And this thread seems to be rather messed up...tech help!
3. alistairconnor - 7/20/2000 4:47:41 PM
OK Jen... I think we're open for business.
First question : are you really cazart?
4. alistairconnor - 7/20/2000 4:48:04 PM
Beaten to the punch...
5. alistairconnor - 7/20/2000 4:49:17 PM
... and what happened to number 2?
6. JJBiener - 7/20/2000 4:54:50 PM
Don't look at me, Kemosabe.
7. theDiva - 7/20/2000 4:58:00 PM
heeeeellllpppp
meeeeeeeeeeeeeee
8. Uzmakk - 7/20/2000 6:38:20 PM
Do we get an introductory explanation?
9. Jenerator - 7/20/2000 9:55:33 PM
Ahem, okay, let's get started.
Although no formal psychiatric diagnosis of Internet addiction currently exists, there appears to be sufficient clinical and research evidence to support that an addictive phenomenon occurs when certain people use the Internet.(David Greenfield, Virtual Addiction)
A recent Stanford University survey found that respondents who use the Internet more than five hours a week spend less time with family and friends.
This thread seeks to address the issues raised: Is there such a thing as Internet addiction? Does five hours a week represent a reasonable threshold? Do you know anyone who spends too much time on the Internet? How much is too much time on the Internet?
10. CalGal - 7/20/2000 10:05:54 PM
Jen,
If five hours a week represents addiction, then the majority of the people on this site are addicted.
Besides, why is amount the sole determinant of addiction? There are a lot of heavy drinkers who aren't addicts, whereas there are a good number of alcoholics who have ruined their marriages and careers by not being able to live without four beers a day.
And then, what constitutes "the Internet"? I assume that they mean online interactions, not 8 hours spent reading the Post, Time, and the Drudge report.
I would say instead that it is the inability to function without "the Internet" (whatever that means) that constitutes addiction--if indeed there is such a thing.
11. Jenerator - 7/20/2000 10:08:55 PM
CalGal,
I was surprised when I read that five hours was considered a warning sign of sorts. Especially considering that GTE, when hooking up a new user onto the Internet, allows for 150 hours free per month -- approximately five hours a day.
How much is too much time a day?
12. Jenerator - 7/20/2000 10:16:42 PM
Also CalGal, for those out there who are skeptical of Internet addiction, we can talk about symptoms and cases, too.
13. CalGal - 7/20/2000 10:21:18 PM
I don't think there is such a thing as "too much time" in a day, although over time I think it could add up to too much. Remember that a lot of us work during the day, and are at computers. Is there any difference between posting comments or sending email and chatting with a co-worker?
Ditto at home--suppose that one spouse spends more time than the other online, making the non-user cranky. Is that an addiction, or is it the equivalent of staying out late with friends?
Now, suppose that someone does use the internet so much at work that it puts their job at risk. Again, does it mean they are addicted--or is it the equivalent of talking on the phone too much, or taking off too much time at lunch? In other words, they might just be a lousy employee.
I do think there are people who find the specific nature of online relationships so much more attractive than anything they find in the real world that they willingly lose themselves in it. That, I agree, is something nearer to an addiction, but it's also pretty clear that it has something to do with the psychological makeup of the individual and the nature of the relationships. Not the internet per se.
I also think these people are relatively rare--even though their predicaments make up a majority of the coverage.
14. Slackjaw - 7/20/2000 11:16:42 PM
It seems to me prima facie absurd that there could be such a thing as "too much time" spent on the internet independent of personal circumstances.
What we really need is a "too much time" mapping, specifying what constitutes too much time for a given profile of personal and life characteristics.
Question: on the correlation between use for more than 5 hours a day and reduced interaction with family, which is cause and which is effect?
15. bloodnfire - 7/21/2000 5:42:04 AM
Glad to see your thread is 'up and running' Jen. Interesting topic.
fwiw I don't see much difference between one member of the family reading for several hours each day, and another spending time on the Internet. I find the internet most educational and fun, and in some ways incredibly intimate. I feel that this process of "Posting" a 'Considered Response' to another human being's thoughts to be more profound in many cases, than mere 'chatting'. What do you think ?
16. Uzmakk - 7/21/2000 7:54:05 AM
Addiction? Presently I spend almost all my internet time on the Mote. This satisfies me.(btw, there was a period there where the Mote was interfering with my work, but I think I have it under control) Not only that, I consider it extremely healthy to hash things out with a bunch of opinionated bastards. Also, what are the chances of gathering a bunch of one's personal aquaintences together to do what we do here?. Last time I had an interesting conversation face to face was at a Bar Mitzvah 6 months ago: topic-- education. Oh, the nature of my work allows me to call talk-radio which I do on a regular basis. As I interject from time to time, I love the Mote.
When I first got on the web I surfed for a couple of months, found everything I was interested in, printed much of it out, and have done little surfing since.
17. Uzmakk - 7/21/2000 7:56:05 AM
Its pretty neat to recall that-- surfing into the wee hours of the morning night after night.
18. marshame - 7/21/2000 10:31:15 AM
Re what is the Internet, I agree with Calgal that for the purposes of considering the Internet something other than a library of sorts, the online interaction is the distinctive element. I can't imagine anyone would wake up early and rush to their computer to read the latest Slate. But some might, for the Fray (back in olden times when the Fray was interactive).
What I find most interesting is the intimacy issue that bloodnfire and uzzmak suggested. Maybe it is because it is pure communication, without the encumbrances of geography and (face it) physical contact. We can be middle-aged paunchy counch potatoes for all anyone knows, yet engage in lively, witty reparte that has us imagining each other as Beautfiul People. I especially like the Mote movies side-bar thread where we can post pictures of our "personas" or alter-egos. Why not hold myself out as Meryl Streep (or whomever) if that is who I imagine myself as, in my mind's eye? And I don't really need to know that the guy(s) that I'm bantering with are bald and have three kids. The enjoyment is in the interaction purely through the words we type on the screen. No need to see the pile of dirty dishes in the sink behind me, or the squalid little windowless cubicle where I work. Instead, imagine me as the rich lady of the manor, in my high powered (high paying, of course!) penthouse office.
What am I saying? I am a rich lady of the manor with a high-powered, high paid job in a penthouse office. And I do look like Meryl Streep's cousin.
19. Uzmakk - 7/21/2000 10:52:59 AM
And I am the Master of the Blue Wolf, and I do give my local politicos cause.
Or, atleast I think I do.
20. marshame - 7/21/2000 11:09:29 AM
I have a friend who trolls the chat rooms (not sure which/how, since I've never participated in one.) She is late 40's and wants to meet A Man and she doesn't go for the bar scene and she has already tried the Sunday school route (hey this is the Bible belt, and that's a recognized and acceptable place to Meet Other People Like Yourself).
Anyhow, she meets these guys, has a few on-line conversations with them, followed by a few phone calls. Then she meets them out, usually to play pool. She is batting 100% for No Match.
It is a puzzle to me. (A puzzle why you can click with someone on-line and then they are a turn-off IRL.)
On the other hand, my daughter has a friend who met her current husband on the Internet. They met in a chat room, and it was one of those fly-across-the-country-to-meet deals. They got married about a year after they first met. Fortunately, there were no current spouses to divorce. However, it is unclear whether or not the young husband has ceased from communicating with other young ladies in chat rooms, and young wife is trying to sharpen her computer skills to figure out how to answer that question.
21. Uzmakk - 7/21/2000 11:18:21 AM
I have friends who are into that game. I am not inclined. I could get in to trouble. Cellar's voice is heard in the distance,"Trouble? That's a cultural constraint."
22. marshame - 7/21/2000 11:23:42 AM
The game of meeting people on line and then following up IRL?
I would love to know the statistics for on-line matches, especially the "I left my husband and 4 kids to unite with my true soul mate in Anchorage" stories. But who in the world could collect them and how?
23. DocBrown - 7/21/2000 11:26:46 AM
How, marshame? Using the Internet, of course.
The Internet is a great way to gather and exchange information. It is not so great for authenticating and verifying information. Hence the difficulty some people have in finding a match. However, I know two happily married couples who met on the net in BBSs like this.
24. marshame - 7/21/2000 11:30:50 AM
BBSs?
Basic Bull Shit?
Bucolic Bulletin Server?
Bandying By Screen?
25. rubberducky - 7/21/2000 11:32:23 AM
"It is a puzzle to me. (A puzzle why you can click with someone on-line and then they are a turn-off IRL.)"
because people lie, dear marsha. all day everyday. especially online when there is no immediate negative result and lots of positive ones (more interest, let's say). and then, of course, we you do meet, reality comes crashing through and the one lied to knows why -because had the person been honest, there's no way in hell s/he would be talking to the liar in the first place.
26. rubberducky - 7/21/2000 11:32:58 AM
Bulletin
Board
System
27. marshame - 7/21/2000 11:40:20 AM
Doc
I think my friend's problem is that she doesn't spend that much time trying to get to know someone via the internet. I think she covers a few basics and then she moves to meet them. I myself would be far more interested to remain in the anonymous realm and explore (like give little tests!) how well the other person can express himself, what are his values, opinions, thoughts, is he aware of current events, etc. Afterall, the beauty of the internet is the anonymity, so why not ask exactly what you want to ask and cover areas that are really important to you so that you can screen out the undesireables, while shielded by anonymity? That's what I would do, anyway. Then there are others who I suppose would spend the same effort creating a false persona.
28. marshame - 7/21/2000 11:43:30 AM
Ducky
But why would someone who lied then go to a meeting IRL where they would be found out? Wouldn't that be the ultimate humilation? To present yourself as a physically beautiful accomplished athelete (or whatever) and then showup as a skinny, acned nerd? Why would someone do that (besides the pedophile or criminal, I mean.)
29. JudithAtHome - 7/21/2000 11:49:17 AM
I can't understand the appeal for creating a false persona IF you are going to meet that person eventually. I mean, if you have a crooked nose and bad teeth, those will eventually come under scrutiny, right?
30. JudithAtHome - 7/21/2000 11:49:48 AM
X-post!
31. marshame - 7/21/2000 11:54:26 AM
I know I have enough trouble keeping the truth straight ( I am rich, I am beautiful, I am successful, etc.) without trying to keep up with the tangled web of deceit ("Oh yeah, I won the Noble Prize for literature in 1972, not 1973! How could I have forgotten, 1973 was when I invented post-a-notes.")
32. rubberducky - 7/21/2000 12:38:57 PM
marsha / J@H
you're being much too logical
it's the little lies that are told. I'm not fat, i'm stocky. i play pool - not that i suck at playing pool. i work out during the week, not that i drive by the workout area when i leave my apartment. you see? plausible deniability.
the person that does this is (a) not busy, so what difference does it make if it's a wasted evening (b) desperate for companionship (c) wanting to make a connection - because hey, you never know unless you try.
that's the bullet, imo. getting to meet someone and jsut assuming s/he is as desperate as the liar and/or will be won over by real-life "charm" enough to see him/her again.
33. JudithAtHome - 7/21/2000 12:48:20 PM
That's rather sad.
34. DocBrown - 7/21/2000 12:49:25 PM
Taking time is very important in an Internet relationship.
As far as meeting face to face, I think most people who participate in these things really have portrayed themselves honestly. One problem in starting an offline relationship comes when one or both have spoken communication skills that are inferior to their written skills.
It may even run deeper than that. The things you say online, especially in a place like this, are like an artistic performance. They may reflect true aspects of your personality, but they may leave out some things.
Imagine if you got to know Frank Sinatra only by listening to his music. You might think he was the most caring and sensitive man in the world. Now imagine going out on a date with the real Frank Sinatra. As far as Frank is concerned his music is an honest expression of himself, but you would quickly learn that the music left out a few things about Old Blue Eyes.
35. JudithAtHome - 7/21/2000 12:51:43 PM
You make an excellent point, DB....that is why I fell compelled to tell everyone that I am really Sela Ward.
36. DocBrown - 7/21/2000 1:47:48 PM
Thanks for the honesty, Judith. Must've been a struggle for you.
I, OTOH, have a persona that gives everyone an almost perfect image of me.
I really am a white haired scientist who invented time travel in his garage. However, I have never had a clandestine meeting in the middle of the night with a teenaged boy to show off my "latest invention."
37. PsychProf - 7/21/2000 2:49:09 PM
ADDICTION
"Physical dependence is generally characterized by
continued, compulsive use in spite of negative
compulsive use in spite of withdrawal symptoms when
use is discontinued; and increased tolerance. When
someone has become physically dependent on a
substance, his or her body no longer functions normally
without it.
Physical dependence develops in stages:
experimentation becomes occasional and then regular
use, which leads to tolerance (the body adapts to the
substance and needs higher and more frequent doses to
obtain the same effect), which leads to even greater use
and addiction.
Psychological dependence is more difficult to define, but
is usually described as a mental and emotional
preoccupation with a drug or activity, so that it becomes
the central focus for one's life. The person develops a
psychological need, or compulsion, for the effect of a
drug or the stimulation from an activity. "
38. JudithAtHome - 7/21/2000 3:35:10 PM
Okay, that settles it...I'm not addicted.
39. christino - 7/21/2000 3:46:02 PM
Another reason that we may not click as well in person as online was brought home to me listening to NPR yesterday.
If you've spent much time listening to National Public Radio you'll have noticed that some of the people who read their essays aloud are better at it than others. What I noticed was that had I been reading them in a magazine rather than listening to them I would have "heard" them in my own voice.
Unless you've already met someone and know them well in a face to face real life way then what you read on the net is always going to be flavored by your own voice.
Essentially we fall a little bit in love with ourselves every time we strike up a new friendship online. Because we lack those phsycial cues that are there IRL our own brains manufacture them and generally in a way that is pleasing to us.
40. marshame - 7/21/2000 5:03:12 PM
wow christino! That is a very interesting hypothesis. And just as we are generally shocked when we hear our own true voices for the first time, so we may well be shocked when we hear the true voice of someone we know only online.
Another interesting phenomenon along the same line is that we all tend to communicate in certain tempos depending on the environment and the people. For example, we communicate a certain way in my office. When someone bursts upon the scene and is suddenly speaking much more rapidly, or is impatient for the response, it is unsettling. It can work in the reverse, too. We had one fellow here (I replaced him, actually) who delighted in tormenting our boss by intentionally slowing down the pace of conversation. It seems like everytime I talk on the phone long distance to certain relatives, we always speak at the same time/silent at the same time, til we can finally strike up a rhythm. So, just as christino says we hear what another says in our own voice, so we hear it in our own comfortable tempo. And meeting someone IRL could be a bit of a jolt of there is much dissonance in tempo between reality and our imagination.
Judith
You say there could be trouble if someone can write well but is not as articulate in person. This is something I have trouble accepting. It is akin to when people say "I know what I mean, I just can't say it!" I don't understand how that can be. If thoughts precede our speech and our writing, how can we write clearly, fluidly, fluently, but not be able to speak it?
Doc Brown
Oh, so you're the one!!! Well I loved your book, but the last movie about you was so-so.
41. JudithAtHome - 7/21/2000 5:20:08 PM
Hey, I didn't say that! I agree with you!
I think it was Doc Brown who said that, right before I confessed to being Sela Ward.
42. christino - 7/21/2000 5:27:13 PM
drum-roll please:
I have to agree with Doc on this one.
(smelling salts anyone?)
Some people are more verbal than others. Some people are better writers than speakers in that writing affords them time to craft a response where speaking makes them nervous, puts them on the spot and causes short circuits in the brain.
As for not being able to articulate one's self I've been there many a time. Some things are understood viscerally but trying to put them into words is quite beyond us. Organizing your thoughts can be a trial. Some folks just can't do it as well on an immediate basis such as is required for conversation.
43. alistairconnor - 7/21/2000 7:20:18 PM
Mmmmm christino, we really are soul mates... I could gladyly sign everything you write... let's just make sure we never meet, shall we?
44. christino - 7/21/2000 7:25:03 PM
hahaha, afraid one of us would disappear in a puff of smoke?
45. alistairconnor - 7/21/2000 7:29:24 PM
... what i mean is, I wouldn't want to disappoint you.
There are a lot of people around here who can write faster than I can think.
There is another aspect to this : you can enter the conversation when you've got something interesting to say. Nobody thinks it's odd if you hang around for hours saying nothing, because they can't see you.
46. christino - 7/21/2000 8:54:31 PM
Yes, there is that. You're able to cover embarrassments more easily. Nobody here knows you're blushing unless you tell them. Also, nobody really knows that you broke off debate in order to rush to the library and get more sources for your argument!
47. angel-five - 7/22/2000 3:58:38 AM
Oh, gawd, Net relationships.
People seem more interesting on the Net than they do IRL, probably because of the mentioned reasons and probably also because you want them to be more interesting. You aren't just putting your 'voice' on their words, or 'you' on 'them', you're crafting them wholesale out of zeroes and ones. Someone writes the zeroes and ones (unless you're paranoid) but 'They' are a tabula rasa that you fill in on minimal clues. If you don't like the clues initially, you craft them in a negative way; if you do, you craft them in a positive light. And the stock footage, if you will, that you compose them from isn't just you, it's the sea of human characteristics you've encountered in your life.
It's sort of like looking at the pattern in wood grain and suddenly crafting a human face from the whorls and ripples.
What's all this add up to? Sad to say, it usually adds up to rd7's analysis.
As far as this place goes, the 'pecking order' seems to reduce to intellectual acumen and wit. It's easy enough to fake either online, when data and witty retorts are really only a search or a database away. For me, this makes the issue simple rather than complex -- belief and inference must always be taken with several grains of salt when you're imagining the person you're interacting with. It's a mistake to assume that everyone is lying, that everyone's being deliberately manipulative, but this is the ideal forum for being, ah, a little artistic when representing yourself as well as being the ideal forum for making groundless assumptions about others.
Angel's Razor: When dealing with online personalities, the simplest inferences you can draw are usually the most accurate, and the most (or least) flattering and interesting inferences you can draw are usually not.
48. angel-five - 7/22/2000 4:09:13 AM
I can type arguments much faster than I can reason them out entirely, as is often apparent. Fortunately for me, this is sometimes mistaken as the hallmark of a higher level of intelligence; unfortunately, things that make a whole lot of sense when I'm typing them on the fly sometimes really turn out to be thoroughly wrong-headed.
Even though I can speak much faster than I can type, I run into this phenomenon much more often when typing than when speaking, probably because spoken conversation's more meaningful (and for higher 'stakes', if you will) than Net chattering.
I suppose this quickness of response is a gift, but I assure you it's probably as exasperating to me as it is to the people I'm disagreeing with. Luckily, I love arguing, I change my opinion on superficial matters with roughly the same frequency as I blink, and I think 'truth' is a really hazy concept so this doesn't ever work out too badly for me. (Smile)
49. arkymalarky - 7/22/2000 8:46:35 AM
My uncle has gotten to meeting women through the net. I hope if Bob dies or runs off with somebody or whatever, that I never get that desperate. If you happen to meet someone and fall for eachother over your common love of chihuauas (sp) or something that's not quite the same as actively searching out a fill-in-the-blank online.
As for how people present themselves, I think a lot of them don't mean to be deceptive, but their perceptions of themselves are not what others necessarily see. IRL you learn the reality pretty quickly and move on, but online, when all you have is someone else's word without your own observation and judgment of it, you have no real choice but to take it at face value if you're going to relate at all.
The Mote has been a fascinating way to interact on the net because the discussions are more in depth, the core group of people here have interacted over a long period of time, and it allows for a chance to get to know people better than it seems chatrooms would (but I don't know, really, since I've never been in one). When I met the Texas bunch they might not necessarily have looked as I expected, but their personalities didn't surprise me or seem different. Bob tells me I'm not myself in the Mote, though. I wish I could remember how he put it.
50. arkymalarky - 7/22/2000 8:51:33 AM
Oh, and on typing vs talking, I think a lot more carefully when I post than when I talk, and I edit and proofread a lot if it's an involved discussion (as with the book discussions). That's really time consuming, though, and I don't do that nearly as much now that I've been here so long, and since I also have a lot less time than I used to. When I first came into the fray I was very concerned™ about my posts. I'm not so careful in email, a fact I've occasionally lamented.
51. labwabbit - 7/22/2000 11:21:52 AM
InternetLife
Now THAT's an oxymoron...
52. CalGal - 7/23/2000 8:40:10 AM
It's interesting--we started off on internet "addiction" and moved to internet relationships.
53. joezan - 7/23/2000 10:09:25 AM
Funny this should come up at this time.
My bro from NY is coming out here next Sunday to visit, which I've known for over a month.
However, he informed me just last week that this lady he met on the Internet will also be coming out. They met in some chatroom over a year ago, and he's been dating her since (although it's a long distance relationship - she lives in CA and he's only seen her three times when he's been out there on business, and once when she was in NY on business.)
I was kind of floored at first, because for one thing he'd never even told me about her, and for another he's bringing her out to "meet the folks" - Gulp!
But, as it turns out, the lady is a minister's daughter from Grand Rapids, and had merely re-arranged her annual summer visit back home to coincide with his.
Now, in his case I know it's not desparation --- the guy is in a band, never been married, no kids, very tall and good looking. He's always juggling at least two women.
I think it's the mystery...
54. Cellar Door - 7/23/2000 10:50:40 AM
"Internet Life"? Is there any other kind?
55. JudithAtHome - 7/23/2000 11:11:15 AM
joezan:
Tell your brother to watch out for those ministers daughters...they are sometimes very wild!
56. Jenerator - 7/23/2000 5:45:03 PM
Thanks for all of the comments everyone, you brought up all kinds of issues. For now, I'll address a few and then come back to the others.
To start, I believe, as do the experts in the area of Internet addiction, that two aspects which are so appealing about the Internet, and which subsequently help in causing addiction are that 1) the Internet offers us a chance for a "fresh start" (for more, read Sherry Turkle's Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet")we can create, enhance, and or embellish anytyhing about us. We can also 'forget to mention' certain characteristics we dislike about ourselves. In Turkle's book, she details one story about a grad student in physics names Stuart. He grew up gangly and weak because of an illness that plagued him since he was a child, so he was always insecure and socially awkward. He suffered from depression and the only positive reinforcement he received was in academia, where he was mastering physics. One semester, he was introduced to MUDDing and his life changed. He took on the moniker "Achilles" and created a fun-loving, confident, witty, and successful-with-the-ladies macho man, whom he "always wanted to be." Pretty soon, he became addicted to MUDDing (and chatrooms and discussion boards) spending up to 18 hours a day. He, in time, confessed that Achilles was the "real" Stuart. No one offline, knew of his illness, of his depression, his family problems, or that he was nothing like his "real" self Achilles.
