Emails with Rhodri Marsden

Me:

Demonstrated some awesome ignorance with your little column today Rhodri - or are you merely in denial of your own habits?

Anyways, not your fault, I blame the clown who approved it for print.

Cheers!


Him:

Hello Rory,

Maybe if you told me what you found so profoundly distressing, we could have a civil exchange about it. Or you can hammer on your keyboard and fire off another rude email. Totally up to you.

best regards,
Rhodri Marsden


Me:

Ha! No, generally I like to start with a rude one and then be nice and civil from there on in - don't ask me why: have tried not to but it sort of seems my way.

Okay, I guess I'll have to mount a case for the defence of the existence of IAD. Do let me have a mo' please.

Okay:

1. Books vs the internet

Has anyone died of DVT while reading a book? Has anyone let their child starve because they were so engrossed by literature? Stolen tens of thousands of pounds to fund their reading habit? Given up their friends? Or repeatedly read the same page over and over and over, the way we reclick on facebook, etc? There's a difference, I'm sure most thinking people would agree - and also a difference in how one feels after a good book, say, when compared with a several hour stint on the internet.

2. "The term 'internet addiction disorder' is unhelpful, implying that persistent use of a device with a broadband connection carries some sort of health risk."

I don't think that's true: I think it implies that some people can become addicted to the internet. I think the evidence supports that.

3. IAD as absurd as an addiction to electricity

I'll agree that an internet connection is becoming almost essential and that broadband could be considered a utility - but comparing the internet itself to electricity is what's absurd. Electricity, as far as I know, has zero addictive qualities. What would an addict do with it? What does anyone do with it? We use it to power other things, like kettles and toasters and light bulbs and computers. How is this comparable to compulsive tweeting or facebook clicking or online gambling or the inability to be away from email? What similarities are there between electricity and multi-hour sessions on Wikipedia or youtube, leaping from one subject to another and never really taking anything in? None that I can see. Or maybe I'm just missing out on the wonders electricity has to offer.

4. Slur at China and implication that they've fixed the study

Possible - but then it doesn't say anything different to a multitude of other studies. Bit of xenophobia there if you ask me. But then I do like to defend the Chinese, having lived there for a while. Lovely people, on the whole.

5. "Children's brains somehow being damaged..."

You doubt this? Wow. Think of what mental habits constantly flicking from one thing to another does. Think of what it teaches a person about patience, for example, if they spend most of their time in a world where even ten seconds can feel like an eternity. Think of how that affects attention span and the need for stimulation.

6. Your conclusion: that because computers are ubiquitous, like electricity, there's no reason for concern

Hard to know what to say to this - so I'll just say something ridiculous: yes, and if everyone had a gun, just as we've all got running water, that'd no doubt work out fine too.

So, as you can see, I've lots of problems with your 'comment'. I just found it really, really weird. It's there next to an article advertised as "the truth on internet addiction" - sure, it's good to have different viewpoints - which uses scientific studies and anecdotal evidence, and what you've got is basically one bloke's strange nonsensical opinion. Like I say, though, that they printed it isn't really your fault - hell, if I could get paid for my half-assed opinions I'd be on it in a shot - so maybe they're the guys I should be writing to. Then again, here I am, writing to you.

Question: are you in denial? Do you perhaps use the internet too much, and shudder at the idea of two weeks without at, and therefore want to shoot down any notion that certain people might become addicted to it? Do you find the idea of IAD threatening, perhaps, to your way of life?

It's okay if the answer's "yes" - there's no shame in that. None whatsoever. I'm not here to jump and laugh and point, just to discuss (despite trademark dubious beginnings).

And, personally speaking, it's not just studies and newspaper stories that have got me believing wholeheartedly in IAD, it's observation of my own interaction with the internet ("the internet" - it sounds dafter every time I type it!). Ain't no doubt in my mind at all.

Right. That's enough for now. Would love to say I've got other things to do but, actually, I need to go on Wikipedia and quickly skim some pointless content that I'll have forgotten within the hour. Two-to-one I end up at a youtube video of a hamster and a sausage.

Cheers!


Him:

hi Rory,

It's not "some bloke's weird opinion". I've had a number of emails
today about this and you're the only one arguing ferociously against
me.

I've followed this story for a number of years, ever since Dr Kimberly
Young set up netaddiction.com and was campaigning furiously to have
IAD admitted to DSM-V (the manual of mental disorders. She's not a
lone voice by any means, but there's a huge weight of opinion stacked
against her assertion – which is that THE INTERNET is at fault, rather
than the stuff it facilitates.

