Scientific American on Television Addiction 172
Etcetera writes: "The Drudge Report had an interesting link to a Scientific American article on Television Addiction. Talks about some of the quantifiable effects TV watching can have on the body. Very interesting read. There's also a paragraph or two at the end about game/computer use and why that might be a *little* bit different. But, similar to Jon Katz's essay Browsing Alone, they conclude that when a habit interferes with a growing, active life, it should be taken seriously."
My take on this... (Score:1, Insightful)
This is similar in nature to reports that Elvis's gyrating hips are the undoing of young Americans.
Just because somebody has a PhD in back of their name doesn't give them any special insight.
Re:My take on this... (Score:2)
This was on RFN [radiofreenation.net] at the beginning of the week.
according to the article, the simple formal features of television - cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises - activate an instinctive response, a normal visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. Thus, it is the form, not the content, of television that is unique, and contributes to the impulse to keep attention on the screen.
But addicts will tend to try to explain away their impulses as normal rational behavior.
"Just watch, I can quit any time I want ..."
And the conclusion you cite are not really the main thrust of the article, unless you happen to be hypersensitive to the issue.
Re:My take on this... (Score:1)
Re:My take on this... (Score:2)
Just because somebody has a PhD in back of their name doesn't give them any special insight.
I do think having a PhD in the back of your name does give you a special insight, becuase you can trust that the person actually read what they were talking about.
isolated by technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:isolated by technology (Score:5, Interesting)
we get addicted to connecting with our gadgets, not with each other
The difference is that we actually "connect" with certain types of gadgets. The type of person who likes to tinker with kernel source or build electronics projects in the garage or just play tetris all day long may well display what could be called an addiction. But these types of activities are addisting because they stimulate the person who engages in them. Generally, I'd call the desire to be stimulated a healthy one.
Television is the only addictive technology I know of that has all the charasteristics of a depressant, or a numbing agent.There is hardly any interaction or connection between the viewer and the tv like there is between a person with a soldering iron and a do-it-yourself oscilloscope kit or what have you. When people choose to watch tv for hours on end, they are chosing to experience effects not at all unlike the use of a depressant drug, lulling their minds away from reality. Is it really so healthy for a person to want that? I'd have to say no.
Re:isolated by technology (Score:2)
No, but I've seen many fan clubs, organizations, web sites and forums for individual shows.
Re:isolated by technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:isolated by technology (Score:1)
There is hardly any interaction or connection between the viewer and the tv
I've often wondered if there is any difference in reactions to TV from people who grew up with a remote control. In my experience their viewing seems to be less passive than older people. Can channel surfing be considered interactive or is it just trying to get more of that "orienting response" like the proverbial rat pushing the button until it starves?
The article seems to imply that there is no difference but a lot of my viewing tends to be more critical. Making fun of commercials, flipping channels. Granted, I will occasionally just zone in front of the idiot box but that usually puts me to sleep.
Would Beavis and Butthead be more immune to the addicting effects of television? Douglas Rushkoff touches on this in Media Virus but I'm not familliar with any scientific studies on the difference in viewing habits between age groups.
Time for a Google search I guess.
Re:isolated by technology (Score:2)
This point is ridiculous. Television and movies are hobbies too and as such, they bring people together. I have spent countless hours laughing with my friends about episodes of Seinfeld or Futurama after the show/episode had been long gone. I have used movie/tv quotes as a reference that everyone is familiar with when I can see a parallel between real life situations and tv ones. Basically, tv has aided me in starting and continuing conversations with real people. It's given me something to talk about on more occassions than one as, I'm sure, has your playing guitar and tinkering with amps.
If you take away every "addicting" hobby the world, it's people, and their conversations will be really boring.
Re:isolated by technology (Score:4, Interesting)
I've just discovered that TV can be helpful. I'm a 37 year old tech professional who's watched very little television. I can go months without watching even a single television program. But I have always had a severe problem with depression, and I also don't like to live alone. I may not always want to talk with other people, but I like them around.
Well, my partner made a big life decision and moved away and started school at my alma mater. I'm alone, and I'm damn lonely.
I don't work, as I am one of the luckier beneficaries of the internet bubble. I live off of my investments. So I spend most of my waking time either reading or online. I don't "surf" the web, my activity is almost exclusively reading current news and opinion journals, and researching some topic or another that catches my attention. I'm extremely curious, and an autodidact by nature. This keeps me busy, but it doesn't satisfy my lonliness.