Cont.
57. Jenerator - 7/23/2000 5:46:25 PM
Let's face it, here in the Mote (and anywhere else online) we can be whomever we want to be. We can embellish our resumes, our academic history, our personal experiences, and our physical attributes. In Virtual Addiction, Greenfield says that the current estimates suggest that between 33-50 of Internet users are lying about some aspect of who and what they are. In real life, we aren't given that type of opportunity to "create" a new identity.
2) I believe that the Internet causes accelerated intimacy which can be addictive, too. (It is my assertation that women are more interested in pursuing online relationships than men, but more on that later...) There appears to be a perceived honesty in online communication because it is typed and because more personal information is released at a deeper and quicker level than in real life relationships. As Greenfield says, "This heightened intimacy, coupled with immediate gratification that's found from instantaneous communication, seems to produce the experience of intense and accelerated intimacy." Couple this accelerated intimacy with a dash of fantasy and you have an intoxicating an appealing mix.
58. Jenerator - 7/23/2000 6:24:19 PM
CalGal,
Re: Message # 13
"I don't think there is such a thing as "too much time" in a day, although over time I think it could add up to too much."
I don't think that using the Internet for one day for fifteen hours is addiction, however, I do believe that continual use for a destructive amount of time is suggestive of addiction. How much would be too much in your opinion? Hypothetical-- if your boyfriend was online in a capacity other than work (or checking on stocks, etc.) everyday, how much time would be too much time?
" Remember that a lot of us work during the day, and are at computers. Is there any difference between posting comments or sending email and chatting with a co-worker? "
It depends on the amount of time you are online. Also, remember that the time you're online is time spent away from real people in real life.
"Ditto at home--suppose that one spouse spends more time than the other online, making the non-user cranky. Is that an addiction, or is it the equivalent of staying out late with friends? "
It could be, but we'd need more details.
"Now, suppose that someone does use the internet so much at work that it puts their job at risk. Again, does it mean they are addicted--or is it the equivalent of talking on the phone too much, or taking off too much time at lunch? In other words, they might just be a lousy employee. "
Or they might be addicted to being on the telephone.
Cont.
59. Jenerator - 7/23/2000 6:25:53 PM
"I do think there are people who find the specific nature of online relationships so much more attractive than anything they find in the real world that they willingly lose themselves in it. That, I agree, is something nearer to an addiction, but it's also pretty clear that it has something to do with the psychological makeup of the individual and the nature of the relationships. Not the internet per se."
People can be addicted to the Internet for reasons other than just finding relationships. Online there is a sense of "never-ending opportunity". While online, you're never done with your task as you might be reading a book. As long as there's always another link or hypertext to click on, or another site to visit, it's possible for you to never feel a sense of completion. This sensation contibutes to what is known as the principle of incomplete Gestalts. (Greenfield, Virtual Addiction)
Surfing the Net can undermine our natural closure process with its "endless boundaries and unending opportunity to show and tell. A real nightmare for compulsives."(Ibid.)
" also think these people are relatively rare--even though their predicaments make up a majority of the coverage."
Greenfield says that a minimum of 6% of Internet users are addicts. With the number of users growing at 10,000 a day, right now approx 220 million are online, suggesting that @ 13 million people have an addiction.
60. Jenerator - 7/23/2000 6:46:59 PM
Angel-Five,
Re:Message # 47 and Message # 48
I agree with: "For me, this makes the issue simple rather than complex -- belief and inference must always be taken with several grains of salt when you're imagining the person you're interacting with. It's a mistake to assume that everyone is lying, that everyone's being deliberately manipulative, but this is the ideal forum for being, ah, a little artistic when representing yourself as well as being the ideal forum for making groundless assumptions about others."
Also, I understood what you meant when you said, "I can type arguments much faster than I can reason them out entirely, as is often apparent. Fortunately for me, this is sometimes mistaken as the hallmark of a higher level of intelligence; unfortunately, things that make a whole lot of sense when I'm typing them on the fly sometimes really turn out to be thoroughly wrong-headed."
For me, I'm much more skilled at verbal communication, and my memory serves me best when I'm speaking publicly. For some reason, I tend to freeze when I'm typing online -- things that I want to say don't come out so eloquently, or I forget to include a point, or I can't find the source I need to quote. In person, I'm quicker, more prepared, more confident and more thorough when arguing or discussing a topic.
61. CalGal - 7/23/2000 8:15:19 PM
Jen,
If I had a boyfriend that spent too much time on the Internet, I wouldn't think of it as any different from being out at the bars too much, working too hard, or being a couch potato--namely, he's spending too much time away from me. My presumed dissatisfaction has nothign to do with him and whether or not he's addicted. So I don't think there is any absolute "too much" on the amount of time spent online, and the fact that the significant other is bitching about it has little to do with it.
I think it's quite possible that the sort of people who recreate themselves online are also the sort who could become psychologically dependent on the internet (and that does have a great deal to do with it, far more than the absolute amount of time spent online). I would be surprised, though, if most people who hang out at forums (as opposed to chatrooms) are like this. I disagreed with both Christin and Angel on the bit about immediate intimacy, reasons for becoming attracted to people, and so on--disagree, I mean, in terms of what I find to be true for myself. It may be true for others, although I certainly don't see it reflected in the people I've met online.
People can be addicted to the Internet for reasons other than just finding relationships.....
I would be surprised if those people are psychologically dependent.
Greenfield says that a minimum of 6% of Internet users are addicts. With the number of users growing at 10,000 a day, right now approx 220 million are online, suggesting that @ 13 million people have an addiction.
Well, I think Greenfield is probably wrong. It is possible that 6% of Internet users who are online more than 10 hours a day are addicts (using the psychological definition), but that would be only a small percentage of an extremely small percentage of that 220 million.
62. Jimbo - 7/23/2000 8:45:14 PM
I wish I had the words to let you all know how articulate I really am.
After reading all of the above, the digression into the personality aspect of each poster is the most interesting to me. What is allowed on forums such as the Mote is the ability to let aspects of ones persona come to life. Is it a lie because most of the time that is not how you speak or behave? I don't think so.
63. bloodnfire - 7/24/2000 4:47:45 AM
Jen. Your 57...."Couple this accelerated intimacy with a dash of fantasy and you have an intoxicating and appealing mix.".
Exactly...:-)
64. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 7:15:25 AM
It is easier to reinvent oneself online that it is the the realworld but both seem possible(this in response to something Jenerator said up thread). Much more effort in the real world, but perhaps the two worlds play off eachother. Or is this the real world? Or how big a section of the real world is this? Some people make much money off the internet and to lots of folks you don't get much more real than that. Depends on how one uses it I guess. It comes to mind that the age through which we are now living is refered to as witspell in that Plato Papers(?) book at which I pecked a while ago. Interesting in light of what has been said on this thread recently.
65. rubberducky - 7/24/2000 9:06:59 AM
Re: Message # 52, CalGal.
"It's interesting--we started off on internet "addiction" and moved to internet relationships."
that's because, Cal, that's what a lot of people are "addicted" to. meeting people for sex or the "hook up". plus, where else are ugly people gonna at least get a single chance in hell?
PS if there are indeed "internet addictions" this is what the drug is
66. marshame - 7/24/2000 1:30:45 PM
I know that several of us have met other Moties in real life. The fact that people are willing to meet in real life tells me that this particular bunch of internet "aficionados" tends to be truthful in their portrayals of themselves (or else blissfully unaware that they are not the person they hold themselves out as!)
But one thing that I noticed about the Motio that we had in North Texas is that while we had no problem filling the conversational void, there was an unspoken agreement not to bring up the things we may have disagreed about on-line. In other words, sex, religion and politics were out!
Of course, our get-together was only a couple of hours long. If we had curled up late-night, after much food and drink, in the home of one of the Moties (as happened in the first, famous Fray-union in Seattle) then maybe the tongues would have loosened.
What has been the experience of the other Moties who have met people in real life?
67. PsychProf - 7/24/2000 1:39:31 PM
Marsh...my suprise in meeting a number of moteheads is that they are even more impressive in person. The Mote is no place for baloney.
68. theDiva - 7/24/2000 1:51:15 PM
Of all the Moties I've met, only two were a bit different than they are online. JJ was quieter, and Niner was funnier (delivery and comic timing only enhancing the performance.) Everyone else was as I expected them to be.
69. DocBrown - 7/24/2000 3:06:26 PM
My wife and I have met face-to-face with at least fifty people who we had met on the Internet. None were from the Mote. I assume this is because Moties so seldom visit Cleveland, not because I am being singled out and excluded.
All but one of these people were very much what I expected them to be.
The one exception was an automotive engineer who I knew from the DeLorean Mailing List. Online he is always very outspoken and articulate. In person he speaks quietly, in one word sentences.
I do not have a very exciting case study here, but at least my sample size is large.
My conclusion is that the virtual places on the Internet are very much like real places. If you go to a mundane place like a hardware store or an automobile repair web forum and you will find people exhibiting a high degree of sincerity. If you go to a scintillating place like a pickup bar or a sex chatroom and you will find the opposite end of the spectrum.
70. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 3:34:50 PM
CalGal,
Re: Message # 61
"If I had a boyfriend that spent too much time on the Internet, I wouldn't think of it as any different from being out at the bars too much, working too hard, or being a couch potato--namely, he's spending too much time away from me. My presumed dissatisfaction has nothign to do with him and whether or not he's addicted. So I don't think there is any absolute "too much" on the amount of time spent online, and the fact that the significant other is bitching about it has little to do with it."
I disagree, it's usually when others start to notice the problem and/or when the addict starts having problems that he or she can't avoid that the addiction begins to be noticed. Since addicts are most often in denial about their addiction, usually it takes the observation of others to start some sort of acknowledgment of the problem.
Also, I have to ask, if your boyfriend was spending his time in chatrooms talking exclusively to other women, would you see that as any different from being a couch potato?
And, 13 million people (growing daily) is hardly a small number!
Rubberducky,
I have agreed with everything you've said!;-)
Uzmakk,
What I've noticed is the tendency to brag about oneself in this forum. There are some serious self-promoters in here. Half of the time I have to ask myself if what they're saying is b.s. or not, I mean some of it is so far fetched I have a hard time believing their claims, and I know I'll never meet the people who do this the most.
71. KuligintheHooligan - 7/24/2000 3:43:46 PM
"Also, I have to ask, if your boyfriend was spending his time in chatrooms talking exclusively to other women, would you see that as any different from being a couch potato?"
Some people I have known have been clearly addicted to the Net, and particularly to flirting online and even making the occasional tryst with others of the opposite sex, despite clear objections from their boy/girl friend.
I mentioned this just last week in the Cafe, but a friend for whom I was bestman in his wedding back in 1987 recently lost his wife to one of these "Internet trysts." And no doubt she would have denied any addiction, and clearly would have objected to her meddling husband telling her that he didn't approve of all the time she spent in the chatrooms.
Some people, regardless of how much it hurts others, can just be so cold and cruel and selfish.
72. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 3:44:46 PM
Jenerator!!! My Queen!!!!
I hope you are not refering to me in your above post. Though I am as tough as Yak sinews the thought that you are refering to me in the above posts causes a trembling in my heart.
73. PsychProf - 7/24/2000 3:46:04 PM
Haha...Uzschmuck...she talkin about me...
74. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 3:47:59 PM
I've been trying to meet up with Moties, any Moties, for a year now but get snub after snub. Maybe you people are smarter than you seem.
75. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 3:50:34 PM
I haven't heard a self-promotional peep from you, PP.
76. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 3:53:12 PM
Uzmakk,
To quote the the profound poet MC Hammer, "You're too legit! Too legit to quit!" Don't worry, I know of your wilderness ways.
Vic,
I agree, it is a problem. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the intense and accelerated intimacy plays a large part in forming the addiction for certain people. In the books I have read on the subject, it's usually people looking to escape or be distracted from some sort of pain, who get hooked on meeting their "soul mate" online. The endless opportunity of meeting new people online can be destructive to existing rlationships if more time is spent invested in those people than in real-life relationships. How is your friend these days? Is he anti-computer?
77. KuligintheHooligan - 7/24/2000 4:02:49 PM
I doubt he is "anti-computer," but just keep in mind, I am in Namibia and he is in the States, and I just heard about this about a week ago. And to be terribly honest, during the year I was in the States, just before coming back here, I visited them and could tell immediately that there existed a problem, not between the two of them, but with her spending so much time in chatrooms. I even told my wife that I expected something bad to happen. Of course, not wanting to stick my nose in it, I never said anything to them.
"Addiction" takes many forms, but I am convinced that the Net has provided a way for some people who are either socially inept or just can't cope with reality to hook up with other people. One past female friend of mine clearly couldn't form relationships with men that weren't distant relationships. She was plainly dysfunctional. So she would spend literally hours on the Net flirting with men, sometimes hooking up with them for wild weekends and then bluntly cutting off the "relationship," all the while blaming others for her own dysfunctionality. And if you tried to point this out to her, not only did she flatly deny it, but she got downright hateful and mean about it!
I sometimes wonder what would have happened to someone like that, say, a decade ago when such means of "picking people up long distance" weren't available.
78. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 4:09:06 PM
Interesting point. The Internet has provided the world a means of "meeting" the rest of the world.
""Addiction" takes many forms, but I am convinced that the Net has provided a way for some people who are either socially inept or just can't cope with reality to hook up with other people."
I don't think it's that simple, I think that there are other factors that play into forming an addiction. Also, I hope that your female friend has gotten some help.
79. KuligintheHooligan - 7/24/2000 4:16:15 PM
My comment about addiction wasn't meant to be exhaustive.
And as for my female friend, I don't know if she got help, since I no longer have contact with her. But I pity the man that ends up with her.
80. DocBrown - 7/24/2000 4:18:03 PM
Why should she get help, Jenerator? When did teasing men and then breaking their hearts become a crime?
You are probably right in your assessment that she needs help. But I honestly do not know how you reached it. How is flirting with distant men and then breaking it off different from any other quirky dating habit? Or do you believe that anyone who is not profficient at dating must need psychotherapy?
81. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 4:19:36 PM
Esecially if she's still doing the same things! Hopefully her break-up was "rock bottom" for her. Usually it takes some sort of life changing event such as that to begin to fully acknowledge the problem and deal with it. I don't pity the man she winds up with unless she's still stuck in the addiction.
82. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 4:23:16 PM
Doc,
I inferred from Vic's post that she was flirting with various men and then having affairs with them. He also stated that she was becoming more hateful about it and blaming others. I've never known of that to be healthy behavior. No, I don't believe that people who are not professional daters need psychotherapy.
Just a side note, of the various case studies I've read, most of the women and men who participated in such activities usually would up with deeper emotional scars, sometimes broken marriages, and occasionally veneral diseases.
83. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 4:24:04 PM
would should be wound
84. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 4:25:26 PM
sexually transmitted diseases! I must use spell check!
85. KuligintheHooligan - 7/24/2000 4:26:33 PM
"I don't pity the man she winds up with unless she's still stuck in the addiction."
Part of the problem is denial. She would never admit it. That is why I have little hope that she has changed. And her problems went far deeper than "internet addiction," but that is another matter altogether. In other words, I think he activities on the Net revealed far deeper, emotional and psychological disorders. I sometimes wondered if she was even demon possessed, given some of her behaviour.
Doc, you are correct, if one can "justify" one-night stands from the local bar, then picking people up via the Internet isn't any different. Sleep with them and dump them.
86. rubberducky - 7/24/2000 4:30:18 PM
"Sleep with them and dump them."
one has to justify this now? whatta world!
87. DocBrown - 7/24/2000 4:48:21 PM
I suppose that being hateful and blaming others is an undesirable character trait, but why assume the internet relationships are the cause of this?
It looks to me like one night stands maye be among the most important relationships of the future, as the "traditional family" fades into ancient history. The Internet will probably help to build those relationships.
I believe this thread can have great importance, in that it can allow us to discuss what it will be like to participate in those new types of relationships.
88. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 4:48:26 PM
Vic,
I'm a believer in recovery and I'm much more optimistic about such matters than you are, I take it? I w ould agree that she had other "issues."
89. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 4:49:37 PM
Doc,
The Internet is the new "Social Fastfood", huh?
90. DocBrown - 7/24/2000 4:53:05 PM
Question for everyone:
What is the best strategy for finding the maximum number of satisfying social and sexual encounters on the web, while minimizing the risk of encountering an axe murderer or contracting a nasty disease?
Bomus points if you can verify that the strategy works through personal or second-hand experience.
91. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 4:53:41 PM
Ya, Doc, the traditional family fades into the sunset and we are left with the Cryps and the Bloods.
92. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 4:54:37 PM
Doc Brown:
Don't you push a line of rubber sex toys?
93. DocBrown - 7/24/2000 5:01:10 PM
That's a different Doc, Uzz. I'm strictly a stainless steel and Plutonium man.
Your comment about gangs is short sighted. The human race has always had such underground societies as refuge for some. However, public schools are only a few centuries old, and licensed Day Care Centers only a few decades. The system by which we raise children is changing, so it is inevitable that the relationships supporting that system will change.
94. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:06:30 PM
Ya, and the family is probably prehistoric.
95. KuligintheHooligan - 7/24/2000 5:10:17 PM
The traditional family will never die with the smart people, the ones who see how society's other definitions deteriorate.
96. marshame - 7/24/2000 5:11:57 PM
Doc
Please define "maximum number of satisfying social and sexual encounters on the web". Wouldn't the development of one such relationship that would yield social and sexual satifaction be enough? I mean, when did quantity enter the picture?
97. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:13:18 PM
Did the editorial concerning what happened to elephant society when rangers relocated the mothers and baby elephants without any bulls?.(too big to transport by helicopter) Dead rhinos started to turn up. What gives? The young males formed predatory pachyderm packs and terrorized the neighborhood.(I mean the savanah). The killed those muthafucking rhinos.
98. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:14:03 PM
i.e., did the editorial run in your paper?
99. KuligintheHooligan - 7/24/2000 5:14:59 PM
I have been out in the "bush" a couple of times around elephants herds. They can be quite intimidating.
100. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:15:52 PM
ie, they killed those motherfucking rhinos
101. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:17:48 PM
I wonder about the social stability of the children produced in Doc's brave new world.
102. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:45:21 PM
Actually, this reminds me of another "Uzmakk interacts with the young people" story. If someone would encourage me I would tell it.
103. marshame - 7/24/2000 5:48:13 PM
The kiddo you grabbed by the throat at the birthday party? Oh goody, tell us more!
104. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:51:20 PM
Different one. You have to ask again so I know you really want to hear.
105. marshame - 7/24/2000 5:52:14 PM
Pretty please with sugar on top.
106. marshame - 7/24/2000 5:53:06 PM
First, was this a kid you met on the Internet?
107. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 5:54:59 PM
No. I'll tell it over in Stories.
108. marshame - 7/24/2000 6:20:40 PM
Well.
Here's a symptom of internet addiction if I ever saw one. A certain Motie has to learn about her Motie daughter's receipt of a marriage proposal by reading about it in the Mote Cafe rather than in real life!!!
Then again, if it's one of those "someday" proposals, without a ring and date certain, then never mind.
109. Jenerator - 7/24/2000 7:27:31 PM
Uzzmakk,
Your Message # 97 reminds of the plot from Jurassic Park.
110. Uzmakk - 7/24/2000 9:40:26 PM
Reminds me of Los Angeles and San Salvador.
111. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 10:02:31 AM
Uzzmack (in the Story thread) wrote:
"Oh you're so passe, Uzmakk. oh you're so traditional and that's not where its at, Uzmakk", I can hear Doc Brown, the gay chorus, and 70% of the Mote crying in unison. Lemme tell ya, soccer is a game of fundamentals.
I shall cry no such thing, Uzzmakk. Children absolutely need discipline. The human brain learns by making neural connections, and these connections are only formed by rigor and repetition.
It is the assumption that two parents alone will always be able to provide sufficient support and discipline that I question.
If we are to maintain a high standard of living in a growing population, we need to keep increasing productivity. Increasing productivity means finding more effective and efficient ways of raising our children. We also need more effective and efficient romantic relationships. The Internet can help us achieve that.
Because the Internet is a very rapid form of communication, I am not surprised that a Motie might learn important family news via The Mote Cafe. I do not see this as evidence of Internet addiction at all.
112. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 10:10:50 AM
Interesting, Doc. My concern is that we not consider relationships that are significant and whose effects run deep and spread widely with a superficial and scientific sounding understanding of a mere aspect that we are capable of studying.
113. CalGal - 7/25/2000 10:37:22 AM
Jen,
I disagree, it's usually when others start to notice the problem and/or when the addict starts having problems that he or she can't avoid that the addiction begins to be noticed. Since addicts are most often in denial about their addiction, usually it takes the observation of others to start some sort of acknowledgment of the problem.
This is true. But you are missing the point. If someone was spending all of this time in bars, dancing, and pissing off his/her significant other, would it be indication of addiction or indication that he or she was a lousy partner?
You are looking at it from the framework of addiction and coming up with answers accordingly. But you have not yet demonstrated that it is an addiction.
Also, I have to ask, if your boyfriend was spending his time in chatrooms talking exclusively to other women, would you see that as any different from being a couch potato?
That's not the point. The point is would I see it any differently from him screwing around with other women in person? And the answer is no. It's not any different.
And, 13 million people (growing daily) is hardly a small number!
You misunderstand. I dispute the number. I am saying that he is incorrect in his definition of addiction if he is saying that 6% of all Internet users are addicted. Again, it is possible that 6% of heavy internet users are "addicted". But that's a much different--and much smaller--number.
As for the fact that some people are using the Internet to have dysfunctional interpersonal relationships in ways that weren't possible before--so what else is new?
114. PelleNilsson - 7/25/2000 10:53:18 AM
I must say that I find the concepts of productivity, effectivness and efficiency hard to reconcile with the rasing of children or pursuing romantic relationships.
115. jonesatlaw - 7/25/2000 11:06:00 AM
Pelle- I agree, the thought of efficiency in romantic relationships makes me think of folks with stopwatches and clipboards evaluating just how well and quickly we achieve intimacy, or schedules for pair bonding.
