Slashdot Mirror
Is Internet Addiction a Medical Condition?
PreacherTom writes "Arising from such cases as a recent lawsuit with IBM over employee termination due to online sex chatting at work, recent debate over whether Internet abuse is a legitimate addiction, akin to alcoholism, is heating up. From the article: 'Attorneys say recognition by a court — whether in this or some future litigation — that Internet abuse is an uncontrollable addiction, and not just a bad habit, could redefine the condition as a psychological impairment worthy of protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.' The condition could even make it into the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM, making it a full-blown neurosis. It wouldn't be a huge surprise, with a recent Stanford study showing that 14% of people state it would be 'hard to stay away from the Net for even a few days in a row."
Are you joking? A "full-blown neurosis?" That's ridiculous. Nobody is going to get fixated on the internet.
I would expand on my argument but I'm at work and I have to get a lot of stuff done. I'm chatting with s3xygurl15, buying Xmas presents on Amazon and selling my old Xbox on eBay. I also need to email my mom to see if she can bring me some ramen noodles or mac-n-cheese, since I won't have time to eat later 'cause I'm needed on a WoW raid in an hour.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You can be addicted to Internet as much as you can be addicted to paying your bills, talking with your friends, watching tv or playing games, because you can do all this on the Internet. How often do you hear that someone is addicted to talking with his/her friends?
... as much as wearing clothes.
No. It's just that it's a positive thing and when you remove it, you are left with negative feelings. So it may seem like an addiction but it's actually more like oxygen.
When I can't get online, I am being deprived of stimulus that makes me feel efficient. When I have to thumb through hard paper manuals to get info, it makes me feel sad, aggrivated and annoyed.
I stop looking and wait for it to come back online. I do something else.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Let's just save some time and determine every form of antisocial behavior to be a disease. That way when we fuck up, we don't have to blame it on our character flaws.
It's the disease, ya know. I can't help it.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
And if it wasn't for the addiction, I wouldn't be reading this now to know that.
Now, if it became an ADA issue, how would an employer compensate? By putting them in front of an IBM Selectric instead of an ThinkPad?
Let's face it, people get addicted off of all sorts of things: alcohol, drugs, skydiving, mountain climbing, etc. Why should Internet use be any different? Especially if you find it useful to discover information about or talk to people with interests in something you yourself enjoy. And look at MMPORGs -- are you saying WoW doesn't suck large numbers of people in?
But there's being addicted, and then there's it being a "disease." Frankly, I think B. F. Skinner would scoff at the notion. To him, everything was stimulus -> response -> reinforcement, and the more reinforcing an activity was, the more an organism would engage in it. It's not a "disease" as such, but something hard-wired into out neural make-up, and the Internet has the potential to tap into that just like anything else.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
on this. I quote myself:
The official diagnosis systems ICD and DSM currently have identical criteria for addiction to alcohol, illegal drugs and tobacco. Addiction to gambling, sex, internet etc are not mentioned, but psychologists who care about these addictions obviously use equivalient definitions.
The diagnosis systems mention 6-7 possible symptoms which can be classified into three groups:
- increased tolerance and/or abstinence problems
- signs of loss of control (strong craving/ compulsiveness or drinking more than planned or failed to cut down on use)
- damaging effects (social, health or work-related)
Currently no "symptoms" are mandatory. The addiction diagnosis demands that one has at least 3 of 6 symptoms through the previous year (ICD-10) or 4 of 7 at one point in life (DSM-IV). One does not need to have symptoms from all three groups, for instance is lack of control not a prerequsite.
Compared to regular medical diagnoses, it's remarkable that the important boundary between healthy and ill is set at an arbitrarily chosen number of symptoms (3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7)
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
... so is masturbation. Seriously, though, come'on!
I experienced internet withdrawals back in 2002 when my DSL was taken away from me. The first month was hell. After three months i had totally forgotten i ever had the internet. The addiction is real as is an addiction to anything. The reason it's being considered a medical condition is because of the popularity of the addiction. I can honestly say i haven't had my own broadband connection until a month ago and now i feel i dont know how to surf the web, but atleast i dont waste time in front of a computer as much.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
It is simple, addicts get addicted to things. It might be drugs, it might be alcohol, even the internets. Hell, people even get addicted to working out. Some things are better to be "addicted" to than others.
If the person has an "addictive personality" then they will find something to be addicted to.
The President used to be an alcoholic, but now he is addicted to working out. The former is much worse of an addiction than the latter.