A couple of weeks ago I ventured out into the living room and, just for the hell of it, turned on the TV. Even though I almost never watch TV, I have digital cable on the premise that since I'm so picky, I need a large number of choices to find anything worth watching.
I watched a few shows (reruns of "Buffy", actually, which I've kinda got turned on to), and I noticed that I felt less lonely. I wondered why that was. It's not as if I interacted with anyone -- I interact with other people online.
But it occured to me for the first time in life that maybe, just maybe, humans have a basic need to hear, and even better, see other humans. TV satisfies that where all of the other things I do (like reading) don't. I really understand now why lonely people spend so much time in front of the television.
You're not getting that much from it, though, and that matters. It's extremely passive. That can't be good.
But I've been watching a couple hours of TV a day, and it's helped my mood. Within moderation, I think that its unique kind of stimulation may be healthy.
Re:isolated by technology (Score:1)
But I've been watching a couple hours of TV a day, and it's helped my mood. Within moderation, I think that its unique kind of stimulation may be healthy.
"A couple of hours" and "within moderation", IMO, seem to contradict each other.
I am not trying to bludgeon you with a high horse. This just strikes me as odd.
Re:isolated by technology (Score:1)
You've gone too far in the other direction where even the imitation of life satisfies your lack of real social interaction. You can't ignore that part of your life and be a balanced person. You'll feel it even if you won't admit it.
"humans have a basic need to hear, and even better, see other humans"
Agreed. The problem is that it is a monologue, you are passive in this "interaction". The TV talks to you impersonally and you just sit there.
Speaking of trying to set averages for everyone. I frequently find myself coming up as "obese" on body fat index calculations even though no one would ever say I was obese. In fact I frequently get complemented on being in good shape (I do a lot of exercising). The problem is that a person as tall, muscular, and as a big build as myself throws off a scale designed around shorter, skinnier people who are the majority. Always take expected or average values in stats with a grain of salt.
Re:isolated by technology (Score:2)
My computer is infinitely more interesting than my brother.
Knunov
seriously (Score:1)
TV? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:TV? (Score:2, Funny)
Addiction bad. (Score:1)
Television adiction does indeed suck. I used to be addicted until about 4 years ago, when I finally said "enough" and sold my TV set. Now that I don't watch TV any more I have lots and lots of free time to spend on my web browsing addiction. :)
Re:Addiction bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is definitely some truth to this (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that tossing my TV was one of the best things I've ever done. No more mind-numbing hours in front of the tube soaking up ads from corporations I really don't like, no more seeing fake images of how I should like and behave and waste money. And best of all, spending more real *quality* time with my girlfriend, getting outside, even posting to slahdot.
Very Seriously!! (Score:3, Funny)
I take my masturbation very seriously.
Re:The weak must be culled. (Score:1)
growing, active life? (Score:1)
And do they take into account the unbridled joy of finding the whole "Rat Patrol" series on tape? Hmmm?
I thought not.
Also in the news... (Score:1, Troll)
What is even worse is that the study did not see any end in sight to this new trend as more addicts keep purring into the
Think this is interesting? (Score:1)
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1149/pg1
Article? Text? (Score:4, Funny)
Tivo (Score:5, Insightful)
To sum up I moved out of that house and recently found a store shelf tivo as the local circut city for $50. You can guess that I walked out the door with a grin that day.
-Benjamin Meyer
Re:Tivo (Score:2)
On the article and my TV (Score:3, Interesting)
I routinely go without TV - I just moved to a new country in August and only plugged my TV in Sept. 11th at the urgent insisting of a friend's IM.
Wondering if anyone else has comments or similar preferences, for I never thought about it before I read this article - I have zero interest in "pre-produced" TV shows. Virtually everything I watch is either live, (ie the news), or more commonly what I would call non-produced or underproduced footage: auto and bike racing on Speedvision, Cops, America's most Inbred Drunk Drivers, When Ex-Girlfriends Attack, TLC / Disco channel etc etc...
Of course for the amount of time I spent online... I'm almost tempted to read that Katz article... no wait somebody slap me.
.
Re:On the article and my TV (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I feel nauseated that I've actually wasted brain cells on remembering this stuff.
not really a drug (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I feel that the greater problem is that people tend to objectilfy stuff which they see on TV with their own personal life, I think due to the nature of the medium. For example it is not uncommon today to see parents watching their childen playing, a situation unheard of years ago, the only reason for the emergence of this pattern is that such people have become scared of the peadofile, or kidnapper, becasue of news reports or whatever. However the chances of any misadventure are so small, that it is not worth depriveing childen of some freedom in their childhood and the resulting psycological damage. If you don't like that example imagine all the people who stopped reading all their mail with that Antrax scare a few months back. None of this is helped by the people who report the news.
