Hi all There is plenty of research going on into questions of game and/or internet research; according to the epistemological assumptions that underpin all psychological research into addiction, this research does indeed show that persistent computer use can be addictive (ie, attains a state where it impacts harmfully on other aspects of the person's life because computing activity overrides other necessary activities). I could cite some references but I'd have to dig through files for 'em - just use one of the many databases for scholarly literature. However, what is in question are the epistemological assumptions that underpin ALL research into addiction; and what matters are the consequences of establishing behaviours as 'addictions'. By analogy, let us remember, homosexuality was pathologised via the DSM (not quite sure what this acronym stands for but it's the American Psych. Association's diagnostic manual) for years. In the case of net addiction, check out http://www.netaddiction.com/ for an example of how psychiatrists might be held to 'produce' the condition they seek to cure, and then 'cure' it, while profiting from the entry of the condition into the DSM. we also need to break down the problem into two components: one, the question of addiction (which, frankly, can't be resolved via a rational consensus because of the epistemological / political problem noted above); and two, the question of effects - do games/net use 'cause' people to do things (usually bad things, according to the media). Ie is something bad in itself, or does it cause bad things. Matt