This article further supports my theory that the field of psychology is bunch of bull-shit. Neurology is a science. Psychology is a bunch of philosophers conjuring up imaginary diseases to reinforce everyone's imaginary "problems" I'm writing this Slashdot entry instead of doing office work right now. It doesn't mean I have a problem. I'm just bored.
I hope they don't put the clinic next to the Food Stamp office, I have a feeling shit would get ugly if the people in that line saw a gang of people holding PDAs in line to get their internet bill paid.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
There's no reason to be responsible for ourselves and our behavior or anything like that. This is just another symptom of how we'll all end up basically enslaved. The less responsibility we take for ourselves the more the government will, until we are all wards of the state. Uggg. It's disgusting really.
I would put it as part of ADD. That said, my belief is ADD only makes it harder to focus and not impossible. People need to take personal responsibility and either stop the behavior or get the needed help. If not then fire them unless their job is being a web crawler.
Sounds like someone didn't get his prozac this morning...
Badass Resumes
Obsessive Compulsive behavior can be exhibited for any activity. Even just tapping your foot.
I'm not addicted to the internet, and I can stop anytime I want. ...I'm just trying to beat the end boss...
This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Now really. Of course I wouldn't like being without internet access for several days, for the simple reason that a large part of my life is related to it somehow. With no internet I'd lose contact with many people, would find it much harder to find documentation for some of the work I do, etc.
But isn't every specialist that way? I bet that my father would also feel uncomfortable if he couldn't play the viola for a few days. For me, the main theme in my life is internet and computers. For others it's a musical instrument, drawing, playing soccer, etc. Everybody feels uncomfortable when they're unable to do their favourite activity for a while.
Even for "normal" people with no obsession with anything in particular it still works that way. When somebody's car breaks they're often grumpy while it's being fixed, as all of a sudden their freedom of movement got drastically reduced.
There probably are people with serious problems, but I think most of the people don't have any addiction of any sort, they simply became dependent on it, like many people depend on their car or telephone. For them it just became an indispensable tool.
How do you know if you are addicted? If it starts to mess with your everyday life. It is just like an addiction to gambling or pornography. Is it a medical condition? Now thats a different question. I don't think you could call in to work sick because you are having "internet withdrawal." I would put this kind of addiction into the category of a "psychological condition," as there are no physical symptoms. As for all who would say that this isn't actually an issue, I have three word...World of Warcraft. And yes, I used to play myself. Been clean for almost 6 months now.
It's the disease, ya know. I can't help it.
Then you'll be told: Yes you can, here's the address to a rehabilitation service...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
lies, I think, in whether or not you can still perform day-to-day tasks while still performing the compulsive behaviour.
For instance, people find it difficult to stop, say, biting their fingernails. It probably releases the same sort of dopamine response in the brain that playing PacMan, gambling or surfing the 'net does. But few people recognize fingernail-nibbling as an addiction; it's a bad habit, but it doesn't have the stigma of an addiction, or it doesn't have the excuse of being an addiction. You can, while still nibbling away all the while, accomplish almost anything else.
On the other hand, internet addiction is not a prime candidate for multitasking. If you're reading slashdot, you're not writing the Jenkins report. If you're playing a flash game, you're not reading those articles from Science that you should be for your dissertation.
I'd say that any repetitive pattern of behaviour can become impossible to stop -- but we only rationalize it as an addiction when it interferes with other normative/positive/goal-directed behaviours.
They use a more rigorous standard than that: how many people make how much noise about whether it counts as a disease.
For example, homosexuality was scientifically proven to be a disease before the 70's. Then because of enough protests, it became scientifically disproven. Likewise, fetishism is currently scientifically proven to be a disease, but if enough people raise a stink, that will count as scientific disproof.
It works the other way too. Formerly it was scientfically proven that alcoholism isn't a disease; people just get drunk a lot. Then because of enough protests from people who didn't want to accept that their spouse is a lousy human being who values physical pleasure over their family, it became scientifically proven that it is a disease.
Give 'em some credit.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Cleveland Browns fans who attend every game are also claiming their rights as an addicted minority. "Its horrible" said one fan "year after year we suck and I keep going just waiting for that one big 'hit'"
Celeb Rags also applied for registration under the disability act on the basis that they have "an unreasonable compulsion to print any old crappy photo of anyone who has even been seen with someone who has been on TV", this compulsion is so bad that they are forced to produce glossy magazines every single week.