116. JudithAtHome - 7/25/2000 11:10:46 AM
...or besting times for Olympic results in reaching the big O.
117. marshame - 7/25/2000 11:11:56 AM
Let us not forget the invaluable vaginal temp charts, that predict ovulation. Always a turn-on!
118. marshame - 7/25/2000 11:48:29 AM
Hey CalGal, where are you? Still somewhere in the great mid-west?
119. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 12:00:44 PM
Speaking of efficiency etc. and using all the wrong metrics to measure the phenomena under consideration, my local public school is run like a turkey farm. The adminestrators are incompetent. In personal conversations with my son's elementary school principle he comes off as a wet noodle of low intelligence.(Oh, another story pops to mind-- I arranged a conference concerning a bad teacher a couple of years ago. The participants included myself, the teacher, the principle, and the academic something or other bureaucrat. I questioned the teacher, got nothing but apologies, and the bureaucrat died of a heart attack that night.) Anyway, it seems to me that the whole thing is set up with all of the wrong priorities foremost. First is the size.......never mind. I think you know where I am going. A school is not a turkey farm.
120. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 12:03:12 PM
It seems to me that these things are adminestrated in a way that create insoluable problems.
121. CalGal - 7/25/2000 12:04:23 PM
Marsha--just got back from Florida and am leaving for Ohio tonight, assuming I don't keel over from a panic attack first.
122. marshame - 7/25/2000 12:08:42 PM
Panic attack? Fear of flying, or residuals from dealing with your ex?
123. marshame - 7/25/2000 12:10:37 PM
Uzz
The guy died after his meeting with you??!! Well I hope you at least had the good graces to remove your horned helmet and yak cloak before berating him!
124. CalGal - 7/25/2000 12:20:58 PM
Marsha--answer in the Cafe.
125. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 12:51:42 PM
Uzmakk: My concern is that we not consider relationships that are significant and whose effects run deep and spread widely with a superficial and scientific sounding understanding of a mere aspect that we are capable of studying.
This sounds good, in a political sound bite kind of way, but I am not sure what you mean.
We must be able to study everything that we use to make our decisions, both in and out of relationships. If we are not capable of studying something, then how can we use it to make decisions?
126. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 12:59:38 PM
Absolutely doc, study everything we can and study it carefully, and let's not say we have studied something complex when we have only studied something simple. Romance and child rearing sound complex. Efficiency sounds simple.
127. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 1:55:37 PM
I am sure that romance and child rearing are complex, although efficience is not necessarily simple. What has this got to do with anything?
What is this thread about, anyway?
Let me put it to you in this value-laden way: which would you consider a more efficient way to find a relationship, a system which exposed you to 500 choices by age 22, or a system that exposed you to 10,000 choices by age 22?
Choosing among 10,000 is more work, but it gives you an opportunity to find a much better match. It also gives you better information to decide that perhaps there is no match of the opposite sex for you.
Efficiency proceeds from effectiveness. In centuries past your choice of relationships was relatively small, making the system less effective. Today our opportunities for relationships are growing exponentially. This will probably make the world of the future very different from today's.
Will the people of the future seem shallow by our standards. Probably. But so what? That is not the end of the world.
128. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 1:56:11 PM
Missing ? in last paragraph. I have an itchy mouse finger today.
129. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 2:35:54 PM
I don't like too complicated a menu myself doc. There you are with the big numbers. Would I like 500 choices or 100000000000000 choices. I don't have time for all those choices. 10000000000000000 choices for romance may sound great to you but it doesn't impress me. . More efficient? I think I might still be choosing at 80 if I had so many choices.
130. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 2:41:28 PM
You're right, Doc, shallow parents make the best parents. And I just read about American gangs that have been imported to El Salvador. I recall a line about El Directo and his dead and shallow eyes. But who cares. There is nothing so satisfying as being shallow and meeting shallow people. You are correct I am sure.
131. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 2:43:43 PM
Your focus seems narrow doc. Too clinical.
132. PsychProf - 7/25/2000 2:46:13 PM
Doc...Huxley woulda loved ya...pop a soma and be happy.
133. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 2:49:26 PM
On increasing choices: the number of possible relationships that a person can experience is constantly increasing, thanks to modern technology. Everything from the automobile to the Internet gives us more freedom to enter more relationships, romantic and otherwise.
If you do not like it, you are free to eschew your car and your PC.
The multiplying number of choices brings with it many disadvantages, but there is no way of stopping it now. The best we can do is accept it, embrace it, and make peace with it.
134. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 2:51:17 PM
I rest my case.
135. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 2:51:50 PM
Please, Psych Prof, don't flatter me.
Huxley got quite a few things right. Between him and Burgess, the meaning and purpose of life is summed up marvelously.
136. PsychProf - 7/25/2000 3:22:24 PM
Doc...he certainly called the Prozac generation. For others(non-shallows), he missed the boat.
137. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 3:47:27 PM
Hey, wait just a doggone minute! That one didn't seem very flattering.
138. PsychProf - 7/25/2000 3:53:11 PM
Doc...Huxley thought, if he was right, that the world had it wrong. Or at least that's how I see it. Here he is...
139. DocBrown - 7/25/2000 4:01:22 PM
In case you are still following this, Uzmakk, you have not made your point yet.
Today our lives expose us to more people for shorter periods than in past generations. Perhaps people will always have a few relatively deep relationships (eg. marriages), but as time goes by we will certainly have many more shallow relationships.
An increasing number of shallow relationships does not make us "bad." We encounter so many people that the best we can have with most of them is a shallow relationship.
My point is that there is no turning back from this.
Your point seems to be something like: "This situation sucks and I don't like it!" I see little insight there.
If you are trying to say something else, then perhaps I have misunderstood you. Please explain it to me again.
140. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 4:37:32 PM
No doc, we really started off somewhere when we should have stayed put. Granted, if one meets a great number of people one cannot have involved relationships with them. But we started with the raising of children if I am not mistaken. You were into efficiency. The family was do go by the wayside and we were to adopt more scientific methods of raising children perhaps? Alternate methods? We meet more people(, the world moves faster, but children still need attention and they need it for a considerable period of time. My impression is that you would like to tamper with this to make it more effiecient, make a better product in a shorter period of time? I say be careful. I say it may be more complicated than it may appear. I say consider the self-esteem fad foisted on us by those who would improve us. Improve us? I don't think so. Surely it was a poison pill. Sorry if im rambling doc, don't feel like putting much effort in right now. Also, I disagree with much of the childrearing crap I read, sure don't follow it, and I would put my children up against anyones.
141. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 4:39:55 PM
What Burgess do you refer to? Not Anthony.
142. Uzmakk - 7/25/2000 4:56:35 PM
Doc said:
Your point seems to be something like: "This situation sucks and I don't like it!" I see little insight there.
Nope, hardly the point.
143. Jenerator - 7/25/2000 7:13:41 PM
CalGal,
Addiction involves any behavior or substance on which you are dependent and that is painfully difficult to stop. The main components reflective of an addiction are feelings of powerlessness and unmanageablility of one's life, and the negative effect this can produce. People tend to separate the consumption of substances (food, drugs, alcohol) from compulsive behaviors creating an artificial distinction between them. (Greenfield)
144. Jenerator - 7/25/2000 7:20:01 PM
This was taken from Dr. Kimberly Young's Center for Online Addiction
How can you tell if you are addicted? Here are some typical warning signs:
1.)Do you feel preoccupied with the Internet (think about previous on-line activity or anticipate next on-line session)?
2.)Do you feel the need to use the Internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve satisfaction?
3.)Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop Internet use?
4.)Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop Internet use?
5.)Do you stay on-line longer than originally intended?
6.)Have you jeopardized or risked the loss of significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of the Internet?
7.)Have you lied to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with the Internet?
8.)Do you use the Internet as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dysphoric mood (e.g., feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression)?
____________________________________________________________
If you can answer "yes" to five or more of the questions, then you may suffer from Internet addiction.
Think about the sites you log onto when answering these questions.
145. christino - 7/25/2000 8:21:40 PM
Doc:
"In centuries past your choice of relationships was relatively small, making the system less effective. "
How do you define effective in this instance? If we measure by divorce rates and broken homes our limited choices in the past made us far more effective partners. When you have a limited choice it behooves you to make the best of what you've got. When you have unlimited choice the temptation is to toss it all over and find something else whenever the whim strikes you.
Did you read Frank Herbert's Dune series? Once Paul has undergone his transformation and his prescient abilities are such that he can at any time see all possible outcomes of any action----an unlimited number of choices if you will---- he becomes effectually impotent. He is incapacitated by the enormity of the choices available to him and the weighing of different results. It requires his superhuman brain to ever break from this incapacity and what he eventually does is to just turn off the vast majority of what he is able to see at any given time.
You imply that the greater number of choices is alway better. I dispute this and argue that there is a point when the increased number of choices brings diminishing returns.
146. christino - 7/25/2000 8:32:55 PM
Jen,
This questionaire reminds me vividly of an AA questionaire that I read years ago and I find it just as alarmist and misleading.
Substitute "sitting at a coffeehouse talking with friends" for internet usage. No one anywhere in the world is ranting about coffeehouse addiction and yet there are millions of people nationwide who spend upwards of 15 hours a weeks sitting drinking coffee in cafes.
To consider internet usage an "addiction" is a fad. As CG mentioned the issue for these "addicts" is not whether or not they spend too much time on the net but whether or not they are functioning people regardless.
Staying home to read, hanging out in bars, sitting in coffee houses, joining community groups, watching TV, playing sports, working massive amounts of overtime----any of these activities can be used to avoid or distance us from some other aspect of our lives.
It just so happens that there are a bunch of people out there who found they can make money off of talking about yet another new "addiction".
147. Jenerator - 7/25/2000 9:37:07 PM
There seems to be some sort of collective denial in this country about the possibility of Internet addiction. What about people like Sandra Hacker?
148. Jenerator - 7/25/2000 9:45:14 PM
From this link:
"...A Cincinnati mother was arrested for neglecting her three young children in favor of the Internet. Sandra Hacker reportedly spent 12 hours a day online, while her hungry kids scrounged for food in their filthy apartment. Her children are now in county custody and she was tossed in jail.
...Ask Cincinnati Police Sgt. Paul Neudigate about Net addiction, however, and he'll give a different answer. He was the first officer to arrive on the scene at Sandra Hacker's house on June 14. On a tip from her ex-husband, Neudigate found Hacker's house in complete shambles, with broken glass and human feces on the floor. Her children had been locked up in a room so she could be online without interruption.
"If you ask me," says Neudigate, "It looked just like the homes of crack and heroin addicts who get caught up in their drugs.''
149. CalGal - 7/25/2000 10:43:48 PM
Jen,
No denial--the internet is just another way for people to become dysfunctional, like I said. No big shock. And sure, there are people who go off the deep end. I've said that "addiction" (in the sense that one is addicted to gambling) is possible--I just dispute the absurd numbers, and the notion that addiction has anything to do with time spent online.
150. Jenerator - 7/26/2000 12:05:50 AM
I don't follow. If one is addicted to the Internet, they're online. Of course the amount of time spent online would be illustrative of that addiction. That's like saying that time spent in casinos has nothing to do with gambling addiction.
151. bloodnfire - 7/26/2000 7:31:23 AM
It seems to me that the Internet, (being so much visualized in the mind, and the mind being the most active 'sex organ' in the human body), must lend itself to incredibly intense sexual fantasy. The anonymity, combined with the imagination, must provide for those who lack sexual satisfaction in their lives, an outlet which heightens self-gratification.
Providing it is kept in Cyberspace there is no danger of STD's. At the same time there are of course moral issues which can very easily be preached about by those who are happy and contented (and profoundly religious :-). Also, the temptation to extend the 'Cybersex' to the telephone, and beyond to meeting in person must be considerable. Even 'In Cyberspace' the emotional involvement must cause pain, although perhaps of a 'bittersweet' nature ?
"I'm guessing of course", he said with a smile...
152. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 10:21:39 AM
Uzmakk, of course I mean Anthony Burgess. He explained the relationship between individuals and society in A Clockwork Orange. A socially inspiring and uplifting story if there ever was one.
153. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 10:27:05 AM
Christino, I do not measure the effectiveness of a relationship system by divorce rates or broken relationships. Do you?
Today, divorce leaves millions of people miserable. However, I believe that many (if not most) marriages from centuries past were even more miserable. Obviously this is difficult to measure, but my experience is that "the good old days" of marriage/business/religion or anything else never stand up to close examination.
154. JudithAtHome - 7/26/2000 10:39:58 AM
I agree with ChristinO, that this is just the latest in a long line of trendy "ailments" to be applied to a segment of society. If you do as she suggested, and substitute "working overtime" in that list of questions, you'd have Work Addiction being a huge problem in this country.
I am constantly amazed at the number of support groups springing up for things that people used to just handle as a normal part of living....PMS is a great example. Now there is medication and support and a diagnosis for something women were expected to deal with on their own. The more you publicize this "illness" that is PMS, the more people will give in to it and adapt it to their needs..."I can't do this, I'm PMSing!" "I wasn't responsible, I was PMSing!" "Yes, I shot him but I was PMSing!"
A few cases like the Hacker woman and we're off to the races with the latest illness. And by diagnosing it as a disease, we give it a pass. How do you know Hacker wasn't a poor houdsekeeper to begin with...and an indifferent mother, to boot? She might have done the same thing by getting hooked on Romance novels or knitting.
155. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 10:50:24 AM
JudithAtHome just triggered a deep thought in my brain. Is PMS unique to human females? If it is not unique, then it is certainly most pronounced in humans.
PMS is unquestionably real. I think I am in the first generation that has widely accepted that. Judith is correct in saying that we dealt with it successfully for thousands of generations before we knew it existed. How did we deal with it? I genuinely do not know.
I shall take this to the "Tower /Tunnel" thread. Feel free to join me there if you have insight into this subject.
156. theDiva - 7/26/2000 10:57:34 AM
Judith
I had the very same thought about the Hacker (oh, irony of ironies!) woman. If she had the inclination to neglect her children, she was going to do it no matter what. Her use of the internet was merely the....what's the word I want here? It wasn't the trigger, but it was the means.
157. Uzmakk - 7/26/2000 10:59:26 AM
Doc, you are aware that Burgess himself said that he is sorry he ever wrote Clockwork. Wrote it in a fit of depression. I love the book. Does it explain the relationship between the individual and society? I don't think so.
158. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 11:35:27 AM
You probably don't find it uplifting and inspiring either, Uzzmakk.
159. marshame - 7/26/2000 11:46:32 AM
Speaking of PMS as a newly discovered illness that, if it exists, must have existed for generations: what about the epidemic of kids (and now even addults) who are diagnosed as having attention deficit disorder (ADD) or any of its permutations? Now between 33% and 50% of our kids are druged into compliance in schools these days (I'm guessing at the numbers - anyone have correct statistics at hand?). What did we do with these kids 20 or 50 years ago?
Back in ancient times when I was a kid, there were always one or two boys in each class who acted up all the time. For the rest of us, fear of being sent to the principal or, worse, having a note sent home to our parents was enough to keep us in line. But are kids today physiologically incapable of paying attention and concentrating? Is this because they grew up watching TV, which in many ways provides a mindless, escapist form of recreation? So, a generation later, along comes the easy availability of computers. Now the mindless escape becomes computer games. If risk-free, anonymous social interaction is desired, the internet is the perfect medium. It combines the best of all worlds: escape and a safe imitation of human interaction.
160. Uzmakk - 7/26/2000 12:07:02 PM
I don't think so doc, but I could go back and read it again and search for inspiration and uplift. Perhaps you would be interested in my reaction to On the Road since I do have strong feelings about that book which I read for the first time just a couple of years ago. Couldn't stand it. Characters too shallow.
161. theDiva - 7/26/2000 12:09:47 PM
marsha
don't get me started on ADD/HD. Back when I was administering the County's in-school child care program, I couldn't help noticing the preponderance of ADD/HD diagnosed and medicated children, mostly boys, in the more affluent schools. These were inevitably the kids who were dropped off first and picked up last. These were also the schools where we had the most behavior problems. We even had staff say things like 'he's acting up, he needs a dose.' How about giving him something to do, moron, instead of sitting on your fat butt? And the parents, when approached, would try to rearrange the dosage schedules rather than giving staff hints on working with their children.
162. JudithAtHome - 7/26/2000 12:11:27 PM
UZ:
A man after my own heart! Only I read On The Road years ago and decided that I didn't have to worship at the feet of a typist just because everyone else said he was a great writer.
163. Jenerator - 7/26/2000 12:27:22 PM
Diva
Do you see a connection between kids whose parents don't spend time with them and excessive TV watching or game-boy playing or other mindless escapism, as I'm calling it? Then isn't over reliance on the internet the next logical step for these folks?
164. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 12:31:01 PM
I've never read On the Road Uzzmakk. My understanding is that it is more insightful into American culture, less concerned with the nature of humanity.
A Clockwork Orange stood out in that it pushed the boundaries of personal responsibility so blatantly. Not only must we be concerned with the choices we make, we must also take responsibility for our influence on the choices of everyone around us.
165. theDiva - 7/26/2000 12:34:06 PM
Jen
Ah, yes, the electronic babysitter. It's possible. Such diversions are fine in limited doses, I suppose, but a responsible parent will always monitor what their child is consuming, and provide alternatives for recreation, including time spent together as a family.
166. christino - 7/26/2000 1:12:24 PM
Jen,
I spend sometimes eight or ten hours online a day five days a week. By hours alone I would certainly fall into the "addicted" categorey.
Am I addicted?
Considering that all my work gets done and also considering that I'm never on line when not at work you'd be hard pressed to argue an addiction.
Certainly excessive amounts of time spent online can be a clue that one has a problem, but time is a pretty relative factor. You can't just arbitrarily say "More than two hours a day on line" because two hours might be perfectly acceptable in one lifestyle but not in another.
167. christino - 7/26/2000 1:14:34 PM
Judith & Diva,
I'm with you guys. Internet or no internet that woman would've been neglecting her children. The issue here isn't addiction it's avoidance.
168. christino - 7/26/2000 1:19:31 PM
CG:
"I disagreed with both Christin and Angel on the bit about immediate intimacy"
I don't remember saying anything about immediate intimacy. I think that was Jen and Angel.
169. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 1:31:14 PM
The word "addiction" is like the word "idea." We use it to describe something that happens in the brain, but we are not sure what that thing is. Addiction is not well defined.
170. christino - 7/26/2000 1:32:28 PM
Doc, Message # 153
"I do not measure the effectiveness of a relationship system by divorce rates or broken relationships. Do you? "
Not exclusively, no, but certainly to some degree. The ability to sustain a relationship for longer than three hours is a desirable skill. I'd argue that "relationship" is the wrong word for something of that nature anyway. That's more like an "episode" a la "I don't do relationships. I have episodes."
I'm not at all inclined to look back upon "the good old days" as if we have somehow done nothing but decline as we move forward in history. I think that the main reason we have more divorce today than previously is because our expectations of marriage have changed. We have become more self focused than family/society focused. This is neither good nor bad in and of itself, BUT if the complaint is going to be "why can't we sustain relationships anymore" then I'd have to say it's because we're not interested in sustaining the relationships but rather in sustaining our own comfort.
Looking at marriage historically and expecting from it the same things we expect from it today isn't a fair assessment. It's a comparison of value systems and in that case they are all equally valid or not.
The point is that marriage implies a life-long partnership. If one is interested in simply engaging in the maximum number of episodes then marriage isn't what you're talking about.
171. christino - 7/26/2000 1:41:42 PM
Doc,
PP gave a pretty good definition of it earlier in Message # 37both physical addiction which is quite clear and psychological addiction which is less so and really more clearly described by "compulsion".
172. Uzmakk - 7/26/2000 2:58:28 PM
Message # 164 Interesting Doc. If Keroac(sp) had been able to read Burgess he would never have written On the Road.
173. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 4:09:46 PM
Christino, would you consider the possibility that it has never been easy to sustain a relationship, and that we have always sought to provide our own comfort? Marriage is a lot of work.
For most of human history, we lived in tribes or small villages. You got to know a few hundred people in your lifetime, and seldom met a stranger. Most of your relationship opportunities were within your community. Temptations were few, and probability of getting caught by people who knew you was high.
Monogamous marriage worked well here, even if it was difficult.
In the last century, relationship opportunities have exploded. Temptations have increased exponentially. Yet we spend so much time in the presence of strangers that it is easy to have an affair in public.
Affairs are not the only cause for wrecked marriages. Today it is much easier to become disillusioned with your spouse, simply because you are surrounded with people who are different from him/her. Even if you never give in to romantic or sexual temptation, you may someday find the people outside your marriage are more interesting than the people inside it.
I believe that people who experience large numbers of shallow relationships have never had a good track record for sustaining marriages. Think about sailors who visited many ports or travelling merchants who visited many villages. If their monogamous marriages failed, was it because they loved their spouses less?
174. DocBrown - 7/26/2000 4:24:10 PM
I read PsychProf's definition, which is actually is for physical and psychological dependence, Christino. Is anyone claiming that the Internet causes a physical dependence? That the body of an Internet addict eventually can no longer function without a dose of Internet?
If not, I assume Internet addiction falls under psychological dependence.
Here PsychProf gives a fine description of some symptoms, but does not describe the mechanism. By this definition you need to use subjective judgement to decide whether or not an addiction exists. Does this person seem to have an Internet compulsion? What about this person? You cannot hold an Addictometer to a patient's forehead and get a reading of how addicted he is.
If we had a good, objective definition of Internet Addiction we would know the exact mechanism of the behavior. Because I believe we will never know that, I classify psychological dependence and "addiction" right beside "idea" and other poorly defined words that we use every day.
Perhaps I could have chosen better words than "poorly defined." Maybe I should just say "subjectively defined."
175. CalGal - 7/26/2000 4:47:42 PM
Jen,
Of course the amount of time spent online would be illustrative of that addiction. That's like saying that time spent in casinos has nothing to do with gambling addiction.
Not even close. For one thing, someone could be at work all day, functioning normally, looking fine, but spending about 30 minutes a day making bets on sporting events. Betting on the events, looking to win or lose, eventually consumes his or her life. Yet he never enters a casino and rarely spends more than an hour in the actual activity that "addicts" him (gambling is a psychological dysfunction, whether it is genetically addictive is unknown, but unlikely).
So no, time spent online has nothing directly to do with it.
