I'd bet that, back in the days of Oog, there were gals & guys who were always chipping away at rocks trying to make better spear-points. Even though the people around them were fat from feasting. For the edge cases.
And then there were people always trying to make better pictures of the universe, even though all that ever led to was better understanding of the Big Mystery. (Isaac Roberts famously imaging Andromeda in 1888.) (Who could ever care about that?) Or Prof. Goddard and his stupid rockets.
And it's too bad that people who started exploring solid-state electronics back in the mid-1800s (like Karl Ferdinand Braun in 1874, or H. J. Round in 1907) didn't get 'addicted' to playing with them. We might have skipped vacuum tubes completely if they had. Everyone's loss.
Some of us are cut out to obsessively explore the unknown, some aren't. Karl Jansky, for example, stumbled onto radio astronomy, but showed little interest in the topic afterward. Just not cut out. Grote Reber WAS cut out, but his efforts were largely ignored until decades later. Everyone's loss.
'Should' you feel better about learning about computers, or would you get more social approval by obsessing about the private lives of dozens of celebrities?
Most people seem to do what they like with their free time, and don't worry about whether it has any value. So, who's a fit judge of what 'addictive behavior' is? ( And why are they so obsessed with other people's behavior anyway?)
I'd bet that, back in the days of Oog, there were gals & guys who were always chipping away at rocks trying to make better spear-points. Even though the people around them were fat from feasting. For the edge cases.
And then there were people always trying to make better pictures of the universe, even though all that ever led to was better understanding of the Big Mystery. (Isaac Roberts famously imaging Andromeda in 1888.) (Who could ever care about that?) Or Prof. Goddard and his stupid rockets.
And it's too bad that people who started exploring solid-state electronics back in the mid-1800s (like Karl Ferdinand Braun in 1874, or H. J. Round in 1907) didn't get 'addicted' to playing with them. We might have skipped vacuum tubes completely if they had. Everyone's loss.
Some of us are cut out to obsessively explore the unknown, some aren't. Karl Jansky, for example, stumbled onto radio astronomy, but showed little interest in the topic afterward. Just not cut out. Grote Reber WAS cut out, but his efforts were largely ignored until decades later. Everyone's loss.
'Should' you feel better about learning about computers, or would you get more social approval by obsessing about the private lives of dozens of celebrities?
Most people seem to do what they like with their free time, and don't worry about whether it has any value. So, who's a fit judge of what 'addictive behavior' is? ( And why are they so obsessed with other people's behavior anyway?)