Re: Internet and Computer Addiction
Posted: 09 May 2012, 11:57
I am addicted to the smell of freshly electrified silicon.
An archive of the South African PCFormat forums.
https://tuhinga.ron2k.za.net/pcformat/
Wrong.KALSTER wrote:Is it not obvious that there are TWO types of addiction: physical and psychological?
Full articleB.K. Alexander wrote: History of The Word "Addiction"
The Latin verb addico signifies "giving over" either in a negative or a positive sense. In Roman law, for example, an addictus was a person given over as a bond slave to a creditor. In its positive uses, addico suggested devotion, as in senatus, cui me semper addixi ("the senate, to which I am always devoted") or agros omnes addixit deae ("he dedicated the fields entirely to the goddess") (Lewis & Short, 1879).
The traditional English meaning of "addiction" is similar. The 1933 Oxford English Dictionary defines addiction as: "… a formal giving over or delivery by sentence of court. Hence, a surrender or dedication of any one to a master … The state of being (self-) addicted or given to a habit or pursuit; devotion" (Murray, Bradley, Cragie, & Onions, 1933, p. 104). A similar definition appears in Webster's original American dictionary (Webster, 1828/1970).
Uses of "addiction" over several centuries compiled in the Oxford English Dictionary show that, as in Latin, "addiction" could be used in a favorable sense ("His own proper Industry and Addiction to Books") and an unfavourable sense ("A man who causes grief to his family by his addiction to bad habits"). Our reading of the uses of "addiction" in Shakespeare, Hobbes, and Gibbon suggests that the unfavourable sense was less common than favourable or neutral usage. Prior to the nineteenth century, "addiction" was rarely associated with drugs. Although opium had been well known from earliest recorded history, references connecting it to addiction, or any synonym for addiction, were unusual prior to the 19th century (Parssinen & Kerner, 1980). In pre-19th century Europe, opium was usually referred to as a medicine (Sonnedecker, 1962). The word was generally not applied to alcohol use either. Sometimes, though rarely, habitual drunkards were said to be "addicted to intemperance" (Levine, 1978).
The restrictive usage of "addiction" emerged in language of the 19th century temperance and anti-opium movements (Berridge & Edwards, 1981, chap. 13; Levine, 1978; 1984; Sonnedecker, 1963, pp. 30–31). "Addiction" came to replace terms like "intemperance" or "inebriety" for excessive alcohol and opium use. In the process, the traditional meaning of "addiction" was narrowed in at least three ways. The new usage linked "addiction" tightly to drugs, especially alcohol and opium, gave addiction an invariably harmful connotation as an illness or vice, and identified addiction with the presence of withdrawal symptoms and tolerance.
AgreedJamin wrote:Wrong.
All addictions are in-part psychological.
Agreed, that is what I meant. Thanks for the correction, though you seem to have understood what I meant.The types of addiction are substance and behavioural.
I used the word to describe the out of hand dismissal of internet addiction and the fallacious comparison with a substance addiction. The arguments against it I saw seemed to either ignore or was ignorant of the fact that more than one type of addiction exists,....At least learn the basics before bandying terms like ignorant about.
You raised two objections:Jamin wrote:Oh yes there is a problem, but to call it an addiction is to belittle everyone who actually has a real addiction and may be working to overcome it.
Imagine sitting in a rehab meting with recovering alcoholics who have to live with the knowledge they destroyed their families, or heroin addicts who used to prostitute themselves for drug money....
...I'm not saying some addictions are worse than others here. I'm saying that branding every trifling time waste that people get caught up in as an addiction is not only wrong, but it is dishonest and insulting.
It's just a way for psychologists (IE people with ZERO medical knowledge) to keep themselves relevant.
Shame on you for happily palming off peoples lack of self control in these matters as an addiction and expecting people to fall all over themselves about this 'condition'
I was working on a really long reply to your post until I got to this...In SP's second link in the OP, a description of the type of behaviours that could point towards an addiction is given, as defined by a Phd holder. Can you describe what it is you find particularly wrong with that?
Well, now I can only guess what problems you had with what I said.jamin_za wrote:I was working on a really long reply to your post until I got to this...In SP's second link in the OP, a description of the type of behaviours that could point towards an addiction is given, as defined by a Phd holder. Can you describe what it is you find particularly wrong with that?
I hope you are trolling me, because the alternative would be truly very sad.
Either way, we are done here.