But if the Internet is an addiction ala heroin, does that make AOL methadone?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The internet has become a utility these days - like electrical power, phone, natural gas, tv, water, or garbage pickup. You could use the same logic to argue I'm addicted to all of the above. I can't imagine going more than a week without any of them except maybe tv. The loss of any of the others would start to make my life suck more. (On the other hand, I have a DVR, so it's watching, even if I'm not.)
Dang, I'm scared
/. then ever before, someone should have saved this DullShit for 2007/04/01, maybe this DS illness is a Pharma/AMA lobbyist creation for parent/drug/religious intervention businesses.
... decided on metadata flags to block different kinds of objectionalvble material from wasting my time like this has done?
There are more idiot dogmatist lurking at
These no-brainer-stories should be filtered as offensive stinking DS. I always wanted a NetNanney app that would filter out dogmatist StupidShit (SS nazi-like) religious, corporatist, and political crap for my browser and cable/sat/broadcast TV at home.
Is there an OSS project for this? Are Firefox folks looking into this as a good plugin? Has the W3C
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Even if it is an addiction, so what? If he were drunk on the job, he'd still be fired.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
When I was in 4th grade, I got in trouble by reading the encyclopedia before I had my homework done. Now I'm 50, have been a teacher for years, and tend to scan my live bookmarks, the make blog, and slashdot before I grade tests or make lesson plans. Does it affect my work? Probably. Does it make me a better teacher? Arguably. Could I stop if I chose to? Probably not?
About 15 years ago I lived in an African village for 3 years. What did I miss most? My morning newspaper and public library! I know people who would say the same thing about the NY Times Crossword Puzzle. I don't see any difference between these examples and so-called internet addiction. Maybe psychologists should include these in the DSM too!
I think a lot of these addictions are not rather addictions, but a lack of self-control and discipline. While I'm not debating whether or not there exists such a thing or not, a lot of people claiming internet addiction do so for an excuse- for pills, for pity, for disability compensation.. etc.
Time for all the "I DISAGREE!!!" replies!
Compared to regular medical diagnoses, it's remarkable that the important boundary between healthy and ill is set at an arbitrarily chosen number of symptoms (3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7)
You seem to be implying that non-psychiatric ailments are clear-cut in their diagnoses; while this is true in some cases (e.g., a viral infection is defined by the presence of the virus), it is not true for all diseases. Type 2 diabetes, for example, is defined as "fasting plasma glucose >= 7.0 mM, OR plasma glucose >= 11 mM two hours after a 75g glucose challenge OR random plasma glucose >= 11.1 mM", while the level of blood pressure which is diagnosed as "high" depends upon the presence of other risk factors for heart disease.
Most psychiatric conditions are just like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol: There's a continuum between very healthy and very sick, and groups of doctors get together to decide how to draw a line.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Err, no. None of the things were scientifically proven to be diseases, they were defined that way. Alcoholism is not considered a disease in psychology.
It's entirely under your control whether you become an alcoholic. Any condition that you can 100% control entry into isn't a disease, it's a lifestyle choice.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
Couldn't I fire an alcoholic who drinks on the job? Or a cokehead who snorts at work? Why couldn't I fire a sex chat addict who is chatting up "girls" instead of working? (Of course, this is coming from someone posting on /. instead of working... hmm... )
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Lawyers want this so they can rack up billable hours prosecuting and defending against this.
Various health practicioners want this so they can treat and BILL for it.
Nairdowells want this so they can sue for money and have some excuse for their stupid or bad behavior.
Many of the rest of us don't see our internet use as an addiction as it allows us to do useful things and interact with others whilst removing the sensory pain (stinky or smelly or visuall unappealing aspect) of being in close proximity with those who would serve us. We CHOOSE to be connected and we like it.
I don't want to read about this so-called "Internet Addiction".
F5, F5, F5, F5...
That's not stuff that matters.
F5, F5, F5, F5...
I want another Slashdot history, NOW !
F5, F5, F5, F5...
Now, please !
F5, F5, F5, F5...
-- Rastignac was here.
I was travelling in Japan for about a week of my three-week stay. The schedule was created by my Japanese host who failed to schedule any time for rest. I was unable to check my email. As I was separated not only from my laptop but from the internet at large, I found myself becoming quite edgy until finally, she brought me to a media cafe allowing me to check emails, browse a few sites and finally restore peace and balance to myself.