I take your points, but ultimately I see the vast majority of IAD
stories as needless scaremongering; yeah, there are serious issues
surrounding porn, gambling and so on, but it perpetuates this very
"Daily Mail" attitude of the internet itself being evil. I was invited
to write a counterweighting comment against the piece written by
Jeremy Laurance, so I did.

There's no racial slur, *rolls eyes*; the Chinese government are well
recognised for pushing the idea of IAD and punishing young people if
they're deemed to be suffering from it. The Chinese government figure
that it threatens the traditional way of life. And in a sense they're
right. The internet brings about profound changes. It's up to you
whether you think that the issue should be addressed calmly, or
whether people should be sent to boot camps.

The internet is absorbing. Contact with other people via it is
absorbing. It's changing our behaviour, of that there's no doubt. It's
a fascinating subject, and I love reading about it. But to label ANY
change in our behaviour as an "addiction disorder" – which is what
ends up happening as a result of stories like this – is reductive,
unhelpful, it shuts down the debate. I really dislike it.

Thanks for emailing your thoughts, though. Interesting. I wish you'd
done that first time, rather than just shooting a message accusing me
of being ignorant. That's another behaviour that the internet
encourages which is worthy of study, I think.

best,
Rhodri


Me:

Too true! Didn't you label some people dickheads, pricks and tossers earlier today? ;-)

Anyways, I found that a whole lot more eloquent and well thought out than your article in The Independent, so I'm impressed by that.

And, of course I wouldn't say "the internet is evil" - just as I wouldn't say alcohol, crack, betting shops, etc are evil. You're right in saying they're not the problem, that it's the way people use them that's the problem - but I still don't think it sweeps away the assertion that certain aspects of the internet can be addictive and, yes, potentially damaging to human well-being.

PS Surely you're not saying the backing of the masses proves your point? ;-)

One thing about internet addiction is that it's not nearly as damaging as things like alcohol, drugs, etc, so people are quite happy to let it be. The problems are low level. So what if people can't concentrate for more than twenty minutes in a world that doesn't require them to? So what if people regularly stay up till two or three a.m. clicking on pointless things compulsively? And so what if children grow up not knowing what it's like to live without constant stimulation, nor learning to spend time happy doing absolutely nothing?

They're low-level problems, admittedly, and in the grand scheme of things it ain't so bad - but if a person can't go a day without checking their email, or constantly thinks about going online, or it adversely affects their 'real life' then I'd say that's got the potential to be labeled a disorder. I don't think the people doing these studies are labeling "any change as a disorder", as you say, just changes which appear unhealthy.

PPS I told you I was defensive about China. :-)

So what about your comparing reading and surfing t'net? The way we use the internet and the way we use electricity? How come you didn't defend them?

I think the problem was that your column did come across as a bit mad - not an intelligent argument like the one below - and comparing IAD to "electricity addiction" was...well, I'm sure there's a fancy word for it but I don't think I know what it is. Hyperbole? What's it called when people compare little things like leaving the loo seat up to something Hitler might have done?

Cheers! :-)


Rory


Him:

Take all your points, but we disagree fundamentally on certain stuff and I dislike the kind of arguments that just serve to entrench the opinions of both sides!

best,
Rhodri


Me:

Me too. I was hoping this was gonna be one of those where the other person goes, ah, you know what? I think I'm coming around to your way of thinking. ;-)

But I'm happy to leave it there.

Still, just as an addendum - now that we're no longer arguing I feel it safe to confess that the reason I believe certain aspects of what goes on on the internet are addictive is because I've been pretty addicted myself, to many things over the years. The last of these was internet chess, which I had bad in a major way up until last summer: playing for like 8-10 hours at a time, right through the night, even when I knew I hated it and would feel like crap in the morning. I couldn't help myself, I was utterly compelled: in fact, even thinking about how much I hated chess would give me the urge to play it - which I then would.

Anyways, one day I decided to eat this African shamanic visionary (whatever) plant called iboga - mainly for other reasons, but I did hope it might help here, given that it's used for helping heroin addicts (have never been one of those) - and, whaddya know? From that day on I've not had a single moment of internet chess. Honestly, the transformation was ridiculous: I can barely believe it myself. But it was like every impulse to do it was obliterated.

I wrote it on my blog, if you fancy a read - 'twas a pretty interesting experience.

Also, if you do read it it'll probably have the added benefit of making you think I'm a major loon and therefore bolstering your argument no end. But I'm okay with that.

Cheers!


Him:

Clearly not a major loon, Rory. I can see it's a subject close to your heart. Glad to have heard all your views on this, seriously.