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

is the title a rhetorical question?

[ChristTrekker]

The answer is so obviously "yes" in this audience. Was there any doubt? Why even ask?

Winstons taste good

[allelopath]

I can quit anytime I want.

I know I am

[Terminal Saint]

I'm also addicted to my car. Darned if a day goes by that I don't use it to get somewhere too far to walk.

Just because you use something often doesn't mean it's an addiction.

Re:I know I am

[TubeSteak]

I'm also addicted to my car. Darned if a day goes by that I don't use it to get somewhere too far to walk.

Just because you use something often doesn't mean it's an addiction.

If not driving causes you anxiety, then you're addicted.

Ditto for e-mail, browsing fark, /. or whatever other 'thing' on the internet that you just can't live without.

And you actually can get addicted to something like walking, running, biking or driving. Just because you aren't does not mean that others haven't been addicted.

Re:I know I am

[Mark Gordon]

Consider the more detailed paper, with s/Internet/foo/ applied:

To be diagnosed as having foo Addiction Disorder, a person must meet certain
criteria as prescribed by the American Psychiatric Association. Three or more of these
criteria must be present at any time during a twelve month period:

2. Two or more withdrawal symptoms developing within days to one month after
reduction of foo or cessation of foo (i.e., quitting cold turkey) , and these
must cause distress or impair social, personal or occupational functioning. These include:
psychomotor agitation, i.e. trembling, tremors; anxiety; obsessive thinking about what is
happening with respect to foo; fantasies or dreams about foo; voluntary or involuntary
imitation of the movements characteristic of foo.

(the mere act of thinking about foo while not engaged in foo presumably qualifies as "fantasies")

3. Use of the Internet is engaged in to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

(if thinking about foo qualifies as withdrawal, then engaging in foo qualifies as relief of withdrawal)

5. A significant amount of time is spent in activities related to foo.

By this standard of addiction, any activity which one both considers ("fantasies") and practices, and which occupies a significant amount of time (even if it's simply liesure time), qualifies as an addiction.

Seems like a pretty broken definition to me.

Re:I know I am

[eln]

Your post has made me realize that I am addicted to foo. Where can I find information about Fooaholics Anonymous groups in my area?

Symptoms list is s/alcohol/internet

[RobertB-DC]

Really, it's pretty pitiful. It looks like all the "research" entailed was to substitute the word "internet" for "alcohol". Here are just a few of their "symptoms":

* Internet engagement used as a way of escaping problems or relieving feelings of guilt, helplessness, anxiety, or depression.
* Concealing from or lying to family members about the extent of internet use.
* Internet user driven to financial difficulty due to incurring unaffordable internet fees.

Isn't that last one just teh stupid? It's cribbed word-for-word from a typical symptom of alcholism, as are the rest.

Even if there are still ISPs in the world that charge by the MB, it just doesn't fly. Now, if they were talking about "unexpected" credit card charges, maybe... but pr0n addiction .NE. internet "addiction".

Maybe yes, maybe no...

[kclittle]

Maybe I'm addicted to the Internet, maybe not. But it sure has eliminated my TV and newspaper habit...

"Fetal Internet Syndrome"

[tlambert]

I think there's also an as yet undiscussed "Fetal Internet Syndrome"...

My friends new Windows box is addicted, and it was never exposed, new from the store... computers with this syndrome have serious mental lapses if they can't get on the Internet to chat with Microsoft in the first thiry days after being turned on, and on a regular basis after that.

-- Terry

One sign of addiction

[Eightyford]

If you refresh your Slashdot user page every 30 seconds to see if you have received any replies, you might be addicted to the internet.

Re:One sign of addiction

[ndansmith]

If your DHCP lease is older than your first-born child, you might be addicted to the internet.

Re:One sign of addiction

[WilliamSChips]

Don't worry, I'm just waiting for Stargate to come on!

Can't ANYTHING be addictive?

[starseeker]

I'm not a medical person so perhaps there is some criteria I'm not familiar with, but isn't addictive behavior pretty much the same regardless of what someone is addicted to? Is the question whether the "addiction" is chemically based vs. simply being socially based? (For example, if a nerd likes playing Quake for 16 hours a day instead of interacting normally with the human race, does that constitute addiction or just different mental software?)

I mean really, if addiction is defined as depending on the chemicals that are generated when we feel "good" wouldn't an excess of ANYTHING that makes us feel "good" be a candidate for a cause? And wouldn't it be expected that potential causes of addiction depend on the individual? Some are obvious and would impact virtually anyone (chemical manipulation) but other behaviors which don't directly alter mood via chemical means I would intuitively expect to be more subtle.

Heh, maybe anti-social people (not the angry, dangerous wackos but those who are just indifferent to and/or dislike social situations) would argue that the rest of us are addicted to social interaction. ;-) The rest of us would probably take issue with that, but really what objective criteria would be used to have the argument?

Anybody with a medical degree around here that can point to some definitive definition of the word "addiction" and what it means, medically?

Like my friends who take drugs say.

[Buzz_Litebeer]

I can stop if I want to.

I just dont want to, and you arent going to convince me to stop. :-)

Help! I've got Addiction Addiction

[spun]

Dear Slashdot,

I'm addicted to calling everything and anything that people enjoy doing an addiction. I get wads of cash for treating these so-called addictions, and I have a powerful co-enabler called the pharmaceutical industry telling me it's all okay and I should keep doing it. What should I do?

Signed,
I'll take 'The Rapists' for $500, Alex.

(Please, if there are any psychologists or psychiatrists who read Slashdot, don't have me committed. It's a joke, m'kay?)

Re:Internet?

[anagama]

Tubes? What about the boob-tube? I spend a lot of time on the internet. By the same token, I spend almost no time watching television -- I see DVDs from time to time -- no cable, no antenna, just a DVD player connected to the TV, and yeah, call me an elitist I don't care. Anyway, why does the internet get bashed for being addicting, but television doesn't? Some people watch 5 or 6 hours of TV each day and yet I rarely see articles about how addictive TV is. "Internet Addiction" is just another way to bash the net as an evil place by those who either don't understand its utility, or don't want people to understand its utility.

Re:Internet?

[geekoid]

television does get bashed for being addictive, but this report is about the internet, not TV.

""Internet Addiction" is just another way to bash the net as an evil place by those who either don't understand its utility, or don't want people to understand its utility"

no, internet addiction is when people turn to the internet even to the point where it is harmfull to them financially or socially.

Why would you think the internet would be an exception to everything else when it comes to addictions?

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?

I learned it from watching you, Dad!

[1310nm]

I learned it from watching you! :(