176. CalGal - 7/26/2000 4:49:14 PM
Christin,
You were saying something about "filling in the blanks" in the online world, with no cues about what people are really like--so you fill the blanks with what you like about yourself? I forget the details, and I'm on a slow connection so I can't really look it up.
177. Uzmakk - 7/26/2000 5:07:16 PM
Doc:
When man appeared in his present form, or something close to it, he appeared as a "civilized" man. Cities, urban culture etc. Something else may have been living in little bands and tribes(great uncle missing link) but prehistory includes great cities and civilizations with lots of potential relationships. I really don't follow the expanding # of relationships and their resulting shallowness argument. If we now have a core of significant relationships perhaps we shall have a larger core of even more significant relationships. If I can brush off 100 people in a day I can brush off 1000. wtf, I can brush off 10,000. I suppose it depends on one's makeup and proclivities. Shallowness for the shallow and depth for the deep.
I find you a bit of an odd fellow, Doc. Didn't you say something about discovering, over time, by trying relationship after relationship that one might find that there is simply no satisfacory match with the opposite sex? I think your fascination with large #s is unhealthy.
178. christino - 7/26/2000 5:16:46 PM
Doc,
"Would you consider the possibility that it has never been easy to sustain a relationship, and that we have always sought to provide our own comfort? Marriage is a lot of work."
I don't believe I refuted the idea that it is difficult to sustain a relationship or that it is harder now than it used to be or vice versa. My claim is simply that in previous times we worked harder at it because our options were limited. My further thoughts are that many of the things that we throw our hands up at today would have been worked through as a matter of course a hundred or even fifty years ago. Whether or not we SHOULD work through those things is a matter of personal preference.
Think of it this way. Two weeks ago I helped my brother and his fiancee move into their new home. I was following the moving truck in another car and was unable to exit the freeway when they did. So I called them on the cell phone and we worked out where I would backtrack to meet them. The other passenger in the car said "Whew! What would we have done if we didn't have the cell phone???" I facetiously answered "Well of course we'd have ended up lost in Canada somewhere."
What did we do before cell phones? I think we were more resourceful. A lot of the technology we make use of today is self-perpetuating. We become dependent on things that really in the great scheme of things are not that big a deal. We quite literally panic when our toys break. That's not progress to me.
There was more in this post regarding the relationship issue but I think it's better off in the ToL thread. It's getting rather off topic here.
179. bloodnfire - 7/27/2000 6:35:33 AM
Jen. It would help us 'travellin men' if you had your e-mail address included with the other 'moties' in Diva's thread. I don't have my 'address book' again. E-mail me will you, so I can write you ?
I remember there's a 'brat' in there somewhere :-)
180. bloodnfire - 7/27/2000 6:38:26 AM
I believe your 'Mr. Wonderful' is truly blessed. I can understand his giving you the money to get the ring if he were hard pressed to catch his flight. Congratulations.
181. Uzmakk - 7/27/2000 7:30:04 AM
ChristinO:
Or do we not have the patience to do what we must do?
182. Uzmakk - 7/27/2000 10:11:01 AM
Here's a stat for you -- take it or leave it -- 50% of American parents don't know where their teenage children are at night.
183. arkymalarky - 7/27/2000 11:14:33 AM
Whether I take it or leave it would depend on where you got it.
184. Uzmakk - 7/27/2000 11:23:15 AM
It entered my conciousness from an unknown source.
185. arkymalarky - 7/27/2000 11:25:00 AM
Oh, well then, of course I accept it without question.
186. CalGal - 7/27/2000 11:29:41 AM
I imagine that 90% of parents know where their 13-15 year olds are at night, and the numbers decrease as they get older.
If 50% of parents don't know where their 19-year olds are, I submit this isn't the Great American Tragedy.
187. DaveM - 7/27/2000 11:53:49 AM
Cal
I agree -- the attainment of a driver's license and car is probably the point of inflection. Going away to college/apt. is probably another point generally attained during the teen years.
188. PsychProf - 7/27/2000 12:53:17 PM
It is more important to prepare them for where they might go as compared to know where they are.
189. Uzmakk - 7/27/2000 1:40:57 PM
Agreed.
190. rubberducky - 7/27/2000 2:09:45 PM
going back to quantity over quality ...
best be careful out there
191. Jenerator - 7/27/2000 4:53:24 PM
DocBrown,
Message # 174
Greenfield suggests that all pleasurable activities cause neurochemical changes in the brain. If logging on to the Internet produces an elevation of dopamine, it seems that there is some sort of base chemical change going on.
192. Jenerator - 7/27/2000 4:58:53 PM
I defined addiction in Message # 143
Addiction involves any behavior or substance on which you are dependent and that is painfully difficult to stop. The main components reflective of an addiction are feelings of powerlessness and unmanageablility of one's life, and the negative effect this can produce. People tend to separate the consumption of substances (food, drugs, alcohol) from compulsive behaviors creating an artificial distinction between them. (Greenfield)
Now why is it that some of you do not believe that being addicted to the Internet is possible??
193. Jenerator - 7/27/2000 5:05:56 PM
CalGal,
I think that the point you're making is that there is no arbitrary cut-off that separates healthy Internet usage from addictive usage, in that you cannot define addiction by the quanity of time spent online, alone, (Right?) I would like to add that the time spent online IS an important part of establishing whether or not a problem may exist.
194. CalGal - 7/27/2000 5:07:25 PM
Jen,
I disagree--more importantly, it is perfectly clear that most people you are quoting are using time spent online as the first indicator of a problem.
195. Jenerator - 7/27/2000 5:40:29 PM
Actually, the case studies (the multitude of anecdotal data) involve a lot of people looking for help after they have realized that they have a problem. I.e. Sherry, who is now HIV positive because of sleeping with various men she met on the Internet and has lost her house and home because of her addiction, came forward looking for therapy and has provided time lines of hours spent online. Virtually everyone who has had an addiction has admitted to spending volumous amounts of time online, afterwards.
Also, I think that time spent online can be a good indicator for most. Most of the people who have the problem spend a big amount of time online. (An average of nine hours a day--not including work). It's a fair *general* assumption to make that time spent online can be indicative of a problem. Not for everyone, but for many.
Most alcoholics don't just have one drink...Most food addicts have more than one snack...Most sex addicts have more than one partner...Etc.
196. CalGal - 7/27/2000 5:44:40 PM
Jen,
Sherry is HIV+ because she had unprotected sex, not because she was an Internet "addict".
I am unconvinced that the Internet creates addictions--it seems far more likely that it uncovers dysfunctions that had no previous outlet.
197. Jenerator - 7/27/2000 5:44:45 PM
CalGal,
Can behaviors be addictive? Can people be addicted to certain behaviors?
If "yes" than why not such a thing as Internet addiction?
198. Jenerator - 7/27/2000 5:46:01 PM
Message # 196 the HIV came as a result of her behavior which was created by the addiction.
199. CalGal - 7/27/2000 5:54:10 PM
Jen,
No. The behavior was not created by the addiction. Internet addiction would not create a person who compulsively slept around. What it might do is create an environment where someone like her has the opportunity to have more sex than she was able to without the Internet. Maybe she has limited access to men, maybe she's only interested in a certain type of guy--whatever. But the behavior is not created by the addiction.
200. christino - 7/27/2000 6:49:05 PM
Jen,
It's not that I disbelieve in obsessive and/or compulsive behavior---I certainly don't. There are all kinds of examples of this. It is a recognized psychological disorder. To look at internet usage in the framework of yet another outlet for compulsive behavior is one thing but to imply that the internet itself is responsible for compulsive tendencies is where I disagree.
This woman Sherry had a perfect life before the internet? She was happy and functional until the day she got her computer and then with no other stressors or events in her life she automatically became a sex junkie? That's ridiculous. If anyone is making that claim then I guarantee you they aren't telling the whole story.
Can the Internet show us obsessive personalities that may not previously have been noticed? Sure. We tend to overlook "healthy" obsessions like work, exercise, education, art, caretaking. People make allowances for the man or woman who neglects family and social obligations because s/he's "putting bread on the table". Sure there are people who will use the internet as an outlet for their obsessive compulsive behavior, but this doesn't make the internet responsible for their disorder. Without it they'd simply find some other means of filling that need.
201. Jenerator - 7/27/2000 6:57:33 PM
I don't understand why the two of you are minimalizing the Internet. If someone was a sex addict would you say that the sex addiction was just an outlet for a deeper more real disorder? If someone was addicted to exercise would you claim that the exercise only showed us the obsessive personality that existed before. Are both food and sex only "outlets" for their behavior or can people be addicted to them?
CalGal,
What are your responses to Message # 197?
202. christino - 7/27/2000 7:23:52 PM
Jenerator,
Why does someone become a sex addict? Because they like sex? Not usually. In fact the more compulsively promiscuous a person is the less likely they are to be finding satisfaction in sex. If sex provided satisfaction they'd be able to quit once they'd gotten enough. For these people there's no such thing as enough. Whether they're seeking validation or acceptance or self-esteem or simply trying to prove how "unworthy" or "bad" they are the sex is just the method. It isn't the cause of their initial problem any more than a cough is the cause of pneumonia.
203. Uzmakk - 7/27/2000 7:46:21 PM
I find myself lingering on the Mote for 5 or ten minutes when nothing is really going on. Bad habit. It could be the beginning of an addiction. As I have said before, no porn for me now that I have The Mote.
204. Uzmakk - 7/27/2000 7:47:38 PM
Actually, I don't have sex since I found the Mote.
205. CalGal - 7/27/2000 7:48:43 PM
If someone was addicted to exercise would you claim that the exercise only showed us the obsessive personality that existed before.
Yes, I would.
206. christino - 7/27/2000 8:02:57 PM
Uzmak,
Yes, I find that my blood pressure is too high for physical exertion after spending a half hour in the politics thread.
207. christino - 7/27/2000 8:03:16 PM
insert 'k' where needed
208. RosettaStone - 7/27/2000 8:25:16 PM
Well, get ready for more stress, O-Ring.
Drudge is reporting that Rush Limbauh is planning to launch a full active website--one that promises to be a clearing house for update news and information overlooked by major media.
To mark his show's 12th anniversary, Rush has given the green light to a website that will feature audio links and news clip twinks.
"It will operate much like a listener's guide, with links to newspaper, magazine, internet articles and wire copy that Rush bring up on his radio show," says an insider. "It will also feature many of the comedy bits, current and from years past."
For his part, Limbaugh has shied away from operating an official site until now. "I wanted to find a way to do this without losing money," Limbaugh recently explained.
Say goodnight, freerepublic and lucianne.com.
209. LadyChaos - 7/27/2000 10:24:54 PM
Jen,
Saying that this woman's sex addiction was caused by the Internet is like saying that automobiles cause people to get drunk in saloons, or that the yellow pages causes women to spend too much money at the hair salon. One may facilitate the other, but cause? Hah!
210. marshame - 7/28/2000 5:34:41 PM
Y'all are missing my point. I am claiming that people can be addicted to the Internet. You claim that they cannot. Instead you make excuses for the behavior, ie that it's only demonstrating a deeper dysfunction or that it's an outlet only. There are people addicted to gambling and shopping, why don't you think that people can be addicted to the internet when there ARE other behaviors which are addictive.
CalGal,
You never answered my questions! "Can behaviors be addictive? Can people be addicted to certain behaviors? If "yes" than why not such a thing as Internet addiction?"
211. marshame - 7/28/2000 5:35:14 PM
Oops, sorry about that, I'm on my mom's computer.
`Jenerator
212. CalGal - 7/28/2000 5:42:57 PM
Jen,
No, I don't think that gambling is addictive in the same way that drugs are. I believe that gambling, like online chat rooms, reveals existing pscyhological dysfunctions. Same with shopping.
213. christino - 7/28/2000 6:55:48 PM
Jen,
I understand what you're saying I just don't agree. You haven't offered any proof of your statement. It's going to be difficult to find since the medical and psychiatric community doesn't unanimously or even mostly agree that behaviors like shopping, cleaning and work are "addictive". Compulsive, yes, but not addictive. It's not the same thing.
Alcohol and drugs can create a physical dependency in the body. Take the average Joe. Give him heroin on a regular basis and you can create an addict. This is not true of shopping. No one is physically dependant on shopping. Is shopping a means by which people can avoid other responsibilities in their lives? Sure, but the urge to avoid is pre-existing. Shopping doesn't cause this urge.
214. arkymalarky - 7/28/2000 7:57:53 PM
I think people prefer to be called addicted rather than obsessed.
215. christino - 7/28/2000 8:49:56 PM
Arky,
I tend to agree with you. Not only do the afflicted prefer it, but I think there's a sense of melodrama that appeals to much of the public as well. Addiction is somehow glamorous and tragic whereas compulsions are just "crazy".
It's far more exciting to say your neighbor has an internet addiction than to say your neighbor has intimacy issues. I think it's also a simplification of the problem. People like to be able to point to one thing and say "There! That's the problem!" when the reality is so much more complex than that. It's a disservice to those who suffer from these compulsions. The symptom gets treated but the cause is neglected and eventually just manifests in another way.
216. PelleNilsson - 7/29/2000 2:55:12 AM
Is this distinction between compulsion and addiction meaningful? Merriam-Webster defines addiction as "a compulsive need". I guess you could look at it as a pull-push sort of thing. Addiction draws you into something, compulsion forces you into something. But the end result is the same: you do something you shouldn't do or you do it more often than you should.
As to internet addiction isn't that in the eye of beholder? Somebody interviews a lot of people about their internet use and decides gosh! anyone who spends that much time (I think 15 hours per week was mentioned) must be addicted and that's bad. Suppose the investigation was about reading habits instead. What then? I think we are dealing with the usual suspicions and negative attitudes provoked by a new medium and a new type of interaction.
217. Jenerator - 7/29/2000 12:01:37 PM
I would be interested in what people here see as the difference between abuse, dependence, compulsion, and addiction. If they are on a continuum, where do they fall and how do we distinguish the difference?
218. Uzmakk - 7/30/2000 7:37:20 PM
I for one do not even feel like thinking about all those weird terms.
219. marshame - 7/31/2000 12:32:41 PM
What better thing to think about, whilst roaming about on the steppe, checkng on your yak herd???
220. PsychProf - 7/31/2000 12:45:18 PM
Jen...I would add to Message # 217...interest, passion and fun.
221. DocBrown - 7/31/2000 1:21:07 PM
Jenerator, I am willing to accept that Internet Addiction exists, even though no one has proved it here.
However, the Internet is just a means of communication. If I believe that people can become addicted to it, I should also believe that people can become addicted to television, romance novels, and the telephone.
Uzmakk said:
I think your fascination with large #s is unhealthy.
Don't be silly. Larger samples always yield better statistics. Without statistics, it is impossible to make a good decision. Decisions made without statistics are called guesses.
222. PsychProf - 7/31/2000 1:27:15 PM
223. christino - 7/31/2000 2:22:00 PM
"Lies, damn lies and statistics!"
224. marshame - 7/31/2000 2:22:03 PM
Doc
I read somewhere that internet addiction is just an extension of television addiction.
But then, I suppose the statement "I read somewhere" has even less credibility than statistically insignificant sample sizes!
Re Jenerator's continuum: I'm not sure that pure behavior (i.e. no ingestion of substances) is addictive. Compulsive, maybe. Obsessive, maybe. But to me, addiction suggests a physiological component when tolerance has been built up to such an extent that the person cannot function i>normally without ingesting the object of the addiction, and the person suffers physical symptoms of stress without it. Behavior, such as gambling, pornography, sex, and shopping may be share psychological symptoms such as pre-occupation, irritability, etc. but does not have the physiological reaction to withdrawal that the addiction to a substance has.
225. christino - 7/31/2000 2:25:56 PM
Marshame,
That's generally my point of distinction as well: Addiction is physical. It causes recognizable changes in body chemistry and function. Nobody ever got the DTs because he couldn't access his email.
226. CalGal - 7/31/2000 2:26:32 PM
Abuse: To use inappropriately. One can abuse alcohol every Saturday night. One can abuse cocaine irregularly for years, ending up with cartilege damage and yet no addiction.
Dependence: Unless it is used (inaccurately) as a synonym for addiction (not abuse or compulsion), it's really not a technical term, as I understand it. It is not some midpoint between normal use and addiction, if that's what you are thinking.
Compulsion: I believe compulsion is the action verb for obsession. Obsession is, IMO, what drives people to compulsively gamble, shop, stop eating, binge and purge or use the Internet. I think obsession, unlike addiction, is a psychological disorder.
Addiction: Genetic problem that triggers an abnormal physical reaction to the drug of choice.
People who are obsessed and people who are addicted are both engaging in behaviors that their loved ones and surrounding folks don't like. As a result, the psychological responses of the families and friends--and the reaction of the addicted and obsessed to their displeasure--is often very similar. They promise not to do it, ever again. And they break the promise. And they lie. And they feel angry at being forced into feeling bad, and so on. The family and friends make excuses, cover up, ignore, pretend, and do all the stuff in the Alanon literature.
Hence, it is very tempting to say that since the dysfunctions that spring up around the behavior are the same, that the root causes of obsessions and addictions are the same. But I don't believe that to be the case.
227. christino - 7/31/2000 2:38:42 PM
There would have to be an "internet" gene for them to be the same.
228. theDiva - 7/31/2000 2:39:14 PM
'Nobody ever got the DTs because he couldn't access his email.'
speak for yourself.
229. marshame - 7/31/2000 3:12:18 PM
With addiction, and the application of the disease model, treatment generally consists of abstinance from the offending substance. But with compulsive/obsessive behaviors, abstinance may be impossible, i.e. you must eat, you must eventually go into a store, etc.
So how do people who have obsessive/compulsive tendancies "control" the behavior? Self-talk? Setting limits? Ugh, sounds dreadful to me.
230. DocBrown - 7/31/2000 3:23:11 PM
Thanks for the link, PsychProf.
Jenerator said:
Greenfield suggests that all pleasurable activities cause neurochemical changes in the brain. If logging on to the Internet produces an elevation of dopamine, it seems that there is some sort of base chemical change going on.
You have implied that all pleasurable activities are addictive. This seems like an awfully Puritanical position to take. Shall we all avoid doing anything that we enjoy forever, just to keep from being addicted to it?
To preserve a good quality of life we must strike a balance. We can indulge in all the pleasures we wish, with the goal of increasing our quality of life. We may develop an addiction to some indulgence, but so what? Until the indulgence lowers quality of life more than it raises it we might as well remain blissfully addicted.
Coffee comes to mind as a good example.
231. christino - 7/31/2000 4:11:24 PM
"Greenfield suggests that all pleasurable activities cause neurochemical changes in the brain"
All activities of any kind cause neurochemical changes in the brain unless the subject is brain-dead. These neurochemical changes are the only way we "know" anything. To equate the natural production of endorphins with heroin is a stretch. Were that the case orgasms and massage would be as addictive as crack.
232. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 11:03:50 AM
INTERNET ADDICTION TEST
To assess your level of addiction, answer the following questions using this scale:
1 = Not at all
2 = Rarely
3 = Occasionally
4 = Often
5 = Always
1.) How often do you find that you stay online longer than intended?
2.) How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time online?
3.) How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy with your partner?
4.) How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users?
5.) How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount of time you send online?
6.) How often do your school work or grades suffer because of the time you spend online?
7.) How often do you check your e-mail before smething else you need to do?
8.) How often does your job performance of productivity suffer because of the Internet?
9.) How often do you become defensive or secretive when somoene asks you what you do online?
10.) How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life with soothing thoughts of the Internet?
Cont.
233. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 11:11:00 AM
pt. 2
11.) How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go online again?
12.) How often do you fear that life without the Internet would be boring, empty and joyless?
13.) How often do you snap, yell, act annoyed or lie if someone bothers you while you are online?
14.) How often do you lose sleep from late night or early morning log-ins?
15.) How often do you feel preoccupied with the Internet when offline, or fantasize about being online. (This includes being preoccupied with conversations/arguments online)
16.) How often do you find yourself saying "just a few more minutes" when online?
17.) How often do you try to cut down on the amount of time spent online and fail?
18.) How often do you try to hide how long you've been online?
19.) How often do you choose to spend time online instead of going out?
20.) How often do you feel depressed, moody, or nervous when you are offline which goes away once you are back online?
234. janjon - 8/1/2000 11:21:14 AM
Jenerator - you've created quite a scene in Politics, and I suspect in a lot of other threads as well. Go fix your toys, please!!!!
235. rubberducky - 8/1/2000 11:21:40 AM
1.) How often do you find that you stay online longer than intended? 3
2.) How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time online? 3
3.) How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy with your partner? 1 (when there is a "partner")
4.) How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users? 3
5.) How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount of time you send online? 2
6.) How often do your school work or grades suffer because of the time you spend online? 1
7.) How often do you check your e-mail before something else you need to do? 3
8.) How often does your job performance of productivity suffer because of the Internet? 2
9.) How often do you become defensive or secretive when someone asks you what you do online? 2
10.) How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life with soothing thoughts of the Internet? 1
236. rubberducky - 8/1/2000 11:22:07 AM
11.) How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go online again? 3
12.) How often do you fear that life without the Internet would be boring, empty and joyless? 3
13.) How often do you snap, yell, act annoyed or lie if someone bothers you while you are online? 3
14.) How often do you lose sleep from late night or early morning log-ins? 2
15.) How often do you feel preoccupied with the Internet when offline, or fantasize about being online. (This includes being preoccupied with conversations/arguments online) 2
16.) How often do you find yourself saying "just a few more minutes" when online? 4
17.) How often do you try to cut down on the amount of time spent online and fail? 2
18.) How often do you try to hide how long you've been online? 2
19.) How often do you choose to spend time online instead of going out? 1
20.) How often do you feel depressed, moody, or nervous when you are offline which goes away once you are back online? 1
237. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 11:25:54 AM
Janjon,
I'm on a Mac if that explains anything!
238. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 11:27:10 AM
[To all who take this quiz, after you've answered all of the questions, add the numbers you've selected for each response to obtain a final score.]
239. JudithAtHome - 8/1/2000 11:46:56 AM
Okay....now what? Are yoiu going to post what the totals mean?
240. marshame - 8/1/2000 11:48:22 AM
Jenerator - your first mistake was to instruct that we rate our level of "addiction". (as in "I'm mildly addicted"????) You should have said, rate your level of use. But anyhow.. here's my score:
1 = Not at all
2 = Rarely
3 = Occasionally
4 = Often
5 = Always
1.) How often do you find that you stay online longer than intended?