This has greater context if you consider question's like, "would America pulled out of WWII if CNN had been on omenha beach"
I would love to chuck out all the tv's tomorrow if only to prevent this nation becoming a land of hysterics unable to walk down the street lest the sky fall on their head. Or worst, Apathic to any change in their life.
To me TV represents, what Sartre called bad faith, being a force of objectification with the final aim being the disinfrancement of the human sprite. Without the pretension: A mild form of conditioning, and this is the far greater harm then any concerns of health.
Emmanuel Levinas (Score:1, Funny)
off topic warning (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ridiculous. Heidegger was a nazi, that is beyond all doubt. He was, for Christ's sake, even one of the few nazis who did never admit being mistaken. He stood firm till his death in 1974. Nietzsche, on the other hand, was everything but a nazi. His ideas about the ubermensch are among the most misunderstood in the history of philosophy. Besides it was his sister who suited his philosophy to nazism long after his death.
Besides, I don't buy your crap about taking "Heideggier" as "Heidegger" was already taken. Why not? You obviously couln't spell N-I-E-T-Z-S-C-H-E either.
Re:off topic warning: Nietzsche (Score:2)
Nietzsche hated anti-Semitism pretty violently. He also suggested that European culture would be nothing without Jewish culture. He also had a lot of contempt for Germany. He did suggest that 19th century European Judaism was then the most prominent form of ressentiment, which might annoy some people, but was probably true. (Today I'd say that feminism held that slot. For him to make that claim about European Judaism doesn't make him hate Jews any more than making such a claim about feminism makes me hate women.)
However, his sister Elizabeth was a German nationalist. She heavily edited and controlled the publication of his later works, when he was pretty much a helpless invalid. She also got an imprimatur on releases of some of his earlier works. I once saw an edition of Zarathustra from the teens in which she had an "explanatory" preface, most of which was nonsense. Nietzsche himself didn't publish part 4 of Zarathustra, except in a very limited edition for his friends, for fear that he would be tried for blasphemy.
The best example of this is The Will to Power. Nietzsche never wrote a book with that title. He wanted to write one with that title and wrote down a whole lot of notes. After madness or tertiaty syphilis or whatever took hold, Elizabeth essentially assembled an original work cut-and-pasted from the notes.
By the way, what's Ecce Humo? "Behold the Smoke" or "Behold the Chick Pea Dip"?
Re:not really a drug (Score:1)
I leave my TV on pretty much all the time - so that any fraction of free time during web surfing/programming will hopefully be filled up by whatever is on.
TV is seasonal for me (Score:3, Insightful)
I think TV addiction is a pretty clear problem in Suburbs, ever drove through one in the early evening? There is nothing going on there, you don't see anyone on the street, nothing.
For me, TV becomes less and less " a problem" great, so i have some time to watch Enterprise? I watch it, I am out ? Oh well, sometime they show a re-run.
I think TV addiction exists, but I am not so sure that the TV alone is at fault. There are some interresting books out there relating certain behaviour to where you live, and quite frankly after reading this I cannot see myself ever move away from a big city into the suburbs. (And yes, I HATE suburbia, maybe because I moved from Europe to North America).
Commercials (Score:1, Redundant)
This is interesting. Has anyone else noticed the trend lately of commercials doing this? Advertisers will pay gobs and gobs of money for a 30 second spot, and then only mention the name of the product in the last few seconds of the spot. After viewing some of these commercials, I find myself thinking, "Wow, that was neat. What was being advertised?"
I only spend an hour or two a week watching television, but I tend to find the commercials at least as interesting as the "content." There's almost certainly more money spent on them...
Re:Commercials (Score:1)
yesterday I was buying a new toothbrush. I didn't pick oral-B.
Remember an advertisings compaines job is to sell their product, not your product.
Sometimes advertisers get what they pay for
Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
You can be addicted to anything, including work, sex, health food, doing dishes, volunteering, sleeping, walking, etc. Almost anything can be used to avoid dealing with unpleasant emotions or situations. Addiction not about how much you use something, or what you use, or if it is 'physically' addictive, but how it is used.
The article claims that is TV is being used the same way one might use a narcotic. Care to dispute this?
