
Is Internet Addiction a Real Thing? - pmcpinto
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/internet-addiction-real-thing
======
tjradcliffe
What on Earth is a "real thing"? And what does that have to do with the name
given it?

Concepts are mental activities that identify disparate concretes by ignoring
some aspects of their differences. As such, we can unify pretty much anything
under a concept. The question is never "is this abstract thing really real for
reals?" It is: "Does this way of grouping things give us any useful way of
dealing with the underlying reality?"

Debates about whether the constellation of phenomena that get united under a
named concept constitute a "real thing" are almost always undertaken in more-
or-less willful ignorance of this fact. The very way of posing the
question--"Is this _real_?"\--obscures the actually interesting and important
question: "Is this _useful_?"

Addiction is a fairly well-defined and useful category of pathology. People
who are addicted to something have similar symptoms and issues, and treatment
of addiction can be usefully studied across groups of addicts, so what is
learned about people with alcohol addictions may be useful to people with
heroin addictions and so on (or not: simply because two things are grouped
under the same concept for a given purpose does not mean they are usefully
identical for all purposes, as anyone who has handled a sail boat and a row
boat--both members of the abstract category "boat"\--knows.)

No concept has perfectly crisp edges, and on the borders there are plenty of
cases that one person would count as "in" while another would count as "out".
If enough such cases start accumulating and impede communication and thought,
we create new interstitial concepts. In the case of "Internet addiction" the
interesting question is, "Is this enough like other addictions to group it
usefully under the came concept, or do we need something intermediate or
possibly orthogonal to usefully categorize it?"

~~~
Retra
>Concepts are mental activities that identify disparate concretes by ignoring
some aspects of their differences.

This is a good intuition for a certain set of topological notions:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_axiom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_axiom)

------
grimtrigger
I think a better way to look at it is "information addiction" or "social
snooping addiction". "Internet addiction" is a silly concept, because the
internet is merely the medium. Its like referring to gambling addiction as
"casino addiction".

~~~
bushido
That's exactly what I was thinking of posting when I read the article.

I know a lot of people who could be classified under the "information addict"
category.

Two decades ago they would've most likely been regulars at a library, part of
book clubs, have all the encyclopedia's they could get their hands on etc.

Two decades ago they would've also have been classified as well read, informed
and all similar good things.

If anything the internet has made it easier for them to understand different
perspectives and participate in discussions.

Would I call they "information addicts"?

Definitely not.

But there are some types of addictions that the internet as a , medium has
made easier to achieve "social snooping addiction" and "WebMD addiction" would
definitely be the big ones.

But as OP said, the internet is merely a medium, not the addiction.

~~~
baddox
Right. If you're going to call those people addicts, you might as well call us
all air addicts.

~~~
garrettgrimsley
>you might as well call us all air addicts.

This is a ridiculous dismissal of a serious issue, and frankly it reads like
you and the parent commenters didn't bother to RTFA.

>through a combination of excessive time spent online and that time
interfering with necessary social and professional activities, Internet use
would result in either mental distress or clinical impairment, akin to the
type of inability to function associated with pathological gambling

Does that read like your typical book club member?

~~~
baddox
I was referring specifically to the notion that people who spend a lot of time
in libraries are information addicts. I think that notion is not serious, and
I do dismiss it.

~~~
garrettgrimsley
I'm still not entirely clear. I think that it is the use of the word "right,"
that is giving me a snag.

I am reading the word "right" as you agreeing with their post.

Did you mean for the "right" to read as a dismissal of their post, and their
silly use of "addict" to describe the book club member/library goer?

~~~
bushido
I think baddox may have meant it like "Yeah, right". That and "Right" are
often spoken with a hint of sarcasm when disagreeing with said statement.

Also, I never said a casual book club member of library goer fits the
definition of an information addict.

I said, and I quote:

    
    
       Two decades ago they would've most likely been regulars at a library, part of book clubs, have all the encyclopedia's they could get their hands on etc.
    

Which in my case implies, two decades ago, people who would be classified as
information addicts on the internet(in present times) would have gotten their
fix using multiple mediums in conjunction; including but not limited to:

\- being regulars at a library

\- part of book clubs

\- getting their hands on as many informative/factoid sources such as
encyclopedias

I go on to say:

    
    
       Two decades ago they would've also have been classified as well read, informed and all similar good things.
    

Implying that it is a new phenomenon that well read, informed and curious
people who like understanding the world around them are unfortunately and too
easily classified as addicts.

After which I stated:

    
    
       Would I call they(sic) "information addicts"? - Definitely not.
    

Trying to establish, that just because a person seeks out and consumes a lot
of data does not make them an internet addict or an information addict.

Now to address your comment:

    
    
       through a combination of excessive time spent online and that time interfering with necessary social and professional activities, Internet use would result in either mental distress or clinical impairment, akin to the type of inability to function associated with pathological gambling
    

Since you mentioned it; In my opinion that statement unfortunately seems to
get the causality and effects mixed.

It points to excessive time spent online and that time interfering with
necessary social and professional activities as the cause for mental distress
or clinical impairment.

Unfortunately in reality things are usually the other way around (there may be
exceptions, albeit few).

That is, people who suffer from mental distress, clinical impairment or
extreme cases of dissonant discomfort in today's day and age use the internet
to get easier access to their fix.

People suffering from these alleged symptoms would most likely always
sacrifice social and professional activities, regardless of the medium that
delivers their fix.

By focusing on the internet and other effects of the real disorders, it
perpetuates a disregard for the serious issues that people are actually
suffering from.

ex:

A serious hypochondriac would not get fixed by reducing time spent on the
internet.

The same goes for disorders dealing with paranoia, obsessions, social stalking
etc.

