Arguing Against Television Addiction

Marie Winn classifies television watching as an addictive and damaging conduct, drawing similarities between it and the abuse of drugs and alcohol. On the surface, this claim appears justifiable and arguments could be made in its favor. However it’s Winn’s equating television with medicine and alcohol that is ultimately the downfall of her argument, demonstrating a misapplication of the term “addiction” and all of its conditions to television watching. First, let us outline addiction in the sense that Winn interprets it.

Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay

She claims, “The essence of any severe dependancy is a pursuit of enjoyment, a seek for a ‘high’ that standard life does not provide. It is simply the inability to operate without the addictive substance that is dismaying. ” This declare, made only three paragraphs into the piece, immediately casts doubt on her interpretation of dependancy. The addiction Winn is speaking of sounds similar enough to dependence upon medicine and alcohol, however the penalties don’t. The inability to function usually without the substance in question isn’t the one “dismaying” consequence.

Alcoholics drink themselves into early graves via liver and kidney failure or elevated blood pressure and coronary heart assault. Heroin addicts incessantly overdose as they naturally build an immunity to the drug and require extra for the same high. Television lacks any of these direct bodily detriments which would possibly be associated with addictive substances. The solely similarity left when taking her skewed body of the time period “addiction” under consideration is that television is a pleasurable experience, hardly grounds for labeling as addictive.

But lets settle for, for the second, that Winn’s definition of addiction is enough. One would possibly respond to my declare that tv has no bodily unwanted effects with the opposing claim: Your avid television watcher is more doubtless to be obese and pale, bodily signs resulting from sitting indoors and watching television all day. They would be appropriate in their assumption, however not in their reasoning. Obesity and pale pores and skin is a end result from simply not going outside and getting train. The same effect could probably be reproduced if someone simply sat on a couch for days at a time not watching television.

The tv itself does not trigger these signs, it merely motivates people to follow behavior that produces them. In addition, the consumption of alcohol and injection of heroin literally changes the mind chemistry of the consumer. Dopamine receptors are altered and left crippled, permanently, if usage is maintained over a protracted time frame. Television on the other hand does not do this to the identical degree. Sure, there may be a small burst of enjoyment when someone’s favorite present comes on, however nothing close to what a tripping heroin addict feels.

I really feel pleased when my dad and mom come to Colorado to visit me, I am not hooked on them. Addiction has greater than jus a bodily element, however, and since Winn fails to handle the physical side of habit allow us to now flip the behavioral. Winn visits this when she compares a heroin addict and a tv addict. The heroin addict shuns work, relationships and human contact to find a way to feed their addiction. In Winn’s eyes, the television addict does the same after they “they put off other activities to spend hour after hour watching tv. In short the tv watcher is doing the identical, drawing into themselves and ignoring something that could distract from feeding their habit. In this case Winn is having hassle with trigger and impact. A heroin addict changes their conduct to perpetuate the feeling the drug provides them. They might have turned to the drug for a selection of causes, but a true addict acts only out of concern for getting the subsequent fix. The drug causes the conduct. Television however can be treated as the conduct caused by one thing else.

Procrastination afflicts nearly everyone in some unspecified time within the future, and sometimes with great regularity. A procrastinator will interact in plenty of mundane duties to avoid work, tv chief amongst them. Someone who puts off different actions to look at tv may actually be watching tv to put off other actions. To reveal that this logic is completely inapplicable to medication and additional distance television from the realm of addiction one might pose a question: might you say that heroin customers inject themselves with heroin in order to postpone work as well?

The main problem with Winn’s argument is its extremity. She tries to color tv as an addiction when every thing she points to as proof merely constitutes a foul habit. She exhibits a partial view of habit, only the behavioral, in order to find a way to apply it to tv watching. She has fallen into the logical trap: “all carrots are orange, my had is orange, therefore my hat is a carrot. ” In this case it would learn, “All addicts do X, television watchers do X, therefore television watchers are addicts. Habits can be damaging and even obsessive, however they differ from dependancy within the physical and psychological effects they have on the practitioner. The adverse physical signs of extreme tv watching are in reality the negative results of not exercising. The constructive impact of manufacturing pleasure fails to even strategy the peak of medication and alcohol, and finally, the behavior of a heroin addict should be outlined by their dependancy whereas the conduct of watching tv can and often is the consequence of something else completely.