Of course humans have a disorder for everything: They uncannily find new 'substances' to abuse. The easier people can justify their behavior, the more indignant they feel when people point it out. (Yeah, people use religious thought to avoid the unpleasant fear of dying. Ever try to pursade a Christian to think otherwise?)
I'm sure you can make a list for almost any activity an average person does during the day, and you can find a 'disorder' for each of them. Sleeping, eating, cleaning, working, drinking, studying, etc.
I can't belive such a retarded post made it to a 5. Hey Jennifer, have you graduated high school yet? Did you read the article? Did you have to write this post to slam 'intellectuals' for giving you the bad news?
Re:Of course (Score:1)
Re:Of course (Score:1)
The solution to all this... (Score:2, Funny)
Ooh, The Simpsons is on! bbl.
Re:The solution to all this... (Score:1)
You joke about 'The Simpsons', but: A few years ago, I moved into my own place. I didn't own a television at the time. Previously, I'd watched my roommates' TV. I knew from previous experience that I got more done without a TV around, so I figured I'd not buy one of my own.
It was around 5pm on sunday evening that I finished with the move. And I thought to myself: "You know, 'The Simpsons' will be coming on in a couple of hours." And the thought of missing the show was so unpleasant to me that I drove to the store right then and bought a small set.
It's the REMOTE not the TV (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the real issue is that people today have too much control over their stimuli- channel surfing and web surfing.... if you don't like what you see, change is only one click away. Unfortunately reality doesn't exactly work that way.
I look at the number of kids today who are diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and aside from the toxic parenting these kids endured, the kids' poor coping skills are arguable reinforced by the infinite options they are given when "surfing" whatever they are viewing. Most parents end up NOT giving the kid an "option" whether to "clean their rooms" or whatever simple task, and the entire household explodes for an evening of a police visit, a possible fifth degree domestic assault, and a trip to a shelter for some kid. This happens all the time in surburbs all over the place. (I moonlight in emergency social services with the County- so this is first hand info.).
I haven't even mentioned ADD or ADHD- two diagnoses that I feel are more or less environmentally conditioned- but that would take us way off-topic. But both "attention" disorders could as easily be characterized as involving kids who have the ability to pay close attention to what they "choose" to pay attention to- they simply lack skills to pay attention to what they are "required" to (such as authority, teachers, etc.).
I really believe technology changes the way the mind operates. On a grand scale, we certainly feel more connected to the world at large with air travel, international long-distance, email, cable TV, etc... vs. living on a "flat world" with an ocean that extends infinitely filled with sea monsters. On a smaller level, I've lost my capacity to easily remember phone numbers in the days of speed dial, my cell phone that holds hundreds of numbers, and five times as many local area codes to keep track of.
Getting back to TV- watch some old movie on TCM... it is like watching a play. Each scene can last for several minutes before there is a cut, and shadows are often projected on the wall behind the actors. These movies really stand out as being "staged" compared to an MTV video where I'm lucky to catch a camera shot that lasts more then two seconds- even though many videos are literally shot on a stage. It seriously would not surprise me if this affects how we think and process the world- it is almost digital vs. analog- that we receive the world in a billion still images vs. drawn out and linear. Movies use jumbled time... beginnings/middles/ends have lost their meaning. In personal relationships, people often start out in what would once be considered the middle of a relationship.... courtship is either redefined or non-existent, depending on your definitions. I could go on and on.
Whether there is any causality here is open to debate- but if you believe at the very least that TV/media gives people what they want, it definitely has changed over the last 40 years.
Re:ADD & ADHD (Score:1)
Personally, I suffer from somewhat minor (read: ignorable) ADD and was told (though I have no facts or links to back this information up) that children with ADD demonstrate a sudden absence of blood in the frontal lobe when concentrating on certain (generally repetitive) tasks. This is unfortunately only diagnosable with an MRI, which is too costly to be of much use to most alleged sufferers of AD(H)D.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Re:It's the REMOTE not the TV (Score:2)
Relevance ? (Score:1)
They glossed over this in just one paragraph... although they declare they argue that the former is generally the case, the article insists heavily upon the second alternative; I do not find their reasoning very convincing. Even the experiments on "TV deprivation" are inconclusive: people needing a distraction from their daily toil are likely to be uncomfortable and maybe even violent when this is taken from them. In this sense, we are all addicted to entertainment, but not necessarily to a specific entertainment.
The second part, concerning video games and computers, seems to me even more questionable. For instance, I fail to see the connection between "addiction" and the cases of "optically stimulated epileptic seizures". It is common knowledge that such seizures can be triggered by intermittent light (for instant when driving by a row of trees) but they have nothing to do with addiction.
