From: smithrud@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Carolyn Louise Smithrud)
Subject: Re: Net "Addiction": a Theory
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:56:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.181339.9048@math.okstate.edu> kruger@math.okstate.edu (Valentine) writes:
>In article [snip] smithrud@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Carolyn Louise Smithrud) writes:
>
>>
>>I agree that network relationships/friendships are one of the best things
>>about electronic communication, as long as expectations on both sides are
>>similar and the relationships carry themselves out in an unharmful manner.
>>I have seen good and bad come out of network relationships.  It depends 
>>a lot on the individuals involved.
>
>	This is true, but then that holds true for any sort of
>communcation.
>

That goes without saying, but I was just making some references to net
communication only.  I wasn't trying to draw distinctions between forms
of communication.


>	Well, of course there are relationships that are unhealthy,
>but once again, that happens everywhere. People can get in bad
>relationships without the help of the network.

But, the topic here _is_ the network.  I don't understand why all the other
forms of communication or types of relationships are being used to make a
point here.  Maybe some elaboration would be helpful.  If you are wanting me to
realize that other forms of communication can be equally harmful or equally
healthy, I already do believe that.  But, does network communication make it
any _easier_ to fall into these relationships?  I think so, for some people.
There are a number of people who have little or no interaction, socially,
with people in "real life".  Some of these same people, however, do have
a network of relationships (good and bad) via electronic communication.  
Saying that without network communication they would have engaged in unhealthy
behavior or unhealthy relationships anyway (because of other forms of 
communication being out there) is not helping explain why network 
communication might become unhealthy or is unhealthy or is "inherently
narcotic" or whatever else anyone has brought up recently.

Oh well, I'm not sure this topic is really going anywhere and if I keep 
this up, I'm going to forget what _I_ was trying to say. :-)  I just 
don't think that saying, "Oh, well, that can happen by telephone too,"
                    or   "Yes, but that happens in real life too,"
                    or   "You can develop an unhealthy relationship with 
                          food too,  I did, " 

is really helping me understand the net addiction topic here.  

>>that I believe is not unhealthy to me, could it be having an unhealthy
>>effect on other people I interact with?
>
>	Aah, that I'll buy. I know someone out there in net-land who
>is quite obssessed with me, and what began as some roleplaying has
>gotten out of hand on that persons side. However, once again, I think
>that while the net aids this it doesn't mean it doesn't happen in
>RL.....it's just that the net provides a means for otherwise shy
>people to get to know other people to be obssessed over, if that
>makes any sense.


You are right, but you said some key words:  "the net aids this".  It
also doesn't "aid" just the shy or timid.  It invites all types and 
I think in a lot of cases, it invites a little more strongly than in
real life.  How many people out there would do or say things over the
network that they would never do or say to another person standing right
front of them or talking to them on the telephone?  Maybe this is what 
appeals to some of them and why this form of communication can become
"addictive."  Where else can one get away with so much for so little?
By the way, I'm not referring to the wonderful friendships, in this case.

Yet another digression from the original discussion.  If I stray from the
topic, it's only because I'm with the majority.  Maybe this is inherent...??
:-)

Cari (smithrud@ucsu.colorado.edu)


Newsgroups: alt.irc.recovery,alt.usenet.recovery,rec.games.mud.misc