[grimtrigger]

I think a better way to look at it is "information addiction" or "social snooping addiction". "Internet addiction" is a silly concept, because the internet is merely the medium. Its like referring to gambling addiction as "casino addiction".

[bushido]

That's exactly what I was thinking of posting when I read the article.

I know a lot of people who could be classified under the "information addict" category.

Two decades ago they would've most likely been regulars at a library, part of book clubs, have all the encyclopedia's they could get their hands on etc.

Two decades ago they would've also have been classified as well read, informed and all similar good things.

If anything the internet has made it easier for them to understand different perspectives and participate in discussions.

Would I call they "information addicts"?

Definitely not.

But there are some types of addictions that the internet as a , medium has made easier to achieve "social snooping addiction" and "WebMD addiction" would definitely be the big ones.

But as OP said, the internet is merely a medium, not the addiction.

[crpatino]

Pardon me...

You did not lump us in the same category with the average Facebook stalker, did you?

[baddox]

Right. If you're going to call those people addicts, you might as well call us all air addicts.

[garrettgrimsley]

>you might as well call us all air addicts.

This is a ridiculous dismissal of a serious issue, and frankly it reads like you and the parent commenters didn't bother to RTFA.

>through a combination of excessive time spent online and that time interfering with necessary social and professional activities, Internet use would result in either mental distress or clinical impairment, akin to the type of inability to function associated with pathological gambling

Does that read like your typical book club member?

[baddox]

I was referring specifically to the notion that people who spend a lot of time in libraries are information addicts. I think that notion is not serious, and I do dismiss it.

[garrettgrimsley]

I'm still not entirely clear. I think that it is the use of the word "right," that is giving me a snag.

I am reading the word "right" as you agreeing with their post.

Did you mean for the "right" to read as a dismissal of their post, and their silly use of "addict" to describe the book club member/library goer?

[bushido]

I think baddox may have meant it like "Yeah, right". That and "Right" are often spoken with a hint of sarcasm when disagreeing with said statement.

Also, I never said a casual book club member of library goer fits the definition of an information addict.

I said, and I quote:

   Two decades ago they would've most likely been regulars at a library, part of book clubs, have all the encyclopedia's they could get their hands on etc.

Which in my case implies, two decades ago, people who would be classified as information addicts on the internet(in present times) would have gotten their fix using multiple mediums in conjunction; including but not limited to:

- being regulars at a library

- part of book clubs

- getting their hands on as many informative/factoid sources such as encyclopedias

I go on to say:

   Two decades ago they would've also have been classified as well read, informed and all similar good things.

Implying that it is a new phenomenon that well read, informed and curious people who like understanding the world around them are unfortunately and too easily classified as addicts.

After which I stated:

   Would I call they(sic) "information addicts"? - Definitely not.

Trying to establish, that just because a person seeks out and consumes a lot of data does not make them an internet addict or an information addict.

Now to address your comment:

   through a combination of excessive time spent online and that time interfering with necessary social and professional activities, Internet use would result in either mental distress or clinical impairment, akin to the type of inability to function associated with pathological gambling

Since you mentioned it; In my opinion that statement unfortunately seems to get the causality and effects mixed.

It points to excessive time spent online and that time interfering with necessary social and professional activities as the cause for mental distress or clinical impairment.

Unfortunately in reality things are usually the other way around (there may be exceptions, albeit few).

That is, people who suffer from mental distress, clinical impairment or extreme cases of dissonant discomfort in today's day and age use the internet to get easier access to their fix.

People suffering from these alleged symptoms would most likely always sacrifice social and professional activities, regardless of the medium that delivers their fix.

By focusing on the internet and other effects of the real disorders, it perpetuates a disregard for the serious issues that people are actually suffering from.

ex:

A serious hypochondriac would not get fixed by reducing time spent on the internet.

The same goes for disorders dealing with paranoia, obsessions, social stalking etc.