Pokemon (Score:1)
erf (Score:3)
What's the definition of interferring with a growing active life? Instead of hitting the pub after work, I usually go straight home and work on one of my many silly projects. On weekends I take a break from my projects and play video games. I hang out with my friends maybe once a week, maybe less. My hobbies are programming (silly projects) and video games. I'm happy. Does that mean I'm addicted and should be weaned off? Says who?
Re:erf (Score:1)
You are only addicted if you want to get a girlfiend, for example, and instead of pursuing that goal, you spend all your time working on your projects. Hobbies are addictive when you are using them to try to avoid feelings of depression, lonliness, rejection, low-self esteem, etc.
A lot of us nerds use hobbies to isolate themselves, despite feeling deep down a want of companionship. That kind of non-progressive activity is what's being discussed.
Re:erf (Score:1)
thanks for the clarification.
Why TV makes you mad, sick, fat and stupid... (Score:4, Informative)
It causes overweight not only because you don't move around, but it slows down metabolism while it makes you feel hungry and lets you eat tons of snacks while not beeing aware of it (->fat)
While your body goes into a sleep-like state, you feel very exhausted after long TV sessions; this really wrecks havoc on your immune system(->sick)
Watching TV before sleep forces your brain's nightly garbage collection to work on what you have seen on TV instead on your real life experiences, with negative effects on decision making and dealing with real life problems, up to causing serious mental diseases(->mad)
Watching TV makes the parts of you brain responsible for controlling your motion wither, which is known to negatively affect your intellectual capabilities (->stupid)
And finally the incredible amount of trash transmitted over U.S. TV can not have any positive effects on the spectator, and all this is regularily interrupted with a mixture of ads, many of them using sophisticated techniques to manipulate your mind. (I can not stand a U.S. TV program for more than a couple of minutes because among other things I am not used to these frequent breaks; it makes me so agressive that I have to switch it off)
I hope that one day the people responsible for this lunacy will have to pay for it.
p.
I had to give it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been doing this since I was about 10. (My parents never stopped me) And now I'm 28.
So that's 4.5 Hours x 7 days x 52 weeks x 18 years.
That's 29484 Hours or 3.36 Years of my life. An entire 12% of my entire life!
So I decided that I would cut it out till June. And give it a rest. Man it's hard. The first thing I realized was the reflex that I had developed. Come home sit and watch. Wake up sit and watch.
But the biggest thing was the amount of time I had. I always wondered how people find the time to keep there place sparkling clean, stay in shape, pack a lunch for work, and become good at sports.
Another thing that I think TV does, when TV is you primary source of entertainment and social interaction it warps the mind. TV lets you hand out with hot chicks, go on a thrilling adventure, and fall in love. You begin to believe (subconsciously) that you really do have a relationship to these people. It tricks the mind into believing that you are a smart, good looking, intelligent person with a ton of interesting friends and stories.
As soon as I pulled the plug I was clear that I was an awkward, quite, unkempt person, with no girlfriend and few friends. But now I can take the new time I have and focus on becoming the person I want to be.
Well I'd like to end on a positive not, but I would be lying if all you had to do was pull the plug to fix your life. No all pulling the plug does is show you how much work lies ahead of you. Its going to be a long time before I can change my life so that I don't miss TV.
Re:I had to give it up. (Score:4, Insightful)
So more than one third of the time you have an easy CHOICE on how to spend it, and your blowing one out of every three hours watching Jerry Springer.
BTW: As the Simpsons' activly parodies itself, it does not count.
Re:I had to give it up. (Score:2)
You might be going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to stop watching TV, start doing something else. It sounds like you were just using it to kill time, so it should be fairly low on your list of priorities. If you want to get by without it, just find something else to do. Build furniture, learn about photography, refine your typing skills, start an exercise routine, write about the decline of modern civilization - just do something, anything. You might be amazed at how quickly time moves when it isn't metered out by commercial breaks. You don't even necessarily need to keep the TV off, just keep your mind occupied with something else.
Another thing that I think TV does, when TV is you primary source of entertainment and social interaction it warps the mind. TV lets you hand out with hot chicks, go on a thrilling adventure, and fall in love. You begin to believe (subconsciously) that you really do have a relationship to these people. It tricks the mind into believing that you are a smart, good looking, intelligent person with a ton of interesting friends and stories.
