Winn introduced addiction in its common and lighter sense as 'to overindulge'.

But then she asks, "Can TV be addictive?"

Tv allows us to leave reality through pleasure and passivity.

A qualitatively different experience than reading. More inertia when in a TV state.

"Once you start, it's hard to stop. " I think this is a profoundly useful way of looking at addiction from the inside out which is what Winn does.

From the inside we are only vaguely aware of how much of our lives we are now spending in the addictive universe,

When we are made a little uncomfortable by the suggestion we make the classic addicts move--I can quit any time I want.

No big deal

Intervention? Me?

Do you turn your screens off?

Even when aware that the addiction is consuming if not all consuming, we say what we ought to do yet we continue to watch. We have a 'heart of hearts' moment but we do not change.

The unbalancing is just the same. Is 'unbalancing' a good way to analyze addiction?

Time distorted.

Real life seems vague, addictive life seems real.

Relationships are weakened.

An addiction cannot be satisfied by definition. Consider gambling or heroin or meth or alcohol or...

Does watching sate you or do you just get tired eyes?

Are you even free to stop?