2
2.) How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time
online?
1
3.) How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy
with your partner?
1
4.) How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users?
2
5.) How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount
of time you send online?
2
6.) How often do your school work or grades suffer because of the
time you spend online?
1
7.) How often do you check your e-mail before smething else you
need to do?
4
8.) How often does your job performance of productivity suffer
because of the Internet?
3
9.) How often do you become defensive or secretive when somoene
asks you what you do online?
1
10.) How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life
with soothing thoughts of the Internet?
1
11) How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go
online again?
2
12.) How often do you fear that life without the Internet would be
boring, empty and joyless?
1
13.) How often do you snap, yell, act annoyed or lie if someone
bothers you while you are online?
3
14.) How often do you lose sleep from late night or early morning
log-ins?
1
241. marshame - 8/1/2000 11:48:31 AM
15.) How often do you feel preoccupied with the Internet when
offline, or fantasize about being online. (This includes being
preoccupied with conversations/arguments online)
1
16.) How often do you find yourself saying "just a few more minutes"
when online?
2
17.) How often do you try to cut down on the amount of time spent
online and fail?
1
18.) How often do you try to hide how long you've been online?
1
19.) How often do you choose to spend time online instead of going
out?
2
20.) How often do you feel depressed, moody, or nervous when you
are offline which goes away once you are back online?
1
total score = 33
242. JudithAtHome - 8/1/2000 11:52:32 AM
Jeez, marsha....our scores were almost identical; mine is 32.
243. marshame - 8/1/2000 12:02:05 PM
I guess I'm more addicted than you!
244. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 12:08:51 PM
Just you wait my prettys! As soon as more people take the quiz, I will post the scale to measure your scores!
245. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 12:11:04 PM
[Marshame, only cause your my mother will I ask this, but are you sure about #15?!]
246. marshame - 8/1/2000 12:16:27 PM
Okay, fine, score me a 34, Miss Smarty Pants.
247. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 12:21:49 PM
Rubberducky - 44
Judith - 32
Marshame - 34
248. DocBrown - 8/1/2000 12:28:36 PM
I scored 31.
Obviously the lowest possible score is 20 and the highest is 100.
249. christipeters - 8/1/2000 12:33:22 PM
(delurk)
I'm a whopping 35.
(relurk)
250. JudithAtHome - 8/1/2000 12:33:41 PM
Doc:
Yes, that is true...but I'm wondering what sort of spin they give the totals. #5 is particularly weird: if others complain about how much time YOU spend on the computer, shouldn't that be THEIR problem? I've had people tell me I spend too much time working crossword puzzles or that I seem to be too happy with my husband (yes, I've actually heard that from people!) and it always struck me as evidence of their being too worried about what is basically none of their business.
251. JudithAtHome - 8/1/2000 12:34:54 PM
Oh, stop with the lurking already, Christi...just post. C'mon, you know you want to!
:-)
252. christipeters - 8/1/2000 12:51:31 PM
Yeah, but the company is cracking down and my team's shorthanded and lunch is almost over, so I probably won't be around much more today. Last night I picked up the kiddo from DAL after her weekend with Dad. Today she has new spacers put in her bottom teeth, tomorrow is a check on her ankle she sprained at camp, Thursday is orientation for school (she starts 7th grade on Monday), and Friday she gets braces on her bottom teeth making it a full set.
(geeez, I'm tired just thinking about it)
253. AytchMan - 8/1/2000 1:08:09 PM
On the quiz, put me down for a 34. Well, don't put me down for it, just note it.
254. vonKreedon - 8/1/2000 1:33:26 PM
I scored a 53, but when I'm on the computer I am not exclusively on the Internet, I'm also playing games on my PC.
255. CalGal - 8/1/2000 1:39:23 PM
Yeah, but this is silly. I scored 29. Why? Because I don't ever do housework, I have insomnia, I live alone so there's no one to annoy me by bitching about me being online, I usually have my connection up while I'm doing other things. Yet I imagine I'm "online" more than anyone here.
Judith's objections are my own, as well.
Oh, and what constitutes a "disturbing thought"?
256. christipeters - 8/1/2000 1:44:27 PM
CalGal - you know I think the number of hours you are online is irrelevant (re the quiz). I think the thrust is whether or not being on the internet is interfering with your having a "normal" life. Is it getting in the way of your relationships with your family members, interfering with your acomplishment of everyday minimal normal tasks, are you on the internet when you should be working? etc etc
(Do you really live alone? What about Spawn?)
257. christipeters - 8/1/2000 1:51:52 PM
BTW, I agree with Judith's comments, too. I also wondered what constitutes "disturbing thought". I think the quiz is quite slanted. There are other questios that could be asked:
1. How often have you saved time shopping or booking travel by using the Internet?
2. How often have you received valuable medical information through the Internet?
3. Have you saved money or changed your mind on what product to buy after Internet research, comparisons or consumer ratings on the Internet?
4. Do you have a wider circle of friends now thanks to meeting people over the Internet?
5. Have you gone places, done things, explored different artists, music, movies, concerts, etc than you might have thanks to reading about them on the Internet?
etc
etc
258. PelleNilsson - 8/1/2000 1:54:25 PM
jenerator
Whu don't you listen to wabbit and create a link from "News" on the fron page. Now one has to backtrack and look for the questions. You really freaked out on this one didn't you?
Put me down for 34.
259. CalGal - 8/1/2000 2:01:55 PM
Christi,
Yes, you're right about the questions that could be asked. Good list.
261. Indiana Jones - 8/1/2000 2:06:56 PM
Do I win anything for a perfect score?
262. PsychProf - 8/1/2000 2:12:09 PM
Not only am I addicted to the internet( I scored well over 30), but also...my babe, my sons, my buds, sex, pizza, the mote, baseball, cookies, tv, trucks, the ocean(s), vacations, my profession, money, laughter etc...I compulsively and passionately seek out all, and I am damned well happy to do so. They all interfere with eachother, and I cannot do w/o any of them. Addiction that...
263. christipeters - 8/1/2000 2:21:29 PM
If 30 (or in the 30 -50 range) is addicted, then the quiz is nuts.
264. vonKreedon - 8/1/2000 2:37:04 PM
The other problem with the survey is that some of the questions are more indicative of a problem than others. For example there is far more likely to be a problem if one scores a 4 on the question, How often do your school work or grades suffer because of the time you spend online?, than a 4 on the question, How often do you find yourself saying "just a few more minutes" when online?.
265. PsychProf - 8/1/2000 2:45:58 PM
Wasn't much of a problem for Bill Gates when he dropped outa Harvard...I cannot believe how overused the term addiction is...
266. christino - 8/1/2000 2:49:19 PM
1) 2
2) 1
3) 1 - ditto the ducky
4) 2.5
5) 1
6) 1 - NA why separate questions for school and work?
7) 2.5
8) 2
9) 2
10) 1
11) 2 - if I logged off in the middle of a good discussion.
12) 1
13) 3 - also reading, listening to music or watching a film
14) 1.5
15) 1.5 - variation on #11 and not very varied.
16) 2
17) 1
18) 1
19) 1
20) 2
Total: 32
The biggest bias in the quiz as I see it is that it starts from a position that electronic communication/interaction is significantly different and less desirable than that which occurs face to face.
I spent 20 minutes in a Pic n Save on Sunday trying to extract myself from a conversation about the scandal of selling Christmas decorations in July. I spent 20 minutes this morning responding to an email discussing the appeal of morally ambiguous characters in fiction and how that translates to our real life choices regarding leadership.
Now who wants to argue that the 20 meatspace minutes were qualitatively better spent because they were "real"?
267. rubberducky - 8/1/2000 2:52:37 PM
"20 meatspace minutes"
hahahahaha
my workday in piecemeal
268. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 3:01:04 PM
Pelle,
I'm on a Mac right now, trying to get to the screens I need to, which isn't easy. I'll see if I can provide some new links.
Btw, the results will be posted later tonight.
269. christino - 8/1/2000 3:03:20 PM
Hiya Ducks!
270. christino - 8/1/2000 3:03:40 PM
Jen,
Evil Mac!
271. bloodnfire - 8/1/2000 3:11:13 PM
1.) How often do you find that you stay online longer than intended?
2
2.) How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time
online?
1
3.) How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy with your partner?
1
4.) How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users?
2
5.) How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount
of time you send online?
1
6.) How often do your school work or grades suffer because of the
time you spend online?
1
7.) How often do you check your e-mail before something else you
need to do?
5
8.) How often does your job performance of productivity suffer
because of the Internet?
1
9.) How often do you become defensive or secretive when somoene
asks you what you do online?
1
10.) How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life
with soothing thoughts of the Internet?
1 ...continuing...
272. bloodnfire - 8/1/2000 3:11:45 PM
11) How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go
online again?
2
12.) How often do you fear that life without the Internet would be
boring, empty and joyless?
1
13.) How often do you snap, yell, act annoyed or lie if someone
bothers you while you are online?
1
14.) How often do you lose sleep from late night or early morning
log-ins?
1
15.) How often do you feel preoccupied with the Internet when
offline, or fantasize about being online. (This includes being
preoccupied with conversations/arguments online)
2
16.) How often do you find yourself saying "just a few more minutes"
when online?
2
17.) How often do you try to cut down on the amount of time spent
online and fail?
1
18.) How often do you try to hide how long you've been online?
1
19.) How often do you choose to spend time online instead of going
out?
1
20.) How often do you feel depressed, moody, or nervous when you
are offline which goes away once you are back online?
1
Looks like 29 for me.
Was #4 meant to refer to IRL ? I feel I have a close personal relationship with quite a few 'Moties', none of whom I have ever met personally. I hope just as genuine, if not more so than IRL. The anonymity encourages honesty, imo, and not the reverse, as has been suggested in earlier posts in this thread.
273. JudithAtHome - 8/1/2000 3:16:47 PM
Later tonight? Well, gee, that means I won't be able to read the results til tomorrow because, as a recovering internet junkie, I try to avoid being on much after 3 or 4 pm. :-)
274. Jenerator - 8/2/2000 12:52:28 AM
Thanks for taking the quiz everyone!!
It was taken from the book Caught in the Net by Dr. Kimberly Young. She says, "The following test will help you in three ways: 1) If you already know or strongly believe you are addicted to the Internet, this will help you in identifying the areas in your life most impacted by your excesive Net use; 2) if you're not sure whether you're addicted, it will help you to determine the answer and begin to assess the damage done; and 3) if you suspect or fear that someone you know may be addicted to the Internet, you can give them this test to find out."
Scores:
Rubberducky 44
Judith 32
Marshame 34
DocBrown 31
ChristiPeters 35
AytchMan 34
VonKreedon 53
CalGal 29
PelleNilsson 34
IndianaJones "the perfect score"
PsychProf(and family) "well over 30"
ChristinO 32
Bloodnfire 29
275. Jenerator - 8/2/2000 12:59:37 AM
Here's Dr. Young's general scale:
20-39 points: You are an average online user. You may surf the Web a bit too long at times, but you have control over your usage.
40-69 points: You are experiencing frequent problems because of the Internet. You should consider their full impact on your life.
70-100 points: Your Internet usage is causing significant problems in your life. You need to address them now.
Young says, "Look back on those questions for which you scored a 4 or 5. Did you realize this was a significant problem for you? For example, if you answer 4 (often) to question #2 regarding your neglect of household chores, were you aware of just how often your dirty laundry pikes up or how empty the refrigerator gets?
Say you answered 5 (always) to #14 about lost sleep to log-ins. Have you ever stopped to think how hard it has become to drag yourself out of bed every morning? Do you feel exhausted at work?"
276. Jenerator - 8/2/2000 1:04:25 AM
I am not judging anyone by this quiz. I think that it is a good example of what's being used as a preliminary test to determine if a potential problem may exist, but I in no way think that it is exhaustive or conclusive. I was a little suprised by some of the low scores, though!
Only you all know if your answers were acurate or if you struggle with Internet usage. (I remember being on the Fray for more than six hours at a time!)
What types of questions do you feel would be better? Do you believe that this is a good quiz to take as a preliminary quiz? Is it too easy or too general? Or is it fair?
277. Fraaankster - 8/2/2000 1:05:34 AM
Jen,
What are you doing up, young lady ?
Oh, oops, I haven't taken the quiz yet...At the moment I'm watching To Sir With Love.
278. Fraaankster - 8/2/2000 1:20:13 AM
Ouch ! Eight 5's!
I scored a 74 !
... I really need to get a life, huh ?
;-)
G'night!
279. AytchMan - 8/2/2000 2:51:37 AM
Hi Jen--
I question whether the quiz, as presently constituted, has much value. Some of the items are either misdirected or just poorly worded.
For example:
7.) How often do you check your e-mail before something else you need to do.
Depending on what the question actually means, I often do this. But if the question really means "before something I need to do right now", then I never do this.
13.) How often do you snap, yell, act annoyed or lie if someone bothers you while you are online?
I think that this is a measure of internet addiction only if the person snaps because e's online. Otherwise, maybe e's just a grouch and always snaps when disturbed. Which is a horse of an entirely different color.
280. ee - 8/2/2000 3:07:03 AM
37
281. jonesatlaw - 8/2/2000 3:10:15 AM
37 as well, but it's 2AM here as I post, and I haven't signed off for the night, though I have work in the AM. Hmmm.....
282. ee - 8/2/2000 3:16:56 AM
I used to get very agitated because I had trouble falling asleep. Spending time on the net at night gives me something to do and I've found I actually seem to function better with less sleep. To much sleep gets me iritiable.
283. DocBrown - 8/2/2000 9:30:28 AM
Entertaining survey.
Meaningless results.
Dr. Kimberly Young probably writes for Cosomopolitan magazine.
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with using the Internet (or coffee, or television) to enhance your quality of life. Such "addictions" are only a problem when participating in them begins to reduce quality of life.
284. theDiva - 8/2/2000 9:40:37 AM
1.) How often do you find that you stay online longer than intended? 3
2.) How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time online? 1
3.) How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy with your partner? 1
4.) How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users? 3
5.) How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount of time you send online? 1
6.) How often do your school work or grades suffer because of the time you spend online? n/a
7.) How often do you check your e-mail before something else you need to do? 2
8.) How often does your job performance of productivity suffer because of the Internet? 1
9.) How often do you become defensive or secretive when somoene asks you what you do online? 1
10.) How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life with soothing thoughts of the Internet? 1
285. christipeters - 8/2/2000 9:40:52 AM
I remember being on the Fray for more than six hours at a time!
Since there were some interesting discussions on the Fray (and here!), why is this a bad thing? Would there be bad connotations to "I spent six hours discussing religious issues (for example) with people from all over the world with different backgrounds and viewpoints!" ?
I think with all so-called "addictions" or "obsessions", the key is whether or not it is interfereing with your life. If you can spend six hours at a time on the 'Net and still get your job done, and take care of yourself and your family, so what!
286. theDiva - 8/2/2000 9:41:45 AM
11.) How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go online again? 1
12.) How often do you fear that life without the Internet would be boring, empty and joyless? 1
13.) How often do you snap, yell, act annoyed or lie if someone bothers you while you are online? 1
14.) How often do you lose sleep from late night or early morning log-ins? 1
15.) How often do you feel preoccupied with the Internet when offline, or fantasize about being online. (This includes being preoccupied with conversations/arguments online) 2
16.) How often do you find yourself saying "just a few more minutes" when online? 3
17.) How often do you try to cut down on the amount of time spent online and fail? 2
18.) How often do you try to hide how long you've been online? 1
19.) How often do you choose to spend time online instead of going out? 1
20.) How often do you feel depressed, moody, or nervous when you are offline which goes away once you are back online? 1
287. theDiva - 8/2/2000 9:45:11 AM
Hm. A 27.
288. DocBrown - 8/2/2000 9:47:23 AM
Jenerator, if you want to create a useful survey, design it to measure the effect of the Internet on quality of life. This all reminds me of a story . . .
Long ago I dated a girl who majored in television production. Her Senior project was to produce a documentary about Star Trek fans.
She showed me the documentary.
At one point in the show, she asked fans to comment on William Shatner's famous "Get a life!" skit from Saturday Night Live. In that skit, he teases (SNL) fans at a Star Trek convention for living in their parents' basements and having no sex lives. In the documentry, one of the real fans said this:
Shatner doesn't realize how important these conventions are to some people. If it weren't for
Star Trek conventions, most of them would never leave their parents' basements. This has given them a life, and Shatner doesn't appreciate what an improvement that is for them.
The Internet can play a similar role. While overuse of the net probably does damage the quality of some people's lives, I expect that many other people who spend excessive time on the Internet actually benefit from it. Surfing the web is better than sitting alone with a bottle of rotgut.
289. JudithAtHome - 8/2/2000 10:48:25 AM
Doc:
I agree with you...it's all a matter of perspective. I think the test is skewed to make you feel you are spending too much time on the net even if you're not.
And Jen, not to quibble but why do you doubt some of us are telling the truth? You say you are surprised some of our scores are so low and then you say only WE know if our scores are accurate...well, I'd venture to say most of us think others are truthful in these sorts of quizzes unless we are joking.
I think you might be confusing being on the Internet with being in the thrall of some cult or something. I like to use the net for different reasons at different times but it doesn't consume my life. I don't worship it. I don't cite the Internet as my guide in life. It is just mental recreation for me and a learning tool; it's not my raison d'étre.
290. theDiva - 8/2/2000 10:53:28 AM
And as in RL, it's all about how you spend your time. Four hours spent reading Pseuder and Slack and Thoughtful argue about economics or some such is a hell of a lot different than four hours in a chatroom posting 'how R U? U R so hot! Stats? Want to have sex?'
291. JudithAtHome - 8/2/2000 11:33:17 AM
No kidding..........how R U, BTW?
292. NuPlanetOne - 8/2/2000 1:11:25 PM
/
Me late 97 to late 98: 1=4, 2=3,3=no partner, 4=4, 5=3, 6=1, 7=5, 8=2, 9=5, 10=3, 11=4, 12=2, 13=2, 14=3, 15=4, 16=4, 17=5, 18=5, 19=3, 20=1.
Score=63
Me now: 1=2, 2=1, 3=2, 4=2, 5=1, 6=1, 7=2, 8=1, 9=1, 10=1, 11=3, 12=1, 13=1, 14=1, 15=1, 16=2, 17=1, 18=1, 19=1, 20=1.
Score=27
If I was indeed sick, am I in remission, cured or in some mode of transference. Because I must admit that during my initial infatuation with the net I did not feel addicted, just overwhelmingly distracted and entertained. And aren’t we always mildly obsessed with something that others who depend on our attention invariably feel cheated or ignored regardless of the medium? And, if the patient begins to consistently construct logical and brilliant refutations to equally brilliant and logical probes, how is that type of pathology categorized, evaluated and treated? Denial? Now that’s a powerful form of control. The only effective cure being you must tell everyone everything and hope they don’t hold it against you. Still, at least when you spill it out there are so many more suffering with the truth, and some of them actually cheer you up.
293. rubberducky - 8/2/2000 1:19:48 PM
J@H:
I think you might be confusing being on the Internet with being in the thrall of some cult or something.
no, not at least as theMote is concerned. i mean, the days of the Old Guard are demonstrateably (is that a word?) over. heh
ducky ducks
294. JudithAtHome - 8/2/2000 1:25:27 PM
Ducks...
I know that...I was speaking in generic terminology. I'm sure many would score much closer to 100% were this test to have shown up during the "Old Guard" days. Halcyon days of yore.....
295. christino - 8/2/2000 1:29:14 PM
Isn't it interesting that you can answer "rarely" to every question and still recieve a warning from Dr. Young's score card? Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that an "average" user is lumped into the same scoring set as someone who has never used the internet at all?
I'm sure there are people who's lives are disrupted by their use of the internet, but Dr. Young appears to have an awful lot invested in convincing the public that there are far more of these people than there really are. By any chance does Dr. Young offer classes, therapy or books to help "cure" internet "addiction"?
Of course in defense of the quiz it seems that most people here in theMote "passed" with flying colors.
296. PelleNilsson - 8/2/2000 1:29:34 PM
Does anyone favour broadening the scope of this thread by renaming it "Internet and Society" (or something more catchy? There are so many interesting aspects.
297. Slackjaw - 8/2/2000 1:33:31 PM
I scored 32.
If you answer "rarely" to every question, Dr. Young says you are experiencing frequent problems because of the internet.
I'd disagree with Doc Brown: Cosmo is too high brow.
298. Slackjaw - 8/2/2000 1:35:11 PM
I also missed Christin's 295 before posting that.
299. PsychProf - 8/2/2000 1:37:05 PM
Haha...a survey is given to people(us) likely to be addicted since we are partaking of the studied fruit. Alas, the best source of accurate addiction is not the suspected party. My favorite "take a survey" story is the one where overweight individuals personally report all that they injest daily...they are then put on that amount as a 24-hr maximum, over a few weeks, and they all lose weight.
300. christino - 8/2/2000 1:39:06 PM
S'arright, Slack, I think it was worth a second notice.
301. rubberducky - 8/3/2000 1:40:27 PM
this doesn't have to do with "addiction" (which looks like a dead horse after 300 posts), but it does have to do with the Internet. i think it'll be interesting to see just how far companies will go to trample individual privacy in the search for the all mighty dollar.
besides that, who woulda thunk that Microsoft, of all the companies out there, would be on the right side of this issue for once?
302. christino - 8/3/2000 1:55:22 PM
I can see why the advertisers are pissed but as far as I'm concerned that's just tough titty for them. I don't find that it's an infringement on THEIR rights (since when did corporations get a right to infringe on my privacy in the interest of their profit margin?) if I choose not to see their adds or be tracked by their marketing systems.
This is like all the businesses in my neighborhood crying over not being allowed to put 92 flyers on my front door every day.
A modification to the software I'd be interested in seeing and one that would effectively nullify the protests is if 3rd party cookies could be stored in a temporary file so that you can choose from a list at the end of your web session or you get prompted when there are 10 in the queue or every 30 minutes or whatever.
This would allow consumers to permit cookies to sites they approve without being bombarded every two minutes with a pop-up window.
303. AytchMan - 8/3/2000 1:56:22 PM
good link, rd.