Either you bought your TV from your friendly neighborhood covert brainwashing clinic, or a significant part of the problem was with you. The TV just provides you with information (and fairly passive information in the case you describe), it does not instruct you in how to process that information. Your experience may have been a symptom of a more serious problem, and you should seriously consider therapy. Pulling the plug on the TV may have been a short term solution, but it does not address the underlying problem.
Re:I had to give it up. (Score:1)
The TV inteferes with your time and ability to use it in the first place. How can you address issues if you simply don't have the time to do so? TV doesn't give you commands but it occupies your brain so you can't give it any either. Turning it off was the best thing he could've done. It isn't the ultimate solution but it sure is a big part of the problem.
Re:I had to give it up. (Score:2)
Why do you recommend doing other activities
So far so good...
but then apologize for TV
Um, where did I apologize for TV? I simply pointed out that the problems he attributed to TV were not completely due to the TV itself. In reality, things are rarely all-or-nothing - there are usually multiple areas of concern, and focusing on only one and ignoring the others is not a good thing to do.
and also recommend keeping it on in the background?
For you, I would suggest reading comprehension classes. I stated that it was not absolutely necessary to turn the TV off; nowhere did I suggest that it was a better idea to leave it on. The important part was focusing your mind elsewhere - again, blaming the TV and ignoring the mind is the wrong way to think.
If you aren't watching it TURN IT OFF! The article (and many comments on /.) specifically state that they are constantly distracted by a TV nearby.
I can have a TV on right next to me and completely ignore it if I am occupied with something else, sometimes even when I am very interested in what is on. If you are easily distracted by a TV, turning it off may do nothing more than open you to other distractions. The important part is occupying your mind, which is easily ignored if you just blame the TV. Once you have this part down, it won't matter what the TV is doing.
The TV inteferes with your time and ability to use it in the first place. How can you address issues if you simply don't have the time to do so? TV doesn't give you commands but it occupies your brain so you can't give it any either.
Are you really too helpless to defy the will of an electronic picture-box? You don't have to let it control you. Hiding from the problem won't make it go away.
Turning it off was the best thing he could've done. It isn't the ultimate solution but it sure is a big part of the problem.
Once again, you assume that "good enough" equals "best." The best thing he could have done would have been to seek professional help. If what he said was true, then he was becoming seriously delusional after watching TV shows. Turning off the TV and noting that the symptoms are no longer present will most likely give him a false sense of security and cause him to stop trying to identify and correct the actual problem. When his problems manifest themselves again, there may not be a quick fix solution available. This is similar to getting a prescription for antibiotics and only taking them until the symptoms go away - in reality you are just getting rid of the easy targets while leaving yourself wide open to the less affected ones.
Poor definition (Score:1, Insightful)
Okay, suppose Joe is in an poor famine-ridden country where food is extremely scarce. Let's go through the above definition:
Is Joe a food addict? By that definition he is. Let's bring Joe to a bountiful country where food is the easiest thing possible to get. Joe doesn't spend much time thinking about food, has a rich social life, and can control what he eats better than most of his neighbours. Is Joe and addict here? By that definition he definitely isn't.
What changed? The environment. Was Joe *really* a food addict in the famine-ridden country?
Some very important things are missing from this definition.
Re:Poor definition (Score:1)
In contrast, an addiction is something that you choose to do in order to relieve a physical or psychological pressure that doesn't solve the problem -- it masks it. Thus, the addiction puts you into a state where you are not actually satisfying your fundmental needs. That's why it's dysfunctional.
Re:Poor definition (Score:2)
As for who is in control: Do you turn the TV on for one hour of Buffy and then turn it off, or do you turn the tube on and go looking for something fit to watch, then settle for the barely endurable?
One final note about starving Joe -- I very much doubt that he finds himself eating more than he intended...
Time sink (Score:2)
This from a guy who's not very sociable [wired.com].
Now, take my Internet feed away and I'm going to hurt somebody...
startling short about TV: Evidence (Score:2)
I saw part of this without remembering what it was: I was initially disturbed that a movie would make fun of retarded kids! The groups of 3-10 four year olds stared blankly at the camera, mouths often open, swaying gently. Watching children watching television was unnerving, seeing them be still and quiet for many seconds just didnt seem right.
Evidence [koyaanisqatsi.org] is chilling, and quite moving -- go see it.
TV addict/Internet addict? (Score:1)
Personally I don't see much TV, I work +12 hours a day, with a computer and internet.
