their playmates when they need a news story. That movement drew some of the worst elements of our society into just exactly the positions of power we didn't need them to be. Many are still there, i think.
I remember when this article came out. I was 8 and definitely fit the criteria and have ever since, but for some reason it's not a 'problem' anymore since now everybody has internet access to the point where it becomes logistically difficult if you DON'T for whatever reason. Instead of "Mez is a weirdo who spends all of her time online", now it's "Oh, ask Mez [about whatever thing they heard online], she'll know what's going on."
Now the "problem" is TikTok/"the algorithm". Which, don't get me wrong, algorithmic discovery and content provision have issues, but a lot of the panic is non techy people just not understanding something new. I'm sure in 10 years we'll be panicking about something else.
Now the "problem" is TikTok/"the algorithm". Which, don't get me wrong, algorithmic discovery and content provision have issues, but a lot of the panic is non techy people just not understanding something new. I'm sure in 10 years we'll be panicking about something else.
All of that may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily negate the article claims of professional and social impairment. It just normalizes that behavior.
The claims are missing an important variable when trying to determine if a behavior is harmful: The social context of that behavior.
In the context of the 90s (and especially for adults), spending too much time online was, in some ways, an inherently anti-social act: You had to be physically tethered to the machine, often monopolizing the only other of long-distance communication available (the landline phone line) for the entire house, and, when people and households shared computers, it often meant others COULDN'T use the tool.
In 2021, none of that is true.
Also, there were certain cultural ideas about what types of 'socializing'/'friends' counted as well as what constituted 'normal' behavior.
It's entirely possible Internet addiction is real and this article is interesting as one of the first to mention such a thing, but the Internet and Web just hadn't been embedded into society well enough to be evaluated.
In the context of the 90s (and especially for adults), spending too much time online was, in some ways, an inherently anti-social act: You had to be physically tethered to the machine, often monopolizing the only other of long-distance communication available (the landline phone line) for the entire house, and, when people and households shared computers, it often meant others COULDN'T use the tool.
In 2021, none of that is true.
Also, there were certain cultural ideas about what types of 'socializing'/'friends' counted as well as what constituted 'normal' behavior.
It's entirely possible Internet addiction is real and this article is interesting as one of the first to mention such a thing, but the Internet and Web just hadn't been embedded into society well enough to be evaluated.
I think the context was described. The article lists 5 dimensions where adverse behavior was documented: academic, relationship, financial, occupational, and physical. While I think you may be right about the different socializing role of the internet 25 years later, I'm not sure that explains away the adverse affects across all those dimensions. For example, with online gambling becoming more of a norm now, that doesn't mean the adverse financial aspects are any less bad. Normalization of deviance doesn't equate to unharmful.
That's a fair point.
I think the difficulty here is that because we had no way of knowing there things were going back in 1996, they didn't ask the questions/gather the information we would need in order to do the apples-to-apples comparison we'd need between these behaviors and their harms in 1996 and in 2021.
They wouldn't think to consider physical isolation separately from internet use: Unless you were hauling your machine to LAN parties, being on a computer was physically isolating. Likewise, monitors and accessories are way better ergonomically now so spending 60 hours a week online now is probably LESS damaging than it used to be (but still damaging).
Also, some degree of these impairments is acceptable depending on the reason: Most people in the trades aren't doing well physically after decades, we just don't care because they bring value. How much of the 'worry' about their physical state is because they weren't destroying their bodies doing something that made $$?
I'd be curious if you (or anybody) knows if gambling IN GENERAL is better or worse than it was 30 years ago. If online gambling is more of a norm now, is that due to non-gamblers starting to gamble, or are the people who would've been at the casino every weekend just saving the gas?
We can't solve these issues unless we know if the internet is a symptom or the cause.
I think the difficulty here is that because we had no way of knowing there things were going back in 1996, they didn't ask the questions/gather the information we would need in order to do the apples-to-apples comparison we'd need between these behaviors and their harms in 1996 and in 2021.
They wouldn't think to consider physical isolation separately from internet use: Unless you were hauling your machine to LAN parties, being on a computer was physically isolating. Likewise, monitors and accessories are way better ergonomically now so spending 60 hours a week online now is probably LESS damaging than it used to be (but still damaging).
Also, some degree of these impairments is acceptable depending on the reason: Most people in the trades aren't doing well physically after decades, we just don't care because they bring value. How much of the 'worry' about their physical state is because they weren't destroying their bodies doing something that made $$?
I'd be curious if you (or anybody) knows if gambling IN GENERAL is better or worse than it was 30 years ago. If online gambling is more of a norm now, is that due to non-gamblers starting to gamble, or are the people who would've been at the casino every weekend just saving the gas?
We can't solve these issues unless we know if the internet is a symptom or the cause.
