[bumby]

Some problems are socially constructed, yes. But in the study over half the respondents listed "severe" impairment across academic, relationship, financial, and occupational domains. Some of that is surely because their use butts up against social norms (e.g., if everyone is telling you that you spend too much time online, I'm guessing you'd be more likely to rate your anxiety about internet use as high), but I think it might be dangerous to handwave all behavioral disorders as benign because of social constructs. The definition of addition here is "impairment" not "non-normative".

If a person loses their house to a gambling addiction, it's probably not a good framework to just say they're just not living up to the socially constructed norm of having a roof over one's head.

[Mezzie]

My point is that the respondents may have been a self-selecting group due to a third factor, or they may just be people in general becoming more aware of this type of behavior. People who were internet addicts in the 90s are a skewed population.

My life is functionally impaired due to my homosexuality: Finding a partner is logistically difficult when your dating pool is, at best, 4% of that of others. This causes major financial and logistical impairments. Is my homosexuality the problem or is the problem a society which makes being single a difficulty? Likewise, 100 years ago, I would have spent my whole life blind. Now I live a normal life with very little in the way of visual accommodation. You cannot separate impairment from human society; humans are social animals.

Are the people in the article impaired because the internet is a problem, because of an external predisposition to addiction manifesting through internet use, or because society is impairing them?

It may be that the internet is a problem, but we aren't going to be able to answer that question unless we get rid of confounding variables.

[bumby]

>My point is that the respondents may have been a self-selecting group due to a third factor

The article addresses this:

"It is possible that those individuals classified as Dependent experienced an exaggerated set of negative consequences related to their Internet use compelling them to respond to advertisements for this study."

You seem to be losing focus on what the article is about, namely non-intoxicant addiction. "addiction can be defined as an impulse-control disorder which does not involve an intoxicant." If you were talking about a sexual addiction rather than a sexual preference, it would be an apt analogy.

To your point, yes, the context of impairment is being adaptive to the society in which one lives. The hermit living off the grid in Montana would probably be classified as maladaptive to modern society even if they think that society exhibits negative traits. That is a distinctly different claim as to whether that modern society exhibits certain favorable characteristics. This study was about the former point and made no claims to the latter.

The respondents characterized the Internet addiction as akin to cigarette cravings. I think it's possible (or even likely) there are confounding factors that drive this, but I think this study was asking a much simpler question of "Does Internet use display negative behavioral manifestations that align with other non-substance addictions, like gambling." To that point, either of those (Internet use or gambling) could be driven by societal factors.