When I go home normally I connect to see email, journals, etc. Can we see when this as an addiction or have we changed our TV/newspapers habbits to internet habbits? In this
article [sciam.com]
(Scientific American-"The Network in Every Room") and in this ("Setting up an All-Linux Wireless LAN [linuxjournal.com]
") we can see the future of computer connection in every room of our house.
Will this bring a new generation of Computer addiction, people connected 24 hours, to work, play, to socialize, etc?
Not so off-topic: I submitted this story a couple of days, and it was rejected a few monutes later, why? There is a editorial position of slashdot or it is the personal taste of the "editor du jour"?
Re:TV addict/Internet addict? (Score:2)
For the sake of argument, say the top three computer activities are web surfing, chatting, and playing games. Web surfing is essentially reading, which the article mentions early on as an acceptable alternative to TV. Chatting, while clearly not as good as actual face to face interaction, does at least involve some mental involvement, as well as a social element. Game playing probably gets the worst rap of these activities, but even it consists of some sort of intellectual stimulation.
TV's real problem is that it is a passive medium; the only choice a viewer makes is which channel to watch. Computers, by contrast, are almost completely interactive. Nearly anything a person uses a computer for requires some amount of thought, and for that reason it's really misleading to declare computer use analagous to TV viewing. Even the verb is different - people don't "use TVs" or "watch computers."
Re:TV addict/Internet addict? (Score:1)
What's to see? (Score:2)
For some reason, it just doesn't do much for me. I'll watch TV at the gym while exercising, but that's about it. The stuff is so boring. And there are so many commercials.
4 args for the elimination of TV (Score:2)
His arguments for the elimination of TV are grouped under 4 headings:
The citation is:
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, 1978, Quill.
ISBN 0-688-03274-5 (hbk)
ISBN 0-688-08274-2 (pbk)
Some of my experiences with the syndication tax! (Score:4, Insightful)
Recently I got rid of the Dish Network system in my home. For about 2 months, the family went basically nuts. More fights, and more sleep. After a while, things changed. The kids began to use the computer more for reading, chatting, and of course, games.
After about a year or so of this, I have noted some real changes. The family in general does more things together, homework is actually getting done, and the kids enjoy sports more and they actually read! (both online and books) We all still like our television, but now everyone has focused on the thing or two that they really want to watch, rather than watching everything all the time. The perception about television has changed for the better.
As a kid, I did not have cable. Just broadcast television. Watched everything of interest, but also was outdoors a lot, and in front of the computer a lot. A lot like the family is now. Later on when cable became avaliable, I noticed the demands on my time. There was so much to relate to! My viewing went way up, but my enjoyment did not in general. Sure there are good things on cable, but a whole lot of time is spent either choosing, or waiting not actually watching with real interest.
So there is something to the large number of channels that changes TV for people. You go from the perception that there may be something good on tonght, to a feeling that you are always missing something good. I now know the truth in this. 150 channels means 148 channels full of crap at any one time. Not really any different from broadcast television in the practical sense, but the perception is very different, and that perception changes habits. Hey! it's the syndication tax!
So to wind this up and go a shade off topic, I miss premium television, but am annoyed by the fact that it is not offered without all the crap. Kind of like a PC without windows. Hard to find.
Most people here really don't like the idea of pay per view, but in the context of television, it would be a very good thing provided that one would be able to actually choose what they want to view. Producers would have to compete on the merits of what they produce without the filler programming filling in the dead time. I would easily pay the same dollars for some choice as to what comes in and what does not.
The media companies know this so, pay per view will be added to the endless wave of junket media being pimped right now as the "best in quality home entertainment" or some other equally mind numbing crap, when it could be a vehicle to make TV enjoyable and manageable again.
Tv is addictive by its very nature. Problem is that the producers exploit this feature rather than actually produce quality programming.
So for now, I will remain a jaded television consumer looking the TiVo over closely while finding other interesting things to do.
Re:Some of my experiences with the syndication tax (Score:1)
I think you'll find the TiVo (or similar device) gives you the "pay for only what I want to see" experience you are looking for. It'll help cut out all the chaff. Even a VCR is better than nothing.
Mindless channel surfing for something and watching junk just because you can't get yourself to turn it off is a big part of the problem. You wouldn't eat anything put in front of you (unless you were starving) so why watch anything on TV just because it is there?
Not much of this applies.... (Score:1)
Fortunately, I watch a lot of porn, does that mean I'm OK?
Don't put the TV in your main room (Score:1)
With a TV in your main living area, the temptation to check out what's on is overwhelming. Switch it on - and suddenly its like your brain has been sucked out...and you've been sitting there for hours. This article indicates that there is a bit of science in this process. We are conditioned to switch it on (it makes us feel good), and then we are captivated by rapid movement (because we are hardwired to associate movement to indicate "prey"...or "predator").