I don't know, but a quick search on Google Scholar seems to indicate that Internet gambling makes gambling worse for those who already have a predisposition for gambling problems. It seems to be more about availability, as "land-based" casinos mediate the Internet effect somewhat.
Yeah, that's a really good point. In which case perhaps the problem could be mitigated through things like mandatory artificial 'difficulty' in design/UX, and, if so, we would know to be on the lookout for that in any OTHER new technology we create down the road as well and design for it.
I think that is an interesting take, but would obviously have a lot of pushback. I doubt private industry would willingly work against their own profit incentive. Can you imagine if the government mandated social media sites to limit the use of algorithms to grab people's attention?
Maybe our past definitions of professional and social effort were arbitrary.
Point to a past social meme or industrial behavior that’s stood the test of time.
“Past worked like X so future must too.” is not a reasonable or rational position to hold given the evidence it will just change.
Point to a past social meme or industrial behavior that’s stood the test of time.
“Past worked like X so future must too.” is not a reasonable or rational position to hold given the evidence it will just change.
Is your point that the maladaptive effects in the study are not legitimate or that this behavior would just be supplanted by some other “fad”?
I wonder if Internet addiction may have addition problems beyond those other examples. For example, the very tool used for many service jobs (the computer) is the same mechanism used to feed the addiction, making it extra hard to abstain. Or algorithms used to capture attention, etc.
I wonder if Internet addiction may have addition problems beyond those other examples. For example, the very tool used for many service jobs (the computer) is the same mechanism used to feed the addiction, making it extra hard to abstain. Or algorithms used to capture attention, etc.
This is similar to the problems faced by people recovering from Eating Disorders. You can't just NOT eat; you have to build a healthy relationship with the thing that almost ruined you. I wonder if anything in that field has been successful and might help people who DO feel like their internet use is out of control?
"supplanted by" or "attributed to?"
There's always some reason to criticize other's behavior as bad, for them or society or whatever. There's always the problem of "you don't see the value the behavior gives me the same way I do."
Even if the effects are legitimately objectively bad for someone, was the cause really "internet addiction?" Or was that merely a convenient label to apply or even a pet cause that could be furthered by latching on to a new fad? The folks who were worst affected by "internet addiction" in 96 were not likely to have been pursuing wildly different lifestyles without it.
There's always some reason to criticize other's behavior as bad, for them or society or whatever. There's always the problem of "you don't see the value the behavior gives me the same way I do."
Even if the effects are legitimately objectively bad for someone, was the cause really "internet addiction?" Or was that merely a convenient label to apply or even a pet cause that could be furthered by latching on to a new fad? The folks who were worst affected by "internet addiction" in 96 were not likely to have been pursuing wildly different lifestyles without it.
I meant supplanted but I can see why the distinction may matter. I meant that today people may blame the Internet but at sometime later the Internet is no longer a concern because we've found some other boogeyman to blame. I believe the ancient Greeks, with their strong oral traditions, felt that written history would erode society. Not many people are lamenting the downsides of books today.
>was the cause really "internet addiction?"
According to the study, it would appear so.
"They reported developing a preoccupation with being on-line again which they compared to "cravings" that smokers feel when they have gone a length of time without a cigarette."
Although the authors do acknowledge possible sampling bias.
>was the cause really "internet addiction?"
According to the study, it would appear so.
"They reported developing a preoccupation with being on-line again which they compared to "cravings" that smokers feel when they have gone a length of time without a cigarette."
Although the authors do acknowledge possible sampling bias.
Average TV hours / day for the US :
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186833/average-televisio...
2014 : 4.20 hours / day
2020 : 3.33 hours / day
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186833/average-televisio...
2014 : 4.20 hours / day
2020 : 3.33 hours / day
Do they have one for 'general non-work screen time'?
Not recognized in the USA as a DSM disorder. Probably because insurance companies don’t want to pay for treatment for that many affected.
A young friend in medical school around 1996 was one of the first to diagnose 'Internet Addiction' in a student at the UofIowa. Missing classes, forgetting to eat, losing sleep, all classic addictive symptoms? I don't know why folks are dissing this; disfunction is disfunction.
I think it's because it's not possible to know if that would have happened without the internet and therefore causality hasn't been established.
Like if someone is self-harming, is the problem the tool or the fact that they're self-harming? Such a person might have ended up isolating themselves to watch TV, or read, or other things. I've done all of the above with books and television.
In which case the issue may be information availability offering people a new option: It's a lot easier to ignore the world and read 500 books in a row if I can download them all without leaving my house and there's no check to go 'is this a good idea?' If the issue is information availability, blocking the internet/social media will do nothing. Think streaming Netflix for hours versus flipping through TV on the 90s: You'd stop flipping if nothing interested you, but on Netflix there's ALWAYS something.
