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