~~~
garrettgrimsley
This still isn't right. I think you're throwing around the word "addict."

Perhaps you are using a very loose definition of the word "addict" while the
author and I are using a narrow, clinical, definition.

When I, and the author, say "internet addiction" we don't mean that the person
just has a thirst for knowledge. We mean that if a person has a behavioral
addiction then that person has "an inability to control how often or how
intensely you engage in an activity, even when you feel the negative
consequences."

This is probably just a semantic disagreement.

The people that can browse the web all day, hold down jobs, care for
themselves, these aren't the people the author is talking about. They are
talking about the ones that drop out of school, quit their jobs, etc.

>Since you mentioned it; In my opinion that statement unfortunately seems to
get the causality and effects mixed.

Do you hold the same stance if we swap out internet addiction for another
addiction, such as gambling or heroin?

> Trying to establish, that just because a person seeks out and consumes a lot
> of data does not make them an internet addict or an information addict.

This wasn't implied in the article. Maybe the grandparent comment implied it,
but I don't think so.

As to your comments about "real disorders" and "serious issues" well, we take
the bottle away from the drunkard, but that's really another discussion on its
own.

Example of loose use of the "addict" label: [http://qz.com/304179/brazil-has-
the-worlds-biggest-internet-...](http://qz.com/304179/brazil-has-the-worlds-
biggest-internet-addicts/)

------
swah
No. I've been browsing 10 hours a day for the last 15 years and never got
addicted.

------
georgemcbay
Probably, but at the same time (and the article touches upon this a bit) the
Internet is somewhat of an all encompassing medium the increasing use of which
is not necessarily a sign of negative addiction.

I use the Internet a _lot_ , but that is because the Internet has grown to
encompass some amount of nearly every aspect of my life, not (in my non-
professional opinion) because I have an addictive tendency toward it.

I'm a software developer, so clearly Internet use for research/testing/etc is
very common; I'm a movie/tv watcher and all of my at-home movie/tv watching
has migrated to the Internet; I'm a reader and most of my reading has migrated
to the Internet (at the very least for delivery to my Kindle); I'm a gamer and
most of the games I play have at least some Internet-based multiplayer
component; I'm a hobbyist at various things like photography, quadcopter
building/flying, and 3D printing and the Internet is a spectacular way to
communicate with like-minded hobbyists, so I do; I'm someone who lives across
the country from most of my extended family, and we keep in contact via the
Internet (in addition to occasional phone calls and visits, but the contact
via the Internet is much more consistent due to the easy time-shifting of
leaving messages).

I spend hours and hours and hours a day on the Internet, but OTOH I can easily
go camping for a week or two and live completely without it with no ill
effects. I have IRL friends I spend time with on a weekly basis, I "get out"
and do plenty of things not related to the Internet, etc. So while I use it
_very often_ on a regular basis, that in and of itself does not signify an
addiction, as far as I understand it (again, in my non-professional opinion).

~~~
djloche
The internet is like electricity - you can live without it, but due it the
prevalent use of it, you will not be part of modern society/culture and be at
a significant disadvantage in terms of economic impact vs those who use it.

~~~
crpatino
You could have said the same thing about tobacco, 50 years ago. That did not
make the suffering of those with the proclivity to develop cancer any less
gruesome.

------
mlrtime
A person with addictive tendencies can be addicted to anything.

[http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/my-strange-addiction](http://www.tlc.com/tv-
shows/my-strange-addiction)

~~~
bpatrianakos
Depends on your definition of addiction. Addiction is a real medical disease.
To be addicted in the medical sense you have to a) have a dependence on the
object of your addiction (your body has a negative response when you don't get
the thing you're addicted to) and b) it changes your behavior and causes
extreme negative consequences in your life. Things like Internet addiction
only account for one half of that. I think that if the statement "you can be
addicted to anything" can be true then either the definition of addiction your
using is too broad or it needs redefining.

~~~
baddox
How about my dependence on air to breath and food to eat? I think you also
need to add the requirement that the dependence is not common, and causes
problems for the person that fall outside the norm.

~~~
garrettgrimsley
Those are innate dependencies, and almost all definitions of a dependence
disorder include that the dependence must cause social, occupational, or
recreational issues.

Check out the DSM4 criteria for substance dependence[1], but note that it has
been phased out in the DSM5. They merged it with substance abuse to form
"Substance Use Disorder."

[1] [http://www.buppractice.com/node/454](http://www.buppractice.com/node/454)

[2]
[http://www.buppractice.com/node/4621](http://www.buppractice.com/node/4621)

------
pastycrinkles
HN's comments to this article are funny. Most of them read like denials or
sidesteppings of the issue.

~~~
bgilroy26
Addiction you say?

What is 'addiction'? What is 'disease'? What is 'real'?

It recalls Bill Clinton asking for a more precise definition of the word 'is'.

------
mgarfias
Nah, I’m just really bored.

------
trhway
well, few minutes ago switched into the browser out from the VNC console of my
Linux workstation (where i was doing something productive for almost 20
minutes) to check something on the wiki... i'm still to reach that wiki page
tab :)

------
adultSwim
Yes

