Could You Be Addicted to the Internet?

Billosaur writes "Over at The Register, Dr Stephen Juan has this interesting article on Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD). Apparently this has been around since at least 1995 and there are those lobbying for it to be included in the DSM-IV. While some people use the Internet a lot for work or to keep in touch with family & friends as well as banking and bill-paying, it's interesting to thing that some people actually become addicted. There's still a lot of controversy over the diagnosis, whether this is true addiction or not. There is more detailed information available in this paper from Viriginia Tech."

Comments

No.

[ph0rk]

IAD is a sham. The original test instruments 'developed' by young inclided items lifted right from similar instruments for gambling and substance abuse, with such gems as (paraphrase, I don't have the original measure handy) 'do you often use the internet by yourself?' and more than 10 hours a week as unhealthy. The criteria listed here http://www.psycom.net/iadcriteria.html are similarly laughable: "(e) voluntary or involuntary typing movements of the fingers".

And, perhaps the crux: "(VII) Internet use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical, family, social, occupational, or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by Internet use (e.g., sleep deprivation, marital difficulties, lateness for early morning appointments, neglect of occupational duties, or feelings of abandonment in significant others)"

I'm not saying there aren't people out there with problems, but you don't create a new disorder for every new communication/information tool. Do we have telephone addiction disorder? fax machine addiction disorder? television addiction disorder? Hey, I know, lets make a myspace addiction disorder and a friendster addiction disorder and a slash-- er wait.

sleep dep, maritial difficulties and the like are signs of other disorders, like depression. (or just a general state of distress).

The 'article' linked by the submitter is fluff, there is nothing empirical in it. It is also missing nearly 9 years of critiques of IAD. Why did this submission happen?