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...