One comment in the article really torqued my pumpkin:
from Stefan Tornquist, marketing director at Bluestreak.com Inc., a Newport, R.I., online advertising and marketing company that offers technology that tracks traffic without cookies or in conjunction with cookies: "Today's invasion of privacy is tomorrow's convenience."
En gard, mes amis.
304. AytchMan - 8/3/2000 2:01:39 PM
And speaking of pop-up windows, I'm starting to cross web sites off my list if they display one of those little ad windows every time I return to the home page. Dirty rotten razzo-fracasacs.
305. CalGal - 8/3/2000 2:05:48 PM
Oh, man. I knew the end was nigh when TIME started doing it, fer chrissakes.
306. christino - 8/3/2000 2:07:04 PM
That's one of the primary reasons I'm not using Netscape as my browser. I get a second mini-window when I boot it up and I refuse to go through and figure out how to get rid of it when it's easier to just use IE.
The Netscape browser on this system also got "infected" with something called GoHip.com. You have to actually go to the GoHip site to download a program to remove it from IE, however, it didn't remove the program from Netscape. So if I use Netscape I get not only the Netscape mini-window but also the GoHip mini-window AND another inch and a half of "click on this" toolbar crap.
307. marshame - 8/3/2000 2:09:52 PM
"Does anyone favour broadening the scope of this thread by renaming
it "Internet and Society" (or something more catchy? There are so
many interesting aspects."
Yes, great idea.
Re the phenomenon of being totally "addicted" to the Internet or a few sites at first, then the reaction tapering off ... isn't that true about lots of new things? Remember when automated games first came out? Remember playing pac man or frogger for hours at a time? Bet no one does that anymore! The novelty wore off, I guess.
The more I have thought about this, the more I have become convinced that "addiction" really is inappropriate for behavior. Compulsive or obsessive use of the internet, maybe. But I do agree with some of the others that "addiction" is best left for those substances which cause acuse physiological reaction, including observable withdrawal symptoms.
308. Indiana Jones - 8/3/2000 2:58:15 PM
An interesting article on Salon (whose stock is rallying a bit today)
Two tidbits I found interesting...
Decreased expenditure masked a severe revenue shortfall....In light of the Company's deteriorating top line, we are reducing our F2001 revenue estimate to $9.2 million from $14.3 million.
And...
32% [of its readers] earn $75,000 per year and 19% earn more than $100,000 per year.
The conclusion of the report is that the company remains a buy because of acquisition possibilities on account of that lucrative readership. So the real value of the company is those who read it.
I wonder what a comparable report would reveal about the "value" of the Mote...
309. AytchMan - 8/3/2000 3:04:44 PM
Indy--
The demographics would probably be the same, perhaps a tad higher.
Let's go public, lose money for a couple of years and sell out to AOL/Time Warner for $2.6 billion. It's been done.
310. PsychProf - 8/3/2000 3:06:00 PM
Just out of interest...is there any place on the net comparable to the Mote?
311. CalGal - 8/3/2000 3:06:37 PM
Okay, but none of those little windows on our site.
In fact, no ads at all. That will be our business model. We'll put up a list of advertisers who pay us not to appear on our pages.
312. CalGal - 8/3/2000 3:07:21 PM
PP,
Not that I know of. Jay and others say it's extremely common for small user forums to exist, but I don't know of them. Most of the ones I know of were sponsored by a company.
313. christino - 8/3/2000 4:11:04 PM
I'll bet we're better looking than most of them.
One of the sites I visit would be soooooo much better if they didn't use the "message tree" look. You know, post a message and what appears is the title of your message and then reply titles underneath but you have to actually click on each message to follow.
Not unlike a certain place which we occasionally mention.
It's nerve-wracking to have to wade through all of that and too slow not to mention that the flow is terrible.
314. CalGal - 8/3/2000 4:13:19 PM
Oh, that's true. Most of the tiny forums seem to be BBS based.
315. christino - 8/3/2000 4:17:13 PM
CG,
Why is that? Is it really that much more difficult to have a site where all the posts appear as they do here and at Salon?
Or is it that folks just get used to what they get used to and forget that they can move forward?
316. CalGal - 8/3/2000 4:21:18 PM
I think it's at least to some extent because BBS's don't use a database. Performance is slower, so they store the headers in one file and only retrieve the actual text files one at a time.
It is quite possible I made this up--I am never sure what technical info I actually know and what I imagine.
Databases are expensive--as is the software to build something like we have. Had Alistair charged us for this, it would have cost a great deal, and paying just one person part time to maintain it as Alistair does would be far beyond the reach of most user communities.
317. Indiana Jones - 8/3/2000 4:31:46 PM
With open source, the software is getting cheaper all the time. It's the personpower and connectivity that will kill you.
You could buy a server, install Linux, Perl, Apache, and MySQL (a free for non-commercial use database) and run something comparable to the Mote without paying a penny for the software. But the administration and programming would eat you alive.
318. Indiana Jones - 8/3/2000 4:34:16 PM
Not to mention connectivity costs.
319. CalGal - 8/3/2000 4:34:34 PM
Oh, that's right. I keep forgetting that dbs are free these days as well.
Most user communities don't have the skillset that we have here. If Alistair hadn't been able to do this, JJ and I were looking at buying something (with the startup pot) or getting free source and customizing it and it still would have required a fair amount of programming to make it work.
320. CalGal - 8/3/2000 4:35:19 PM
Oh, and obviously what Jay gives us would cost quite a bit as well. I meant to mention that earlier.
321. Indiana Jones - 8/3/2000 4:38:05 PM
"Most user communities don't have the skillset that we have here."
I agree--and the dedication that was obviously required to get the place going (though I wasn't around to see that).
But I still think the Mote lacks for a good promoter.
322. CalGal - 8/3/2000 4:40:28 PM
I think so, too.
Is anyone interested in doing something for our year anniversary?
323. christino - 8/3/2000 4:50:05 PM
So it's not just my imagination.
We really ARE better than everybody else!
324. christino - 8/3/2000 4:51:11 PM
Hmmm......1st anniversary is paper right? Not very appropriate for an electronic forum.
How long do we get to plan?
325. CalGal - 8/3/2000 6:11:49 PM
About three weeks--I believe the Fray died on August 22, yes? And by then we were up and running on this site.
326. SheRex - 8/3/2000 7:45:20 PM
310 - PsychProf ....
On another webboard today (Salon), in a philosophical/spiritual thread, someone posted two boards, and I cannot verify them, as I have never participated on them -- The Well and Brainstorms Community. Brainstorms is gated/controlled, and you have to e-mail your reason why you'd be a valuable addition to their conversation.
Brainstorms
My score on the Internet quiz - 40.
327. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 4:37:29 AM
CalGal
I think the official launch date was 11 September. Before that it was beta.
328. CalGal - 8/4/2000 11:26:24 AM
Pelle,
Oh, okay. That works.
Is anyone interested in contacting their local cyber news reporter and letting them know about our anniversary?
329. JudithAtHome - 8/4/2000 11:51:57 AM
CalGal:
I'd send something to my paper if you'd send me a little paragraph outlining what all was entailed in setting up the site. I'm not very familiar with "cyber talk" so I'd want some hints on what to say. Or just something to copy, instead of hints...ha!
(I have very good luck with writing to the paper and to those who write for it....)
330. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 11:58:59 AM
The Mote is a valuable community and I would gladly be taxed for my residence.
But I would want a free umbrella, too.
331. CalGal - 8/4/2000 12:26:31 PM
Judith,
Well, what would we want to say?
There are two approaches--the simple facts or the reason why the simple facts might be interesting.
I always prefer the second approach, but I'm weird.
332. JudithAtHome - 8/4/2000 12:32:09 PM
Why not a combo of both?
333. joezan - 8/4/2000 12:40:07 PM
Diva:
Remember playing pac man or frogger for hours at a time? Bet no one does that anymore! The novelty wore off, I guess.
Well, I don't know what this is indicative of, but a couple of years ago we got our daughter a PlayStation. There weren't a whole lot of games she could play, and the ones she could play she mastered pretty quickly. She got very bored and disappointed with it.
So my wife broke out the old Nintendo she had when we first met, with Super Mario, Zelda, Fester's Quest, etc. Our daughter long ago mastered Super Mario, but still plays it nearly every day.
And there is a pizza place not far from here with a table-top Asteroids and an original Ms. PacMan. Every few months, my wife and I will go there for a horrendous slice of pizza, and drop a few bucks in Ms. PacMan. A great, cheap date.
334. CalGal - 8/4/2000 12:43:48 PM
Well, a combo of both is the second approach.
Anyway, I would think that a reminder of the basics--most (if not all) general interest online forums are attached to a major online media site and usually go far afield in content from that found in the media site itself. All online forums have a strong sense of community and a core membership that are very attached to it.
But what do you do if your forum disappears because the media site gives up on it?
The obvious answer is to bite the bullet and go looking for an existing forum that meets your needs--and hope that the owner of that forum won't pull the plug. But thanks to some big thinkers at Slate's old Fray, one displaced membership created their own site, independent from any owner other than generous volunteers, and kept their community intact.
I would mention the fact that the majority of its members ponied up $20 each (that we didn't really have to use) and that none of the people supporting the site have ever met in person. The guy who built it is in New Zealand, the forum administrator is in one state, the guy who donates the bandwidth and server in yet another.
335. christino - 8/4/2000 12:47:12 PM
I, of course, am perfectly normal, but the reason that the simple facts are interesting would be my bet as well.
Looping back a bit to our discussion about internet addiction: People who don't have any experience with the internet or even those who have very limited experience with it have no real concept of the kinds of communities and relationships that exist here.
To them we're all either chatting mindlessly with a bunch of strangers because we're desperate losers with no lives or we're trolling for porn and cyber-sex because we're ugly, desperate losers with no lives.
Certainly that type exists on the net, but that type exists in every nightclub and laundrymat in America so it really don't signify. What's interesting is that our community is pretty much self-sustaining. While we grew out of a magazine once upon a time we've been standing alone for at least a year and actually quite a bit longer if you consider the fact that none of us were reading the magazine at the old place much anyway. Places like Table Talk and Suite 101 are similar to us but I can't help but see a big difference in that we're "owner operated".
336. christino - 8/4/2000 12:50:22 PM
Cal,
Not to mention the widely scattered thread hosts who all have some minimal administrative power.
337. bubbaette - 8/4/2000 1:03:10 PM
The Mote is a valuable community and I would gladly be taxed for my
residence.
Personally, I find some of the nimrods herebouts (present company excluded of course) taxing enough already.
338. christino - 8/4/2000 1:05:08 PM
Bubba,
Have I told you lately that I lurve you????
339. bubbaette - 8/4/2000 1:06:41 PM
I'm flattered Christino, since I'm just wild about you took, dahlin.
340. bubbaette - 8/4/2000 1:07:38 PM
that would be "you too"
341. christino - 8/4/2000 1:33:18 PM
You're wild about my tookus?
Oh my! What will people say???
342. rubberducky - 8/4/2000 1:34:01 PM
bubb ain't the only one
343. bubbaette - 8/4/2000 1:38:05 PM
Who cares what people say!? Is that which is between us to be cheapened and dirtied by the yawping of narrowminded fools? What we have transcends public opinion!
344. Jenerator - 8/4/2000 1:41:54 PM
I've been a little busy these last couple of days. Hopefully within the next 24 hours or so, I'll be back to read all of the recent posts. For now, I thought that some of you might be interested in Dr. Kimberly Young's "profile" of who gets addicted to the Internet. She claims that the following are several of the most frequently mentioned beliefs (with her conclusions as to which are true, false, and why.)
1.Many addicts suffer from significant emotional or psychiatric problems before they ever go online.
True. In her suvey, 54% of Internet addicts reported a prior history of depression, 34% suffered from anxety, and others displayed chronic low self-esteem.
2.Many Internet addicts are former alcholics or other ex-addicts.
True. 52% in her survey admitted to following recovery problems for other addictions: but that they all felt that being addicted to the Internet wasn't as serious.
3.Despite the reports that it's mostly housewives who get hooked, it's actually the computer savvy males who do.
False. Women comprised 61% of Dr. Young's survey.
4.Gender makes no difference in the way the Internet is used by addicts.
False. Men generally appeared to be seeking power, status, and dominance. (They gravitated toward the sources of information glut, aggressive interactive games, and pornography.) Women embraced discussion forums and chat rooms as a means to form supportive friendships, seek romance, or complain about their husbands. Women also enjoyed the comforting realzaion that no one they encountered online could know what they looked like.
5.Many addicts adopt new personas online.
True.Most have several handles with differing identities, many settle for one identity which reflects an "ideal self", and some reflect an identity completely opposite of their own.
345. CalGal - 8/4/2000 1:42:04 PM
So--in a determined effort to get this on track--does any one know if their local paper has a cyber-section, or an Online section?
346. Jenerator - 8/4/2000 1:48:34 PM
6.Only introverts get hooked on the Internet's interactive applications.
False. Nearly 80% are attracted to two-way communication online and describe themselves most commonly as: bold, out-going, open-minded, and assertive. In other words, while many may flock to chat-rooms because they don't hasve anyone to tak to, many gp there just because they like to talk.
7.Once confronted about their dependent behavior, Internet addicts generally admit they have a problem and try to do something about it.
False. Denial runs deep with this addiction, especially since most people praise the Internet for its innovation and lack the understanding in its addictive appeal. Even when presented with clear evidence of addictive behavior, the addicts cocoons himself in the cultural voice that claims that there is no such thing as Internet addiction.
347. CalGal - 8/4/2000 1:50:35 PM
Jen--by and large, all of that supports what Christin and I have been saying, rather than supporting the good Doctor's point, don't you think?
348. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 1:59:23 PM
CalGal, I believe that the Cleveland Plain Dealer has no Online Section. Occasionally computers are mentioned in the Business Section.
Cleveland is a one newspaper town now, so Plain Dealer can afford to be awful.
349. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:01:27 PM
Really? Wow. I'm used to the Merc, which has three or four columnists analyzing online, dotcom, and so on.
350. christino - 8/4/2000 2:01:45 PM
CG,
I dunno, but I'll check the rags here and get back to you.
351. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:02:41 PM
There may be online zines that would be interested--unfortunately, the only one I can think of is Salon, who probably would pass.
352. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 2:08:16 PM
cg--
Austin's paper has a Tech Monday section and at least one dedicated cyber reporter. The downside here is that the Statesman is a dreadful rag but that's not important right now. My guess is that most medium to large papers are similar.
I think a single basic announcement should be written that could be tailored to each market as required and distributed by our vast army of acolytes.
353. christino - 8/4/2000 2:12:53 PM
Sssh! We don't want anyone to know that we're a cult much less that we might be trolling for converts!
354. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 2:16:38 PM
cg--
In addition, we have the Chronicle, one of those alternative local-color papers. It's a high-quality production and well-regarded nationally. Other cities probably have similar enterprises. They might well be interested. They're terminally liberal and might require a different slant ("changing the world one electron at a time" or some such) but it's an idea.
355. vonKreedon - 8/4/2000 2:20:19 PM
Seattle has two papers, on paper, and both naturally cover the internet pretty extensively. They may well want contacts, what should I give?
356. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 2:26:03 PM
We discussed the idea of an article not long after we went live. The approach suggested then was a David/Goliath story. That could still be OK but also something along the line of "many thought it was a venture doomed to failure, but now, one year later, the Mote is still a vibrant forum ..... etc., etc."
Why not think of e-mail interviews with some of the key people and some "ordinary" Moties? We certainly have people who can write, even professional writers like Cellar. I think cmboyce also writes for a living but I don't know what. Socko and spudboy are sadly absent, but there are others I could think of who could turn out a good story.
357. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:26:12 PM
Well, I think you can speak informatively as the elected President of the prior community. (g)
Does anyone know how many people worldwide subscribe to forums? Have there ever been any numbers on it?
358. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 2:30:33 PM
Starting up a new conversation here. There are always exceptions, of course, but:
One can visit a new friend in their home, split a couple of beers or a bottle of wine, talk to them for an evening and come away with a pretty solid impression of who they are. To the point, one could make a reasonable judgment about the following question: could I loan them $1000 and have a reasonable chance of getting it back? Or, alternatively, could I leave my kids with them overnight?
How long would that take over the Net (and only the Net)? Why?
359. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 2:33:07 PM
358 not to detract from Marketing Department discussion.
360. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:34:12 PM
Well, it would be a long time before I'd loan anyone $1000, so leaving that out, I'd say that for me it takes about the same amount of time. In other words, someone who struck me as "off" here would probably strike me as "off" in the same amount of time IRL. And vice versa.
361. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 2:34:13 PM
CalGal
That depends what you mean by "forum" and by "subscribe". Think of the countless newsgroups and BBSs out there. But how many forums with a non-BBS interface are there? Are Rabbithole and Suite101 still alive?
And how many "subscriber" do we have (whether active or not).
362. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 2:35:16 PM
Aytchman
I would loan you $1000.
363. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:38:40 PM
Aytch,
Consider this forum as a case in point. We all shipped $20 to JJ, and allowed Irv to create our passwords (this was in the early days), and didn't think twice.
And in almost all cases, most of us meet each other without any contact outside of online interaction (whether forum or email).
I'd never met GJ before I went and stayed overnight at his lovely home. Ohio invited three of us into his house, the brave soul. Everyone has some story like that.
364. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:39:41 PM
Pelle,
I'd say we have about 150 subscribers, although it's very slow right now, as we've all commented.
I mean online forums of any sort--including BBS format.
365. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 2:45:33 PM
CalGal
Nitpick: I think it was $10. I remember because I sent the bill to JJ in an envelope and had a wager with someone (arky?) whether it would reach him?
But where is Irv when we are dicussing these things? Has anyone heard from him?
366. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 2:46:38 PM
I am astounded. Comments to follow.
367. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:48:54 PM
Oh, okay. $10. Gosh, that's two details I had wrong. And no, Irv hasn't been around for a while. I hope he's okay and just busy.
Aytch,
Astounded? Why?
368. JudithAtHome - 8/4/2000 2:53:47 PM
I like the idea of a basic information sheet to be sent to each persons paper...that way, we won't be getting anything screwed up.
My paper has a weekly page and a slick Parade style magazine called Access, which is national, I believe, rather than local.
369. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 2:54:51 PM
Here I was thinking that the responses would come back somewhere between "months" and "eternity".
pelle--
Your trust is well-placed but how can you possibly know that? We've exchanged only a handful of messages directly and I've probably posted a total of, what, 200? Many of them cheeky.
cg--
Why do you say the same amount of time? Do you mean approximately four hours of Internet exchange? Don't you need all the visual clues one gets from a face-to-face?
370. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:56:10 PM
Anyway, the reason why I asked about numbers and so on is because it seems to me that it might be a way of putting our little story in perspective and demonstrating something that might be of interest to a cyber reporter who thinks forums are just these little sidelines where people go to post some political comment after reading an op-ed piece.
The areas I thought might be of interest:
371. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:58:08 PM
Aytch,
Generally, all it takes is a single conversatin from a literate poster to give me the cues I need. Sure, they might fool me--but then, I can be fooled by someone's visual cues, too.
372. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:00:50 PM
cg 363--
What you cite is not quite the same as just shipping your kids or $1000 to an unseen Motron unit. Perhaps I'm just too...something unflattering.
I remain astounded. I must think very hard about this.
373. CalGal - 8/4/2000 3:02:25 PM
Yes, but I wouldn't lend anyone a 1000. Are there people who I haven't met in person that I would leave Spawn with? Sure.
374. CalGal - 8/4/2000 3:03:39 PM
In other words, I don't rate the difference between ol and rl interaction to be all that significant. I would need to know someone quite well before I'd launch my son on them in either case.
375. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:08:07 PM
cg--
Maybe I've misinterpreted. I understood your reluctance to loan $1000 as something other than a matter of trust which is what I was after. Still, it surprises me that (apparently) an equivalent amount of time is required, whether face-to-face or electronic, for a "serious interaction".
376. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 3:10:47 PM
Aytchman
Well, I see serious this guy starting to post who obviously knows a lot about many things. Early on he expresses his distaste for flame wars, lately he has allowed a more humorous side to come forward.
So how do I know? How do you know after sharing a couple of beers? You just know, that's all. But I agree with your main point. It generally takes longer than in real life. I think that some develop a "net persona" but it is difficult to keep that up at all times, so there is the occasional crack which makes you wonder who the person really is.
377. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:14:03 PM
pelle--
Not speaking about me specifically (to everyone's benefit), on what basis would you decide to loan a grand to a new Motie? Parenthetically, I choose a $1000 to represent a large but not life-changing amount. In this day of dot.com millionaires, perhaps $5000 is a more realistic amount for the discussion.
378. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 3:14:26 PM
CalGal and others
It will be interesting to see if this idea about getting something published actually leads to some concrete action or if it is just idle talk and speculation about what could be done if one were so inclined.
379. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:16:23 PM
pelle--
crosspost. You answered my question.
380. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 3:18:32 PM
Aytchman
I could ask you the same. On what grounds would you lend money to someone you've spent an evening with? I bet you wouldn't be able to answer in terms of a list with reasons A, B C, ..... It's all about ephemeral impressions and intuition.
381. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 3:19:03 PM
Double crosspost.
382. Uzmakk - 8/4/2000 3:20:21 PM
I just read back about 50 posts. Are ya'll talking about feature pieces in major newspapers?
383. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:22:11 PM
pelle et al 376, 380--
I agree -- that after a while you just know. But, to me, it seems so difficult without the visual cues. Maybe it's just me but watching someone's face during a serious and/or delicate conversation gives great insight. How does one substitute for that online? Seems like it takes many, many, many posts.
384. rubberducky - 8/4/2000 3:24:52 PM
i just think that anyone who thinks this community is gonna be an interesting story to anyone not a member of this community is gonna be sorely disappointed in the results.
i hazard a guess no one else will give a flying monkey's behind
385. Uzmakk - 8/4/2000 3:25:45 PM
Anyway, my sister in law has done a number of feature pieces for the Washington Post.
386. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:32:27 PM
uz--
I don't think a feature piece in a big daily (while it would be welcome) is the goal. I think a more realistic target is a mention or a short summary in a local alternative paper. Rubberducky may well be right but I think it's worth a try.
387. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:38:26 PM
Okay, it's halftime in the Online Trust Derby. Summing this all up, I see a bit of a gulf between me and others. And I think that says more about me than you guys -- I've been nailed pretty badly a couple of times by "friends" (irl not ol).
