Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In my opinion, based on all I have read on the subject and observed: Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Presently "internet addiction" or "social network addiction" (or smartphone addiction) are a matter of debate for some - not specifically in that they're some kind of quackery or snake oil nonsense - but that they may fall under the same umbrella as "gaming addiction", in that social networks are very similar to an immersive "virtual world", as with something like an MMORPG. "gaming disorder" is classified by the WHO: https://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming-disorder/en/ (That also used to be dismissed out of hand, by people who claimed that only substances qualify. There are documented cases of individuals who wasted away, through lack of food and sleep and a few individual who died - at least one only last year.) Note: "disorder", not "addiction", but it's a matter of semantics again. We could stop using "addiction" in the thread, but I doubt that would change a thing in terms of the dismissive, substances only, attitude towards smartphones and compulsive behaviour or psychological dependency. Quote:
There is research: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/9/3528/htm?hc https://link.springer.com/article/10...429-015-0056-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5369147/ Quote:
Smoking tobacco and opium was once thought harmless - even beneficial, it took decades of research to expose the truth, while in the case of tobacco, the companies selling the product worked tirelessly against that - making it "fashionable", "sexy", "cool", etc, through clever marketing. People started smoking, not due to addiction but because it was "cool" and had been normalised in society - addiction came later. Quote:
|
Food for thought:
Does a hangover signify alcohol addiction? Does "curing" the hangover with a beer signify alcohol addiction? Do more severe hangover symptoms (shivers? cold sweat?) signify alcohol addiction? Now translate these thoughts to mobile technology users. BTW, the mobile device itself is only 50% of the addiction - the other half is (being connected to) the world wide web. |
I find myself at a loss here trying to see what I think you mean... for example.....
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nevertheless that still qualifies under my stricter distinction whether it makes for great headlines or not. Quote:
Quote:
|
Just leaving a little note on the side table:
Even brief abstinence from social media causes withdrawal symptoms https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-...-symptoms.html Study: Smartphone addiction withdrawal is physical, mental http://www.mobilevillage.com/iphone-...-stress-study/ The Extended iSelf: The Impact of iPhone Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/jcc4.12109 Phone Addiction Is Real -- And So Are Its Mental Health Risks https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegw.../#531b167b13df |
Chuang, you do realize don't you, (in reference to your 2nd link) that a ringing landline has the very same effect as an unanswered ringing cellphone? In fact that may actually have become less compelling for people who grew up with answering machines and screening their calls. The ring is in essence an attention getting alarm. It demands to be answered which is why it was chosen as an alarm bell on the first phones. That some publications apparently skew their results like this and apparently feel they need to just makes me all the more skeptical of their "results".
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I tend to think that this thread might have ranged a bit from it's original topic, but just to get the physics into the mix accurately, since the intensity of radio wave exposure drops inversely as the distance increases, doing the calculation seems to show that actually, the intensity of a 4 watt cell phone signal a foot away from someone's head, is over 50 times the intensity of a 50,000 watt signal, one mile away. Naturally some people are closer to a Radio Stations's antenna, and there are multiple radio stations, plenty of cell towers, etc., etc., and quite often some devices in a person's own dwelling, emitting energy through the air. The following link: Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health points to a document mentioning the viewpoints, etc., of various health related organizations, and has a bibliography with dozens of links to related documents on the subject. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
(Sorry... I have nothing to add anymore, really. I agree with both sides to an extent right now. Even hardcore phone users would be okay after a short while, I'm sure, but it's also a highly potent habit forming activity, so..yeah... ) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Incidentally I offered this apology because it is my responsibility to answer for my mistakes even though in this case that is a more difficult "pill to swallow" considering you refer to me as being both hyperbolic and pedantic, both substantial personal insults. I really don't understand your need to attack me or get heated at all. Until the insults I had no argument with you, just with ideas and about smartphones for crying out loud.... not exactly political or religious hotbed stuff. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is absolutely absurd to say I am off topic since the subject in the thread title is precisely "Smartphones" The New Security Blanket" which I am taking quite literally as in the image of Charlie Brown's Linus character holding his to his face while he sucks his thumb. When that occurs in real life it can be a mildly traumatic habit to break, but there is little concern for negative behavior to reclaim the blanket or danger of relapse. It is in fact a bad habit with some benefits that is easily outgrown. It may be unproductive to you since my ideas are in opposition to yours but that is entirely subjective. |
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.drugrehab.com/addiction/...how-addictive/ Quote:
https://drugabuse.com/cocaine/first-time/ Quote:
|
Just an FYI to those that clearly missed the point of the "hard drugs example" I posted earlier on; the point was that, people aren't addicted to the drug itself, they are "addicted" to the "high" said drug provides, so the drug itself is really immaterial.
The same as you don't use a smartphone just because of the "soft keyboard", and pressing images on the screen. You use it because you are doing some activity on it - like playing games, narcissistically ranting on social media, etc. So again, it's what they are using the smartphone for that can be the "addiction" - if you become "addicted" in the first place of course. And it's absurd to suggest that the smartphone itself is "addictive", the same as it's absurd to suggest everyone who gambles is an "gambling addict" - buying a lotto ticket is ALSO a form of gambling BTW. The same as someone who's "addicted" to cigarettes, it's the nicotine in those cigarettes that is what their brain is "addicted" to. In others words, the brain forms a dependence on that same nicotine, whereby the brain says "I need more, more, more!" - it doesn't matter who makes the particular cigarettes of choice, that's immaterial. And ChuangTzu, posting links to what are really just opinions isn't "proof" of anything, other than someone's cobbled together opinions. You don't need a PhD to do that. In the end, I'm with enorbet on this one. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM. |