Do you just read headlines and then comment? I mean the author addressed your point within the first few paragraphs, yet you don't seem to be incorporating any of that into your post.
I read the article last night when it came up on /r/skeptic. The author describes a sort of adolescent addiction due to underdeveloped inhibitions of those who having reach their mid-20s. The thesis seems to say that some addictions are situational, like the distinction between a normal situational depression and a clinical depression (one that does not trace to a person's current life situation).
To restate my question: is what the author describes actual an addiction? Perhaps only those addictions that don't resolve themselves are addictions.
So instead of describe the situation as the author does -- some addictions resolve themselves -- perhaps the definition of addiction needs to be refined.