I guess that leads me to wonder if the more trusting souls have had similar experiences. I'm not looking for details, just wondering if the absence of a torpedo affects your outlook. Am I too pessimistic or others too optimistic or elsewise?
388. JudithAtHome - 8/4/2000 3:44:16 PM
I don't think I could be treated any more badly by someone on line than by someone who was alledgedly my very dear friend, a person who had lived with us for 6 months, no less! He borrowed a substantial amout of money many years ago and has yet to pay it back and more than likely never will.
So I don't know if I trust people too readily or just trust the wrong ones...
389. rubberducky - 8/4/2000 3:44:41 PM
well, AMan, my grandfather gave me a piece of advice i still use:
when lending money to someone, don't do it unless you can live without ever seeing that money again. if you can, then give the money to the person. if they pay it back, you've just been given some new money. much easier.
the question, then, would be is the person (ol or irl) worth you giving money to. i suppose someone i considered a friend (like calgal or chrisO) i'd give it to them in a second. others would depend on the situation.
390. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 4:08:55 PM
I've had an experience similar to Judith's, with an RL friend. I knew his reliability to be questionable, but he was a close enough friend that I did not care about being paid back.
Such a decision is much more difficult now that I am married. My wife would have to agree to the loan. She has very good judgement.
Now if you really want to put ol' Doc Brown to the test, ask to borrow his car.
391. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 4:16:40 PM
Thanks for the posts, everybody. This has been very enlightening.
392. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 4:22:19 PM
It was enlightening, and it has caused me to think. The Mote probably does have some to-die-for demographics. Some web advertiser out there somewhere is falling short of revenue goals because we are here instead of there.
393. JudithAtHome - 8/4/2000 4:29:37 PM
Doc:
I wouldn't let anyone borrow the car I have now. It is very sensitive to anyone else driving it. I swear it can tell when my husband drives it because the electrical system, which is tricky, always acts up right after he's been at the wheel. Of course, I worry much too much about this car....
394. CalGal - 8/4/2000 5:32:56 PM
Pelle,
I would be interested in doing it. The problem with an article is that it would need to go through the acceptance process, which would be a drag. Frankly, I'd be happier if a reporter would think it worth a mild blurb or two, but I think we should try both approaches.
Ducky,
Interested in us per se? No. Find something quirkily amusing about a group of people who were displaced by a corporate decision, built their own site using only online contact methods, and use it to demonstrate something about online communities and the weird people who inhabit them? Possibly.
395. CalGal - 8/4/2000 5:34:44 PM
Aytch,
Ducky made the distinction that I would have, as well. It has nothign to do with how I know people--it has to do with whether they are a friend or not. The loan example is a bad one because I don't loan money, period.
As for getting to know someone, I actually think it's a tad easier to get to know someone online than off--but my primary criteria in getting to know someone is to see how their mind works and whether I like the results.
396. jonesatlaw - 8/4/2000 5:45:09 PM
Doc:
I wouldn't let anyone borrow the car I have now. It is very sensitive to anyone else driving it. I swear it can tell when my husband drives it because the electrical system, which is tricky, always acts up right after he's been at the wheel. Of course, I worry much too much about this car....
You drive a Jag, don't you. A lovely, but high strung breed, like thouroghbreds.
397. arkymalarky - 8/4/2000 5:48:47 PM
I think a good focal point of an article would be Pelle and Uzmakk. I thought they were off-line friends, possibly from the same general area, when I first read their interactions. It's amazing what a diversity of people can hit it off really well, sight unseen, and become good friends online.
398. CalGal - 8/4/2000 5:50:16 PM
I actually think there could be several articles, written by many people--and they don't have to be about the formation of the Mote. Pelle and Uz are a great example.
Maybe someone relatively normal could write a piece on how they thought forums were only for babbling weirdos. (g)
399. CalGal - 8/4/2000 5:52:33 PM
So when I was talking about an article, I was thinking about one written about how we formed and our anniversary.
Were I to pick the best approach strictly to publicize our anniversary, I think the idea of a mailing that we could all send out to our local papers would be the most reliable. But I would like to ensure that it's not ignored, and I think if we just said, "THe Mote Is One Year Old!" it would end up in the circular file.
400. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 5:58:28 PM
I don't know about "focal point" but it is a case in point. And it all came about on line in full public view. We have only exchanged a handful of e-mails, most of them when we did the Haysweep thing.
401. arkymalarky - 8/4/2000 6:00:44 PM
That's what I meant, case in point. Not that you two aren't worthy to be the focus of an article about the Mote. (g) I find watching the interaction and development of the friendships of others interesting. There are several here--Bubba and Diva are another pair that comes to mind.
402. JudithAtHome - 8/4/2000 6:08:39 PM
Don't forget Rosetta and me!
:-)
403. JudithAtHome - 8/4/2000 6:09:13 PM
jones:
Yes, I do and yes, it is.
404. christino - 8/7/2000 2:06:07 PM
Aytch Message # 387,
Having occasionally been burned irl and to some degree online I tend to fall more in line with you than others. However, there are certainly Moties in whom I would place great trust even though I've never met them face to face.(Ducky and I have a reciprocal worship society) Part of the problem for me in answering your question is that I HAVE met so many Moties. I haven't yet been too terribly surprised by anyone that I've met in person in comparison to the image I'd developed of them online, but I don't doubt that it could happen.
I do tend to get better clues from verbal communication than from visual, but that's just the way I filter information. Ask CG about how ridiculously aural I can be.
405. DocBrown - 8/8/2000 9:46:59 AM
Jonesatlaw, Judith was the Motie who said her car has a tricky electrical system, not I. Her description does sound like a Jag.
The car I drive is, on occasion, even more high strung than hers. 
406. rubberducky - 8/8/2000 10:36:37 AM
CalGal (or anyone who might know):
i wanna book a flight ... what sites do you recommend? i've used biztravel & priceline. any suggestions?
407. CalGal - 8/8/2000 10:45:21 AM
I find Yahoo perfectly suitable, but I will occasionally check out the airline sites themselves, and have found better deals there.
I would never use priceline. Ifyou don't use the ticket THAT DAY on THAT FLIGHT, you are out of luck.
408. JudithAtHome - 8/8/2000 11:08:32 AM
Doc!!! Do you own a DeLorean?! Or is that a picture of some exotic piece of machinery I know nothing about?
409. christino - 8/8/2000 1:11:22 PM
Ducky,
I've had good luck with cheaptickets.com as well.
410. rubberducky - 8/8/2000 1:55:58 PM
thanks CG & CO
all of em - Yahoo/CheapTickets/LowestFare all list the exact same frickin' flights. ack!
guess i'll have to drive home for Labor Day. maybe i waited too long. oh well
411. CalGal - 8/8/2000 2:19:13 PM
Ducky, try going to the airline sites directly. In particular, check on America West, since you live in one of their hubs.
412. DocBrown - 8/8/2000 3:52:43 PM
Judith, yes. Driving a DeLorean earned me the nickname "Doc Brown" many years ago, and so I use it as my online monniker.
That picture is not my car, though. It is a picture of a friend's DeLorean here in Cleveland six weeks ago. I posted it because John Z. DeLorean can be clearly seen sitting in the passenger seat, autographing the glovebox lid.
You can see a pic of my DeLorean on a race track here. The person in my passenger seat is my lovely wife, Porsche. She did not open the door because she was desperately trying to escape . . . this was a parade.
413. JudithAtHome - 8/8/2000 4:27:21 PM
DocB:
Great car and lovely passenger!
I remember when the DeLoreans were first delivered to the dealerships which were selling them. My husband and I and a friend of ours were sitting in a cafe across from a car dealership at about midnight. We saw this huge trailer truck pull up and park in front of the place, which was all dark and closed. The driver unhooked the trailer and drove away...we sat there casually looking around and then I said "Ohmigod! Those are DeLoreans!" We raced across the street and crawled up on the trailer to get a better look...it was very exciting. I would've never done that during the day...ha!
Luckily we knew the cafe owner or he might have called the police, thinking we'd skipped out on our bill...
414. DocBrown - 8/8/2000 4:45:36 PM
That was a funny story, Judith. Thanks.
The relevance to this thread is that I do occasionally loan my DeLorean to friends. Very close and trustworthy friends.
415. JudithAtHome - 8/8/2000 5:19:25 PM
I've had a 1973 white on white Cougar XR7 wrecked by a trustworthy friend who loaned it out to another person who not only ruined my gorgeous car but hit another one and flew the scene, leaving ME to be sued by the owner of the other car. I was home watching Hill ST. Blues when my car hit the parked car of an est Trainer...a very agressive sort, to say the least.
I guess this belongs in Stories but...
416. bloodnfire - 8/8/2000 5:28:09 PM
Rubberducky. Have you tried www.expedia.com ? I have purchased flight tickets on that and found some exceptional prices.
417. Uzmakk - 8/8/2000 5:36:19 PM
I thought that was Newt Gingrich in that DeLorean.
418. Jenerator - 8/9/2000 9:19:39 AM
CalGal, DocBrown, ChristinO and anyone else,
Going back to the original topic of Internet addiction, I really want to know how you all differentiate between Internet addiction and Internet compulsion. I've seen in the books I've read the terms used interchangably, but even so, the people are classified or termed as addicts, not as compulsives. So please tell me your thinking on this.
419. Indiana Jones - 8/9/2000 9:32:30 AM
Jen: I don't know the formal distinction, but I think a compulsion is when you are unable to resist acting a certain way when faced with a situation.
For example, if I have to smoke because I need the nicotine, that's an addiction. If I have a hard time not smoking after a meal, that's a compulsion.
If you can't resist checking your email several times a day, that seems compulsive. If you skimp on groceries so you can pay for your Internet connection, that seems to indicate addiction IMO.
420. CalGal - 8/9/2000 9:41:36 AM
Jen,
I answered in Message # 226
421. JudithAtHome - 8/9/2000 9:49:27 AM
I agree with Indiana Jones...on this issue, anyhow.
422. DocBrown - 8/9/2000 11:07:30 AM
Jenerator, my opinion about "Internet Addiction" is very lukewarm. I am sure that if it is possible to be addicted (whatever that means) to anything, then it is probably possible to be addicted to the Internet.
I might prefer to coin a different phrase to describe the phenomenon as I understand it. I might refer to someone who wastes a lot of time and bandwidth on low quality Internet experiences as an "Internet Junkie." People who spend a lot of time with Internet pornography, Internet gambling, or chatrooms might qualify.
Have you ever taken a class on the Internet? I have. During that semester I had to spend many, many hours on the Internet. By a time-based definition, I would have qualified as an "Internet Addict." I dismiss this judgement, because that class was a very high quality experience for me. Had I spent that web time chatting I would have accomplished nothing . . . my time would have been junked. Thus I would have been an Internet Junkie.
423. christino - 8/9/2000 2:10:37 PM
Jen,
I thought I was pretty clear in stating that I do not agree that one can be addicted to the internet. If a person were to spend 23 hours a day on the internet, alienate his family and friends, lose his job and let the mail and trash pile up I still would not say that person is addicted to the internet. That person is a compulsive internet user who likely had serious psychological issues before the internet came along.
You keep asking "But what if this ___ . Do you believe in internet addiction now?" and my answer is and will continue to be "No." There is no such thing as addiction to the internet.
You can't sell a book about how there's no addiction to something. This means that any book about internet "addiction" is starting from an unproven assertion to begin with. To write a book about internet addiction is to accept prima facie that there IS such a thing. This is why the books you are reading disagree with what people here are saying.
I would imagine that of all the authors of the books about internet "addiction" not one of them has spent any significant amount of time interacting in on-line forums and communities. These people are operating from a fundamental position of ignorance. It's like a celibate arguing that non-celibates are addicted to sex. He has no knowledge of what even a normal amount of sex is so to him even a single encounter is more than he's ever experienced in a lifetime. The very idea that some people might do this once or twice a day is mind-boggling while at the same time a married person who's only getting it once or twice a month might feel seriously deprived.
424. christino - 8/9/2000 2:45:49 PM
Another thing I'm curious about is in what ways were the test subjects' lives destroyed by their internet usage? Did they run off with lovers? Did they charge up exhorbitant bills on their credit cards? Gamble away their life savings?
Not all internet usage is created equal. If all you do online is gamble then you don't have an internet problem you have a gambling problem. Likewise shopping. Likewise fidelity and extramarital relationships.
If your 16 year old son gets a car and then starts driving to the wrong side of town to score crack is he a compulsive driver or does he have a crack addiction?
People worry about how much time their kids spend online. Say your 16 year old is surfing for three hours a night if he were to spend three hours a day at the library reading encyclopedias and educational references we'd be proud of him for expanding his education.
Or what if he's not actively improving his mind. What if all he does is hang out in chatrooms shooting the breeze with his buddies isn't he at least safer than if he was doing the same thing down in the parkinglot of the local Stop-n-Go?
People who have little to no internet experience insist on seeing electronic communication as somehow fundamentally different from any other kind of communication that we engage in. This makes them prime candidates for the snake oil salesmen and their latest "addiction" harrangue.
425. DocBrown - 8/9/2000 3:05:25 PM
Christino said:
Not all internet usage is created equal.
I agree, as I said in Message # 422. I believe the quality of the user's Internet experience is the only possible fertile ground left for this thread.
426. DocBrown - 8/9/2000 3:09:06 PM
That came out wrong. This is what I meant to say:
There is plenty left to discuss about "Internet Life." However, I believe that the tangential subject of Internet Addiction based on time spent online or the judgement of family and friends has been beaten to death. The only meat left in that discussion is the quality of the user's Internet experience.
427. alistairConnor - 8/9/2000 6:34:36 PM
A few thoughts about articles about the Mote :
The whole concept of an on-line community is mind-blowing for people who have never experienced such a thing, and incites disbelief as often as not, in my experience. Perhaps less so in the USA.
An interesting angle is this virtual-community thing. It's clearly going to be a sociological phenomenon of increasing importance.
But among all the virtual communities, what's so special about the Mote? It's completely disinterested, unfinanced, unadvertised, autonomous and self-managing. This is what the internet was supposed to be like.
And of course I like the "Microsoft shafted us, but we survived" angle. And for a technically oriented audience, there is the enjoyable irony of using Microsoft's own technology to reverse-engineer their site, and making it much faster and more reliable than the original.
For the last year, I've been meaning to write a brief account of how the Mote happened, from a technical point of view. I think I'll finally write it and post it here next week.
428. glendajean - 8/9/2000 6:40:14 PM
Here, here!
429. christino - 8/9/2000 6:47:43 PM
That would be wonderful Alistair!
Doc,
I think that's a very intriguing topic. I'm particularly curious about how the majority of netizens spend their time. Are we representative here at theMote or are we a rarity? Do most folks use the net to reach out to others or just to get information and do their own personal business?
Does anyone know of any reputable studies of such?
430. vonKreedon - 8/9/2000 8:07:51 PM
AC - That would be great if you would write such an article. How would you feel about such an article then being submitted to various local newspapers?
431. AytchMan - 8/9/2000 11:59:14 PM
This just in--
Women now make up 50.4% of all online traffic. Four years ago, it was 38%. Projections are that the percentage of women online will continue to increase.
From ZDNet.
432. bloodnfire - 8/10/2000 6:55:13 AM
AlistairConnor. Your Message # 427. In London, England, where I was born and raised, there is a place known as 'Hyde Park Corner'. There, every evening (at least when I was a young man), one could rent a soapbox for about a quarter, stand on it, and say anything one wished. Promote the overthrow of the government, the elimination of the Royal Family (a favorite topic), religion, atheism, anything.
It was most intriguing because of its freedom and and the impromptu nature of all that took place. There was lots of laughter and some brilliant people presented stimulating ideas. Others, less brilliant, were the butt of ribald kibitzing.
It seems to me that The Mote is identical in its appeal, with the added 'spice' of anonymity. I see its future as being wonderful, as I am sure that there are countless thousands who long for the same...what...friendships ?....intense discussions ?...etc., that we all enjoy here. I personally thank you once again for the part you have played in making it available to us, and hope that we can in some way publish all that's going on so that others can be attracted.
433. rubberducky - 8/11/2000 3:13:32 PM
thanks bloodn, i didn't like expedia. same flights & prices as everyone else, but it wasn't obvious looking at the listings that the flights were a 2-leg event. i consider that to be less than up front as the other sites made sure to note that.
i ended up doing what i always do. shop around for the best price, go to Priceline.com, knock some money off that price and submit. works most every time.
434. AytchMan - 8/12/2000 9:21:06 PM
Just passing through...
Top 10 US cities for percentage of home PC ownership:
73% -- Salt Lake City
72% -- San Francisco
71% --Washington DC
69% -- Portland, Oregano
69% -- Awesome, Texas
69% --Seattle
68% -- Denver
66% -- Boston
64% -- San Diego
63% --Sacramento
Now, we're off to destabilize foreign governments...
435. joezan - 8/13/2000 1:11:40 AM
For "non-productive" internet usage, The Mote is about it for me. By "non-productive" I mean entertainment, but of course it goes way beyond that.
The thing that amazes me about the 'net is that everything, truly, is here. And what amazes me even more is how quickly people who use the 'net a lot come to take it for granted.
For the past couple of years I've been like a monk at work, sitting at my desk with boxes of files, looking for internal documentation to support compliance with accreditation standards. Out of over 400 standards, there are 30 or so which require that our policies, procedures, and practice relevant to the particular standard comply with state, federal, and local laws. For these, along with your supportive doc, you must include the relevant statute. (They want to be sure that you know what you need to comply with.)
For the first year, while I went through the standards the first time, everytime I came across one of these I'd find all the necessary documentation, and then put a post-it on the file reminding myself to find the relevant statute.
Then, once I had finished my first "pass" of all the standards, I went back and started trying to find these relevant statutes. But where does one start looking, for instance, for the relevant statute for the standard which requires that we have adequate policies and procedures to ensure that the juveniles in our care are not used for cosmetic research?
436. joezan - 8/13/2000 1:12:10 AM
(continued)
So, I start calling federal agencies, finally getting the Dept. of Health & Human Services and, after sending them money for the report they have which includes the relevant law, after a couple of weeks I finally have it.
But now, I have to do this 30 more times.
DUH!
Right there, on the intro page of the report, it says You may also download this report free of charge by...etc.
The remaining thirty standards were a comparative breeze. There was not one statute I could not find, and they are spread out among at least 20 different federal and state agencies.
437. JayAckroyd - 8/16/2000 1:42:54 PM
42 on the quiz. But it seems to presume dial up access. The internet and email are integrated into my workday, and I seldom dial up from home. (But why would I? The office is four blocks away, and the marginal cost of any email or web activity is zero.)
438. marshame - 8/16/2000 5:17:16 PM
I recently became addicted to auctions on the internet. Amazon and ebay had me, royally. I could feel the excitement build, the adrenalin pump as I watched the clock tick down and realized that I had foiled the other bidders! It was just delicious! In ebay you can "watch" or lurk to see the auctions and sneak up and throw in a bid when the others aren't paying attention! It was deliriously fun!!!!
I suffered an immediate cure when I won 3 auctions in one day and had to fork over $250!!!
439. bloodnfire - 8/16/2000 6:44:49 PM
What did you get for that, Marshame ? Or would you rather forget about it ?
440. joezan - 8/16/2000 11:17:03 PM
A guy I work with started auctioning CDs a couple of years ago - he specializes in hard-to-find Euro imports of mostly 70's bands.
But what's amazing is the way he started:
Two years ago he was the midwestern regional manager for Witmark Catalog Showrooms, having worked for them for 10 years. They folded, and he was laid off. He was very picky about choosing his next job, and it wasn't long before he had to start digging into his savings.
He had always collected music - 45's, albums, CD's - over the past 30-some-odd years. So he started auctioning the more collectible items - and got rid of hundreds of them within a few weeks. He says he could not believe what people were willing to pay for some of this stuff - he never knew there was any market for most of it.
So he sold every last bit of it -thousands of items - making more in a few months than he made at his Witmark job in a year.
This spurred him on to looking into how to buy specialty CDs wholesale, and the rest is history.
3 months ago his wife had to quit her nursing job to answer e-mails and ship product full-time, because they just couldn't keep up with the orders once they topped 200 a day.
I'm not sure what his margin is - but even if it's 2 bucks a pop, he's doing pretty well. His only overhead is his 2 computers.
I've never even visited an auction site - can it be that good?
441. AytchMan - 8/17/2000 2:53:32 AM
joezan--
I've never even visited an auction site - can it be that good?
Apparently so...
Constituent puts vote up for sale on eBay
Before you look, take a guess as to the current bid. It's listed in the article.
442. joezan - 8/17/2000 6:41:13 AM
Hmmmm - I wonder if they'd really prosecute the guy.
Instant Hero, if you ask me...
443. theDiva - 8/17/2000 9:10:53 AM
Joe
e-bay is DA BOMB. I snag the best CDs for el cheapo. If I had to pay retail for this stuff, I'd have a paltry sad little collection. As it is, I can get things like Ellington at Newport, '56 for a buck. I just got Pops Plays Fats, brand new, for six bucks including shipping. I am so hooked.
444. rubberducky - 8/17/2000 9:25:20 AM
hmm
i prefer having auctions myself. as CalGal can attest, i have enough useless shit .. haha
my auctions are usually collector toys that i have from my time as a hard-core toy collector a few years ago - then i discovered boys - haha
anyway, it's a great way to score a little extra cash that i used to pay off a credit card. if i actually bid on things, i'd be just as hooked as diva, no question.
445. marshame - 8/17/2000 11:33:39 AM
bloodnfire
The objects of my affection are American art pottery of the 30's and 40's, especially Roseville and Hull.
But you can also get terrific deals on books. Let's just say that whatever you may want, there is probably someone selling it.
Ducky, are you saying you occasionally auction off your collector toys?
446. rubberducky - 8/17/2000 11:56:35 AM
yes, marsha, i do. haven't since i moved, but it is something that i've been meaning to get to back to...it's fun and i still have some stuff to get rid of.
447. marshame - 8/17/2000 12:07:42 PM
Ducky
Well if you ever come across a "Land of the Lost" lunch box, lemme know!
448. rubberducky - 8/17/2000 12:14:16 PM
haha, ok
most of my stuff is more recent and centered on action figures ...
but ya never know!
449. marshame - 8/17/2000 12:16:39 PM
Well I need to collect something more inexpensive than Roseville and Hull Art vases .... but the action figures just don't look as good on my marbletop buffet!
