It is bad in the sense that it is an alternative, and growingly a replacement, to using our biological escape from Reality - the Imagination.
Actively engaging the Imagination has a much greater potential to cross over into Reality and affect it in such a way that escape is no longer necessary. Escaping from Reality by relying on external input feeds and output sinks only passively engages the Imagination and does not produce the same internal Imagination-Reality-Manifestation loop.
As with most things, a healthy balance of both internal and external escapism is probably the best. Calvin and Hobbes explains this the best.
Right. First someone says that isolation is good for adolescencents citing a comedian, you are arguing that mix of external and internal escapism is probably the best as the comic explains. I am not a subject matter expert, but comics are not an authority on psychology for me.
Authoritarianism is not much of an argument. None the less, I'll see your making fun of comedians (and who is better to comment on the human condition than a comedian?) and raise the stakes to Zen Buddhism. "And Buddha said, the eightfold path to enlightenment begins with posting to your facebook wall and ends with spend lots of time making your linkedin profile look pretty" Oh no wait maybe I misquoted.
I have observed as I get older that teens suffer from many self caused maladies, although an excess of calm introspection has never made that top 10 list. Given observation that teens are legendary for causing enormous amounts of suffering because of a lack of even a tiny amount of thinking, that would imply the scales are likely tipped far in excess away from a healthy level of introspection. Its unlikely given an extreme situation that a return to something approaching normal would be seriously controversial.
I hugely respect Buddhist philosphy but quoting eight fold path in a discussion about addiction to our gadgets is a non sequitur.
Do you know who is better to comment on the human condition?
Actual scientists who study human mind. And while psychology doesn't conform to some principles of scientific rigor it produces useful models for improving human condition. They often fail, but it is much better than intuition, comedian's intuition included.
The argument you mention is mine, I was not directly attributing it to the comic. I mentioned the comic because I think it has many great examples of the subject being discussed (see Calvin's relationship with watching TV, in contrast to his relationship with his cardboard box and stuffed tiger).
I don't know what exactly constitutes an "authority" on psychology. If it is a degree in the subject - I have one and its weight is negligible. If it is amount of material published regarding the human condition - Bill Watterson is an authority in the eyes of the many who regularly cite his work, as are many other comedians, artists and writers.
However, last I checked, there is no prevailing general model of the human psyche (nor one for the biomechanism of the brain). Appeals to authority may be taking a while.
Published papers in psychology journals are authoritative sources for information.
I tried googling for information related to Bill Watterson and psychology and couldn't find any links to the relevant information. I am sure that comedy has a lot of insights to offer scientists who study human mind, but I really dont understand why psychologists and/or psychiatrists cite his work. I would like to be proven wrong, could you direct me to the relevant interesting bits of information?