Like if someone is self-harming, is the problem the tool or the fact that they're self-harming? Such a person might have ended up isolating themselves to watch TV, or read, or other things. I've done all of the above with books and television.
In which case the issue may be information availability offering people a new option: It's a lot easier to ignore the world and read 500 books in a row if I can download them all without leaving my house and there's no check to go 'is this a good idea?' If the issue is information availability, blocking the internet/social media will do nothing. Think streaming Netflix for hours versus flipping through TV on the 90s: You'd stop flipping if nothing interested you, but on Netflix there's ALWAYS something.
Isn't that just describing 'Internet Addiction' with more detail?
What's the solution to internet addiction? It's only seeming to get worse.
I definitely recommend checking out your local public library, or going for a long walk in a nearby park. Don't take your phone. Allow yourself to be bored. Let your mind wander. Once you get over the weird feeling, and the anxiousness of not knowing what's been happening, you'll likely find that your mind amuses itself.
I have a sneaky suspicion that relaxing in this way and encouraging that mental wandering grants some sort of benefit, though I can't put my finger on what exactly. When I come home I'm always refreshed, and the next day often eager to get started on some idea I had while out and about. If I take a news feed with me, I miss out on this experience and, over time, seem to find myself drained of energy. Same if I compulsively check that feed the moment I get back home. A proper disconnect once in a while seems to work wonders. It's like... being constantly connected all the time is over stimulating somehow, without realizing it in the moment.
I have a sneaky suspicion that relaxing in this way and encouraging that mental wandering grants some sort of benefit, though I can't put my finger on what exactly. When I come home I'm always refreshed, and the next day often eager to get started on some idea I had while out and about. If I take a news feed with me, I miss out on this experience and, over time, seem to find myself drained of energy. Same if I compulsively check that feed the moment I get back home. A proper disconnect once in a while seems to work wonders. It's like... being constantly connected all the time is over stimulating somehow, without realizing it in the moment.
Your advice to the comment, sadly, amounts to someone telling a drug addict to "just not use drugs", or a depressed person to "just go outside".
Cold turkey is a legitimate addiction strategy. Not successful for everyone though, and basically impossible for most people with the internet.
Ah, perhaps it has been misinterpreted. That was not my intent. "Take occasional breaks, they seem to help" was the goal, not "stop entirely and never start again."
Taking occasional breaks may be worse from an addiction point of view.
Relevant Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2muJ0e9bvcI
Relevant Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2muJ0e9bvcI
It might also be that we're both interpreting "internet addiction" with different severities, which would lead to different suggestions.
The same way you solve "car addiction", you don't. The internet is such a convenient way to get information and media that it outcompeted a lot of other old activities. Sure convenience has issues, like "car addiction" tend to create obesity, since you no longer train the skills dealing with inconvenience, but the convenience itself isn't a problem.
Rather just like we realized people need exercise, you just need to exercise the parts that you no longer need thanks to the internet.
Rather just like we realized people need exercise, you just need to exercise the parts that you no longer need thanks to the internet.
Car addiction is a real problem, though. Pollution (air and noise), lost use of streets by people walking, chatting, cycling, etc. - increased social isolation, increased cost of living, 40,000 dead people a year, far less freedom for people who can't drive (especially kids), land being reallocated to car infrastructure, legal changes preventing the construction of walkable communities in the name of more convenient motoring, etc.
Similarly, the internet has had a lot of externalities we may not have addressed.
Similarly, the internet has had a lot of externalities we may not have addressed.
Someone recently bought me a copy of Dopamine Detox via my Amazon Wishlist. It's an easy read and gives some suggestions for how to start reclaiming your attention and have purpose in your days. I'd recommend it.
When I lose internet I remember that I live alone/don't have much else to do. Will hopefully change at some point but yeah. I always have some form of noise on.
Related episode of Build For Tomorrow (formerly Pessimists Archive) podcast:
https://player.fm/series/build-for-tomorrow/you-are-not-addi...
https://player.fm/series/build-for-tomorrow/you-are-not-addi...
I remember when this came out originally.... IRC addiction was quite common at that stage. Was a good age, when people enjoyed the novelty of being able to make friends all around the world.
Probably we also have backpressure as a information receivers and the tube obviously does not care about that.
oh dang, so hmmm
Anyhow, being disconnected for like 3 days in a row felt like a drug user without their "fix". There was no way to connect to the internet so I could watch either news or talk to my loved ones via Skype (now you can see how many years ago this was) or just play some online game.
It was a weird experience because after those 3 days it felt like I was in a coma, I was completely disconnected of everything that was going around having only the local newspaper in the nearby town to what was happening, and since it was just local/national news I had no idea what was happening in my home country.
At the end of those holidays I ended up taking away that it's odd having your personal life and work life (I work remote) relying always on being "connected". Not just odd but it does feel like people who are used to it feel different once we don't have it anymore.