450. CalGal - 8/20/2000 12:02:07 PM
Online Media
It does seem odd that such a huge audience can't result in any money.
451. alistairconnor - 8/20/2000 5:17:22 PM
From the above article : Just 8% of Web ad dollars go to news and information sites.
That's the key. If you're on the web reading news, how likely are you to click through an ad? If you're on the web to buy something, you're ten times more likely to do so. Advertisers know that. They spend their advertising money on sites where there are clients spending money.
452. JudithAtHome - 8/20/2000 7:27:23 PM
marsha:
What patterns in Roseville and Hull did you get? (You can answer in H&G or the Cafe id you'd prefer....)
453. rubberducky - 8/21/2000 1:22:27 PM
Just Received in E-Mail:
You have just received the "Kentucky Virus"
As we ain't got no programmin experience, this here virus works on the honor system. Please delete all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to everyone on your mailin list.
Thanks for y'all cooperating, University of Kentucky Computer Engineerin Dept.
454. ChristinO - 8/21/2000 4:30:11 PM
hahahahaha!
Ducky,
I got a message from hotmail telling me that something that I sent you had been delayed so if you've been looking for email from me or if you just got one that seems outdated then that's why.
It had an attachment which of course I was afraid to open because I couldn't remember what if anything I'd sent to you and I thought maybe this was some kind of virus ploy or something.
paranoia anyone?
464. Indiana Jones - 8/21/2000 8:37:09 PM
AC: Though I'd picked up bits and pieces along the way, it was still interesting (to me as a latecomer at least) to read your narrative.
465. marshame - 8/21/2000 8:47:24 PM
Alistair
How totally cool! And here I was, just an oblivious consumer. The transformation from Fray to Mote was invisible and seamless from my POV. I was very glad to see the old format after suffering through the "new" Fray for a day or two. And you're right, the Mote has been problem-free compared to the Fray/Slate.
PS Great story about the bicycle, the key, and the bad lock!!
466. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2000 1:12:28 AM
Alistair
Thank you very much. Those were heady days, indeed!
467. bloodnfire - 8/22/2000 5:29:29 AM
My thanks too, Alistair. What a great effort! Ongoing yet...here's to The Mote. God bless her and all those who sail in her.
468. stostosto - 8/22/2000 7:13:56 AM
Alistair
Great story, well told. Thanks! And good job, dammit!
469. RosettaStone - 8/22/2000 5:52:50 PM
The columns are too narrow. Remove the yellow-gold bar on the right.
470. RosettaStone - 8/22/2000 6:10:15 PM
Please
471. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 6:12:22 PM
And where would you like to put all the links it contains, Rosie? Seeing as how that was the most often requested feature both at the Fray and once we got here you're not likely to have many takers for it's removal.
472. alistairconnor - 8/22/2000 6:15:37 PM
Wrong thread, Rosie... Not my department anyway...
Hey Boss, how about a news link to the Programmer's Tale?
473. JudithAtHome - 8/22/2000 6:38:34 PM
Rosetta would lobby God to change the number of days it took to create the world if he could...
474. PelleNilsson - 8/23/2000 1:42:27 AM
The newslink feature needs to be rethought. Nobody sees them. How about putting them in place of the host name?
475. Cellar Door - 8/24/2000 12:30:12 AM
GAYS RULE!
482. bloodnfire - 8/27/2000 3:16:04 PM
What a wonderful story! What an adventure it was (and remains) being a part of it all! I'm looking forward to what the future has in store! Thanks again CalGal and Alistair and JJ et al. And thanks most especially to Slate Magazine for the most high-handed short-sighted arrogance imaginable on the internet (which is saying something).
484. CalGal - 8/27/2000 3:48:29 PM
I am not sure where to take it from there--and I'm not sure if I'm happy with the last two posts. Not informationally, but format wise.
So I'm going to take off and go to the gym and work at a clients, see where I want to go from there.
485. AytchMan - 8/27/2000 3:54:31 PM
To all of you original Motrons--
Not being an effusive sort, I tend to be very stingy with praise. But I gotta hand it to you guys, the format and environment of The Mote is second to none. It continues to amaze me that other sites use any format other than the variable-length scrolling used here. Great job.
489. CalGal - 8/27/2000 5:41:08 PM
Aytch and Sincerity,
Thanks a bunch! It's when the newcomers show up and enjoy what we've created that our achievement really comes home to me.
I have some ideas on how I should finish up this history, but I've got to go get some food, pick up my hopefully restored computer, and get a client ready for a demo.
490. bloodnfire - 8/27/2000 6:34:35 PM
How about starting our own Magazine ? Reversing the trend as it were ? It seems to me that we have the talent and eclectic experience, combined with the most opinionated bunch of writers on the planet. I would think it might make for a very popular Internet Magazine, and accomplish more effectively that which 'Slate' hoped to accomplish.
491. bloodnfire - 8/27/2000 7:04:59 PM
With a suggested title of "Eye on the Internet".
492. bloodnfire - 8/27/2000 7:05:56 PM
or 'of' the Internet. We'd become "The Mote in the Eye of the Internet"
493. marshame - 8/27/2000 7:20:19 PM
sincerity 454
Weome to the mote! Our crazies are all quite lovable. Er, some of them, anyway. Yo'll soon figure out which ones.
494. sincerity454 - 8/27/2000 8:37:03 PM
Thanks for the welcome, marshame. I'm quite impressed with the talented and intelligent remarks I've read here so far. If there are crazies here, good deal - I'll fit in fine.
495. benwolf - 8/27/2000 9:55:05 PM
I just arrived here following a link in a Times forum. There's got to be more people over there who would appreciate this place, as long as they don't bring the trolls with them.
496. CalGal - 8/27/2000 10:03:47 PM
Actually, we deal very well with trolls. Generally, we just ignore them. Or mock them. Or send them to the Inferno if they are off topic. If they persist in being a pest in the wrong thread, then the host just deletes their posts--or moves them to the Inferno.
But as a general rule, we don't get upset by their antics--since that gives them what they want, and what's the fun in that?
Feel free to invite people over here.
498. joezan - 8/28/2000 7:33:39 AM
...we amused ourselves by trying to think up names for our crew (Moties? Mote Members? Mo-telles?).
Yes, and I amuse myself to this day with my group name - Mötely Crüe.
499. AytchMan - 8/28/2000 1:46:36 PM
Speaking of trolls, what causes them? Are they nice people who are overcome with mischief because of the anonymity of the Net? Or attention-starved fringers? Or maybe budding serial killers who've yet to find their true calling? This is a phenomenon I can't quite get a handle on although I've seen quite a few of them.
500. rubberducky - 8/28/2000 1:49:20 PM
A-Man
it's simple, really
they are addicted to the Internet.
heh
501. CalGal - 8/28/2000 4:09:42 PM
Aytch,
I don't know. Truly. I envision incipient nut jobs, but they can't all be like that.
502. CalGal - 8/28/2000 4:12:57 PM
Sto,
Gosh, thanks! And I completely agree with your last two paragraphs.
I should dig up my old posts on forum psychology (a la CalGal) and repost them.
503. PelleNilsson - 8/28/2000 4:36:20 PM
CalGal
I think you should, perhaps a condensed version. The group dynamics involved is a fascinating subject. If you remember, Aytchman has also touched on the subject that sto addresses in the last para.
504. CalGal - 8/28/2000 4:42:05 PM
That's right; Aytch was astounded to learn that we'd all lend each other money (if that's the sort of thing we'd do).
I don't know if my posts address the group dynamics of the Mote, but they do involve group dynamics in general.
The first one I remember writing was in answer to the question: "Why are online forums so rude?"
505. PelleNilsson - 8/28/2000 4:44:11 PM
I happened on to your disussion with Kitty in TT which I think was quite good.
506. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:21:12 PM
Oh, that's a good one, too. I'll try to dig that up.
507. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:23:11 PM
Here's some stuff I posted in The Inferno. I was asked why I thought the Mote leaned towards the center:
Translate "the Mote leans towards the political center" as "The U.S. political discussions at the Mote are not significantly weighted in favor of either major political party."
I should then explain that I think forums have personalities and that the personalities revolve in part around the balance that works for the members. When I make comments like the one you question, I am speaking from that philosophy (one that I'm pretty sure isn't uncommon). So my belief is that each forum's US political threads find a balancing point that sets much of the forum's priorities and discussions.
For example, at Salon's Table Talk--or the old Fray circa 1997--much of the discussions are about the evil racist Republicans and the noble Democrats. Whereas at the Freeperville forum (the Free Republic) they are all convinced that Clinton is Satan, UN black helicopters are going to take over the world, and Tom Campbell is a godless Communist (Campbell is a very moderate Republican).
So vonKreedon (who is quite liberal by our standards here) was accused of being a Freeper (right wing lunatic) at Tabletalk. I'm sure that Al Davis (a fairly conservative member here) has mentioned that he is ridiculed as a liberal on the Freeper forum.
This is not to say that there aren't Republicans/centrists/facists at Tabletalk and Communists/Socialists/centrists/liberals at Freeperville. But they are in the minority--which puts the balancing point well to the right or left of the one found here at the Mote. The Mote is closer to the real world, in which vK profiles Earnest Birkenstock Wearing Liberal and AlDavis profiles Conservative Old Coot Who Went Right When He Got Rich.
508. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:24:30 PM
(still reposting)
This reasonably close relationship with the Real World makes The Mote's U.S. politics personality remarkably different from any other political forum I've seen--less skewed towards towards either political pole. The balance seems to have settled at the center. If you check Niner's political test results, you'll see that we definitely tilt towards traditional Dem positions on social views. But if you checked specific responses, I think you'd see a lot more variance from our folks than you would at Salon or Free Republic.
Does every regular Politics poster agree with this description? Hell, no. But I would argue that the ones who think that the Mote is tilted strongly Dem or strongly Republican are the ones who fall on the outer edges of the Mote political spectrum--those who are fairly true-blue Dems and Republican/conservatives. Does that mean they don't belong here? Again--hell, no. Their views and arguments are part of what sets the balancing point.
And as more people come on board, the balancing point might change again. It's not fixed in cement.
509. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:24:54 PM
(and still)
A few more thoughts, just because I've been dwelling on certain aspects of this for a while:
All threads have their own personality/balancing point. I know that the Mote Movies thread, for example, might discourage someone who was primarily interested in foreign films featuring French women who don't shave their armpits. It isn't a particularly good place for van Damme fans, either. The International and Language threads are extremely civil and erudite, whereas the International threads at TableTalk are just erudite. And so on.
But here is what I wonder about a great deal--as I mentioned earlier in the thread, online forums and zines rely on hit counts, registration numbers, and so on. Surely a place that has more civilized discourse--that is more interested in discussing issues than yelling at each other unproductively--is actually operating at a disadvantage?
Online forums that are linked to a magazine/newspaper state that they want informed, polite discourse and delete abusive posts. But the fact is that I bet their hit rates are better when they have a ton of passionately committed people who think the other side is the enemy and spend all day and night howling insults at each other, and willing to have the same fight with the anti-Christ over and over again until Resurrection day.
Slate discontinued its support of the Fray software and user interface, substituting a horrendous app that discourages sustained conversation and provides only one post at a time for review. It was this decision that caused us to create our own forum. All of the 100 regulars left Slate.
Did this hurt Slate? Not that I can tell. I check their new Fray periodically, and the discussion is generally incoherent and unpleasant--but very busy. I would be embarrassed to have much of it associated with any magazine I ran. But I imagine that their hit rate has at least tripled.
510. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:25:48 PM
(still reposting)
The Mote is not a fast-moving forum. Slower than usual right now, but it will always be fairly sedate in comparison to Tabletalk. We don't have the same arguments 9000 times--just 100 times. We tend to sneer quietly at people who show up just to cause trouble, rather than rush to announce our outrage. If we generate 1000 posts in a discussion, the odds are better than average that most participants will feel they weren't wasting their time shouting insults at each other. The politics thread, which is always the busiest, is an extremely reasonable place by political thread standards.
All in all, it's a fun place to be. We need some more people, but I don't want us to be huge.
But if we were trying to sell ourselves, I think we would be a failure. Our very reasonableness is our weakest aspect. Because no matter what the Slate/TT/CNN/NYTimes forums say, it isn't quality that matters. It's their hit rate.
I wonder if this disconnect between stated objective and success parameters has been written about? Have other models --ones where success is measured in terms of the stated objective--been attempted? I'm not very familiar with online forums.
511. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:28:51 PM
Okay, that ends the first sequence. On the second one, I'm going to post more of the surrounding discussion, including replicating posts.
1573. Candide
I have a question. Why are some people on internet forums so annihilatingly rude to each other?
It's not just this forum. I've observed it on all of the forums. I suspect that I may just be experiencing a cross-cultural shock of some kind. It might be possible to say "That's a stupid thing to say" or some such, but not destructive attacks upon the entire personality of the individual concerned.
1574. bubbaette
I've conjectured that it's the anonymity -- you can say things that you would never say IRL because you don't get the reproving or hurt look, the knowlege in the other person's eyes that you've just been an asshole.
1575. ChristiPeters
"you don't get the reproving or hurt look, the knowlege
in the other person's eyes that you've just been an asshole.
You are also (usually) out of striking/revenge range of the other person.
512. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:36:52 PM
1577. JayAckroyd
There is a variety of reasons.
Inexperienced users get into flame wars.
People who like to flame drive out people who don't, leaving places occupied only by flamers.
The absence of body language and tone of voice leads to frequent misunderstandings.
Likewise, the absence of the physical presence of the other person reduces feedback to the flamer.
I don't think the anonymity of the sender is as much an issue as the anonymity of the recipient. I suspect that people who meet IRL don't flame each other nearly so often, because they can visualize the recipient.
Flaming escalates very quickly, once it starts.
But I do think the primary reasons you see so much of it are the first and the second. Rude people drive nice people away.
513. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:37:47 PM
1579. CalGal
Candide,
A different possibility. Consider forums in terms of the people who inhabit them.
What sort of people are drawn to internet forums?
People who like to exchange opinions, argue, debate. Generally on a variety of subjects.
What sort of people are drawn to a continual exchange of opinions, willing to hold their side down in long debates, willing to argue, willing to withstand often heated (if not rude) opposition? What sort of people care that much about their opinions and expressing them?
As a general rule, I think it's fair to say that these sorts of people would be....intense people. Passionate people. Generally, intelligent people.
What other attributes are intelligent, intense and passionate people more likely to have?
Speaking as the queen mother of intensity and passion (although my intelligence is often questioned), I can answer this one affirmatively. People with these attributes are far more likely to have a host of occasionally negative traits. Arrogance. Abruptness. Impatience.
Add that in with the freedom of the Internet (at last I can behave without the social chitchat bullshit required of me in face to face interactions!) and all of a sudden it seems odd to wonder why on earth people are so rude.
I think this, more than Jay's explanation, explains the roughness of online forums. Otherwise, why would so many polite people hang around? PhilipDavid, Irving, Jay himself, Pelle, Judith, Diva, Glendajean, Wabbit, Christi, Arky....the list goes on and I apologize in advance for anyone missed.
What causes them to stay when other people show up, experience rudeness, and run away screaming in distaste? Why don't they leave? Yes, they might disappear when fights happen--but they keep on coming back. Again, why?
514. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:38:31 PM
1580. CalGal
I think it's because they all are intense and passionate too. They're just not...rude. But the delight of running into a bunch of people who are just as intense and passionate outweighs any other discomfort they might feel.
So. I think online forums are very often rude because forums attract a confluence of people with temperaments and attributes that not only increase the possibility that they'll be rude, but increase their tolerance to it in others. Those who aren't often contentious and quarrelsom themselves (but are often more emotional, have you noticed?) are more attracted by the confluence of like personalities than they are distressed by the rudeness.
Those who don't have the optimal levels of intensity and passion--no matter how intelligent they are--aren't going to enjoy themselves all that much and so they leave.
Incidentally, I don't think any of us (including me) figure this out consciously. I think it all just sort of happens.
That doesn't mean that Jay's explanation doesn't fit into the mix as well. I do think that forums that can't maintain a reasonable level of invective will start to disintegrate, and I also think that some people are drawn in because they just want to be rude.
But if you ever watch forums, you'll see that a core is necessary--a core element that keeps it growing and living. Rudeness alone won't serve to explain how the core develops. I've talked to enough people online and off, seen who comes and who goes, who stays and who flits in and out--and all I can tell you is that the ones who stay have that gut level intensity. No matter how polite they are.
If you stop and think about it for a minute, it's actually a bit silly of us to think that online forums would have much in common with RL population mixes anyway.
515. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:40:45 PM
1583. CalGal
Another good one--people who like to write. I don't mean that in terms of rudeness, but just as a common forum attribute. Although you could argue that people who value the written word and spend lots of time at a workstation typing are going to be--well, intense and passionate. (g)
I remember getting into an argument with someone here--I forget who--who asserted that there was no reason to assume that online forum populations were in any way different from those found in the real world.
I was aghast. Hell, the typing requirement alone wipes out close to 50% of the population. And that's not even one of the biggies.
516. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:45:30 PM
1586. arkymalarky
Speaking strictly for myself, the level of hostility was very off-putting to me when I first really began participating in the Fray. I soon developed the attitude that if it didn't involve me, that sort of thing was best ignored, since there was a whole lot in the Fray that was valuable and actually only a few people engaged in that kind of stuff. It's the same here, but tamer, imo, and I like that. I value the people I know here, and if something happens to this forum I have no interest in participating regularly in another one; but I've learned more here and in the Fray, and exercised my thinking more than I'd done in a while. I still look here first if I want to know something, and I depend on the folks here for the latest trends and info. Shit, no one around my RL world even knows what "I KISS YOU!" means. You all really just don't know what a backward world I live in.
I wouldn't have even gotten started in the Fray if my dad hadn't mentioned it, and if it hadn't been for the Clinton scandal. I saw that there were no other Arkansans in the Fray, so I thought I might have a different perspective to offer.
It goes without saying that there are a lot of intelligent and interesting people who don't enjoy aggressive interactions and conflict, and general-topic online forums lose a number of them who wander in. That's unavoidable, I think, and not necessarily a negative aspect of online discussion groups and communities. I know some very sharp people irl, my dad included, who just don't have an interest in the style of discussion and debate that goes on here. It's not the content or people or level of exchange, it's just not their cup of tea. I'm amazed it's mine, since I'm really very introverted irl, and my friends are, with only two or three exceptions, people I've known since high school or college.
517. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:49:06 PM
1591. IrvingSnodgrass
CalGal:
Your analysis sounds right to me. Since you mentioned me in your list, I wanted to confirm that you're right about what attracts me and keeps me around. Despite the rudeness, which I don't like at all.
One thing I would add to Jay's list is that flaming can also be the result of people who don't know any better way to communicate their disagreement. There are more effective and subtle ways of disagreeing, but these remain a mystery to many. I have usually preferred to show my own disagreement through a logical and civil argument. It's amazing how often this works far better than making things personal.
1592. CalGal
Irv,
Thanks for the confirmation. You know, another reason why people don't have practice with expressing their disagreement is that many people get very few opportunities to argue in real life.
...
It all came home to me when I was explaining why I liked online forums to a real life friend. I was telling him that the [other place] was great because I could discuss so many things that I thought about but couldn't always find people to care about. Online, I could usually find someone who was interested--even if it was just to tell me that I was an idiot, and why.
All of a sudden, I realized that much of what drew me was the high grade intensity, and that's been the basis of my observations since then.
518. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:50:26 PM
1595. marjoribanks
One thing highly underrated as a reason people interact in a forum like this - entertainment. Some of us are bound to offices, or work hours which are not always fully filled with activity. It is at these times that I look to the Mote, less for intellection than simple chilling out. In Trinidad it's called 'liming'. In India, 'time-pass'. I find these two concepts best reflect my own Mote habits, and I suspect it is the same for many. Not to undervalue intellection, or what I learn/exchange at the Mote. I do value that as well, and the chance to interact with people I deeply respect and find very valuable intellectual sounding-boards.
...
1612. phillipdavid
CalGal
Message # 1579
Like Irving, I generally agree with your analysis. ...
And like Candide, I really appreciate your "at last I can behave without the social chitchat bullshit required of me in face to face
interactions!)" Over the last several years, I have absorbed the cultural atmosphere of our two oft-visited forums into my real life personna. (Maybe I just always had it.) Not that I am an asshole in irl, but I have a tendency to just say things straight out without any sugar coating in real life now.
A personal note: And even though that quality engenders some strange looks from colleagues sometimes, and even though the level of intensitty and passion you spoke of makes me a somewhat scary figure to some of the kids I work with (and some of the adults!), those qualities also work to make life more real for me, to help establish more meaningful connections with people, and to attract the sort of people into my life that interest me.
519. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:50:50 PM
1617. JayAckroyd
There's one other thing about flame wars. The level of expressed anger can reach a higher level than a real life encounter.
First, there's no threat of a physically violent response.
Second, a flamer has time to compose a reply. In a real life encounter, many people are quickly reduced to sputtering speechlessness when confronted with the kinds of verbal expressions to you see in a flame war.
And you can take the time to craft a really nasty note that you wouldn't have in trying to come up with a verbal response.
520. CalGal - 8/28/2000 5:51:16 PM
Okay, that's all. Sorry I posted it all here, but I thought it was interesting and relevant. Hope it's not confusing.
521. glendajean - 8/28/2000 6:04:31 PM
Cal -- thanks for your memoir-notes about the creation of the Mote and the dynamics of our on-line community. (Thanks to Alistair, too, for putting down in words your own view of our history).
I guess that I've gotten past the wonderment of the Mote and how precarious it all seemed at the time, as if we were all swimming in the internet ocean, hanging on to a couple of floating bits of wood after being thrown overboard by Slate.
During the first few months, it really did seem awe-inspiring that we continued to exist on, beyond the Fray. And frankly, it was quite wonderful to know that so many of us valued the forum and followed on to this site.
And that doesn't even begin to cover the incredible work of Alistair, CalGal, Jay, JJ, Irv and Pelle, and others, who worked and promoted and pushed to create the Mote.
I am personally grateful for the Mote and thanks to all of you for helping make it happen.
We've had some flame-ups since we moved here, but on the whole, none of them compare to the Fray wars at time.
522. alistairconnor - 9/6/2000 5:22:28 PM
T'was a pleasure.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top
