From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!floyd!trb Newsgroups: net.misc Title: computer addiction? Article-I.D.: floyd.256 Posted: Wed Jun 9 16:47:42 1982 Received: Thu Jun 10 02:29:23 1982 There have been complaints lately over these airwaves about "computer addiction." We hear of poor children (and adults) who seem to succumb to the powerful tentacles of computer games or computer-assisted communication or (horrors) computer programming. Is the computer the culprit here? I think not. I offer the opinion that the computer is insignificant here, that the "addictions" are to fascinating games, fascinating communication without fear, and fascinating problem solving, and, in fact, should rather be called "fascinations." You think you know what addiction and fascination mean? I won't ask you to look them up, I'll paraphrase from my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Addict: vt 1 to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or excessively Addiction: n 2: compulsive psychological need for a habit forming drug Fascinate: vt [from *fascinum* witchcraft] 1 (obsolete) BEWITCH. 2a to transfix and hold spellbound by an irresistable power. b to command the interest of. (Keep the comments about fascinate and fascism to yourself, thanks.) The other definitions of addiction and fascination explain them in terms of addict and fascinate. I didn't leave out anything interesting, you can look it up yourself if you care to. I don't think these fascinations are detrimental. They could have been as easily caused by any other source of fascination - books, women, men, cars, trains, planes, food, drugs, music. I'm not saying that these fascinations can't be detrimental, I'm saying that the detriment comes from the mind of the beholder, not from the source of fascination. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491