Another thing. Don't get satellite. It takes an hour to work out there is nothing worth watching. With 5 channels in here in the UK, I can work this out in about 20 seconds.
Aliens from planet McLuhan! (Score:1)
It could happen.
just wait for some real VR (Score:1)
TV...... (Score:1)
"Don't you ever, ever say anything bad about TV again!!" -- Homer Simpson
Pretty Weak Science (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Weak Science (Score:1)
Tv not bad if you have a purpose (Score:1)
Back to my point, I find that I can be very productive while the tv is on in the background and if you need to take a break when a good show comes on you can relax while still keeping your mind somewhat stimulated.
linking to drudge (Score:1)
Re:linking to drudge (Score:1)
Quite frankly, the few of his own reports he does post nowadays are right far more often than they're wrong. A typical pattern is that he posts a quick paragraph or two about something, then a few days later he'll link to some story in the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] about it saying the exact same thing.
One of the best things he does nowadays is simply scan the foreign or lesser-known news wires or services for interesting or important stories that haven't broken in the US yet.
"Breaking News" on CNN.com [cnn.com] is a joke, especially since the pink slips in their internet department. If you want to know what's breaking *now*, visit Drudge [drudgereport.com]. There's a reason the site gets 40 hits/second.
Hypnotic Opener (Score:2)
Strobing lights of many different kinds, (TV included), puts the viewer into a semi-hypnotic state which allows for messages of all sorts to be more easily absorbed by the mind.
Music videos are particularly nasty in this regard;
The messages in most pop music are moronic: Love is the most important thing in the world. You are not having enough sex. You must have low self esteem without love or sex. --Not to mention the host of responses you are 'supposed' to have to all manner of stimuli.
Charming.
TV doesn't need to have subliminal messages to brain-wash its audience. The programming itself is more than enough to do the job.
And here's the scary part: The effects on society are invisible, because society has already been formed into the shape TV wants it to be. --That is, the end result is considered normal because the condition is ubiquitous.
But TV is just a small part of the whole. Every little jab adds up.
Fluoride
Cell phone EM
Asparatame
Advertising
Air pollutants
Too-many work hours
Pre-natal sonic scans
Unhealthy food combinations
Propaganda and corporate agendas in: News & educational programming
Zero-exercise car culture
Recreational drugs
Non-recreational drugs, (anti-depressants, antihistamines. .
To name just a few of the bigger stabs. There are many more subtle attacks. Any one or two of them by themselves are not enough to completely deplete the bulk of humanity, but they quickly add up.
The end result?
A populace which is soft, dumb & easy to manipulate. Ripe for. . .
Hm.
Well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
-Fantastic Lad --"All your base are belong to us"
Re:Hypnotic Opener (Score:1)
Look up "Dental Fluorosis"
Perhaps it's time for you to dig a little deeper. Try not to knock delicate bones on the rocky climb down. Or perhaps more importantly, use your pineal gland while it still works.
-Fantastic Lad
addictive effect? (Score:1)
Imagine when you ride in a truck/bus that has lots of vibration. You eventually get used to it, and if you ride long enough, you feel kind of funny when you get off the bus and stand on "solid" non-vibrating ground.
Could the nervous system be picking up the strobing from the vertical refresh, to the point you "get used it" and you feel funny when it's not around.
I found it striking, that when I used to watch TV that the first thing I would do when I got up, or came home, was to turn on the TV. I didn't feel right if I didn't.
Re:addictive effect? (Score:1)
Very similar to coming off a boat after a few days. You still have your "sea legs" and wobble for a while. I remember standing in the shower with my eyes closed after finishing a week long ocean survey and feeling my body swaying like I was still on the boat.
Hits home (Score:1)
One thing the article doesn't talk about, though, is those people who leave the TV on and do other things. I leave the TV on while I program, and while I cook, and I find that it helps me do those things longer. I wonder if it's having the same effect as when I sit and watch, or whether it simply staves off boredom, like the radio used to do.
Re:Hits home (Score:1)
I also think it prevents us from becoming overly vigilant, and thus jumpy, when things are too quiet. Picture a person back in ancient Kenya trying to sleep in the quiet of the bush but hyper vigilant of any sounds. Having background noise turns that off.
Maybe I'm over doing the evolutionary biology approach here...
Re:Connective technology ... (Score:1)