[h2odragon]

"supplanted by" or "attributed to?"

There's always some reason to criticize other's behavior as bad, for them or society or whatever. There's always the problem of "you don't see the value the behavior gives me the same way I do."

Even if the effects are legitimately objectively bad for someone, was the cause really "internet addiction?" Or was that merely a convenient label to apply or even a pet cause that could be furthered by latching on to a new fad? The folks who were worst affected by "internet addiction" in 96 were not likely to have been pursuing wildly different lifestyles without it.

[bumby]

I meant supplanted but I can see why the distinction may matter. I meant that today people may blame the Internet but at sometime later the Internet is no longer a concern because we've found some other boogeyman to blame. I believe the ancient Greeks, with their strong oral traditions, felt that written history would erode society. Not many people are lamenting the downsides of books today.

>was the cause really "internet addiction?"

According to the study, it would appear so.

"They reported developing a preoccupation with being on-line again which they compared to "cravings" that smokers feel when they have gone a length of time without a cigarette."

Although the authors do acknowledge possible sampling bias.