While I am not sure I can fully understand the nature of addiction, I fear it. If by some chance, this was the sign of actual addiction, then I'm not sure what to do about it since it's an integral part of my work and my play. Many addictions stem, at least initially, from some sort of pleasure-rewarding recreational activity. In this case, it was more of a feeling of being cut off from a world or a life from which I get a certain level of comfort.
As to internet "behavior"? I have a hard time seeing that as being anything other than actionable by an employer. An employer can refuse to hire or may fire someone for being addicted to drugs or anything else that may be deemed as objectionable in the workplace. I'd say porn is right up there on the list.
The "medium" is one thing and the behavior is another. I think it's important to make that distinction.
Adults are SUPPOSED to be accountable for their actions and inactions. This means that if they find themselves dangerously addicted to something, they are supposed to do something to remedy the condition. You don't just stop at labeling something as a disease and throw your hands in the air. In a previous posting, I discussed a time when I found myself missing work so that I could play a video game. (XWing vs. Tie Fighter in that instance.) When I realized what I was doing, I made changes. It's what adults are supposed to do and what we are supposed to be teaching our children so that they become good adults.
So if someone is fired from their job for being addicted to drugs or alcohol, for being obese, for watching porn or chatting online at the office, then I think it's perfectly acceptable. I say this even though I am guilty of two of these offenses myself. I'm not willing to defend my own behavior by calling it a disease.
I don't know if I completely agree with alcoholism being a medical condition, but I think at the base there is something about addiction in general that sometimes can be explained by biological makeup.
That the guy might've been addicted because he was chatting about sex, rather than because he was "on the internet"? I thought sex was supposed to be a far bigger compulsion towards addiction than using the internet
I find it all to worrying nowadays that people come up with stupid liberal, pseudo-sciences to determine that you're doing too much/too little of something. Bloody hell, so some peopel like spending time playing games and using the internet - so what! Computers can be used for many different things - like cars. You don't hear about people being addicted to cars or roads do you? And adrenaline - well you're average adrenaline junkie doesn't get as much stick as people who are "computer addicts".
It sucks that we now live in a society where having a hobby or interest is now considered a problem - maybe we should all be bored shitless and hanging around outside malls... or just sit around and come up with meaningless generalisations about who does and who doesn't match up to the modern social norm...
When ever I'm on a vacation, I try to stay away from computers as much as possible. For example I had a five week vacation this year and I used the Net only three times. And on each time it was about checking my email. (Yes, I checked my email only three times in five weeks! There were quite many unread messages waiting for me each time :-) )
At work I have to stare the screen 8 hours per day. I don't want to do that when I'm on vacation. It is not good for your physical well being to sit all day long.
What bugs me is that people will use any excuse to get out of their poor decision-making. Oh, I d/l porn at work but it's not my fault. It was my addiction. Uh...I don't think so. I don't care what people do on their own private time, but the reality is that that sort of thing doesn't belong in the workplace along with many other issues. I'm not trying to kick up dust here, it is just frustrating to see that just about anything can end up in the DSM at some point and then potentially used as an excuse for bad behavior.
Cally
--Cally
Except that by definition you can't scientifically prove anything. All you can do scientifically is advance a theory and show that is supported by experimental evidence available at the time. That's kinda the point of science: it's only as good as the evidence underlying it, and as new evidence comes to light, theories can and should be revised or dropped if this is what the evidence supports.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I can't believe that only 14% of users said it would be difficult to be without internet for a few days. The internet has been out at my girlfriend's place for 2 days now and ...
Time to find another GF.
Of course, I still have internet at work and at my place...
I've got a sure-fire cure for internet addiction... heroin.
There is no physical connection. It is purely psychological.
A friggin obsession, a weakness, a character flaw.
I would compare it to chronic masturbation.
Oh! Wait...
Nevermind.
Rick B.
The Internet is not a thing to which you can become addicted. It is a channel for activities, to which you can become addicted. MMORPGs are the classic example, but there are plenty of people who are addicted to pr0n, various blogs and forums, or even just surfing. But it's not the Internet to which they're addicted, it's that particular activity.
The Internet is a communication medium. It can be used for helpful purposes, or for harmful ones.
Why the hell can't people figure this out? Nobody called it telephone addiction when people got hooked on 1-900 numbers. In the days before telephones, there were compulsive letter-writers.
So what if it is an addiction. If you are addicted to drugs you get fired from your job. If you can't keep yourself from surfing the net the whole day you get fired. End of story.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
if i stop breathing, i will likely experience withdrawal symptoms so severe that i will die. i keep working on the first step, though...
i admit i am powerless over oxygen--that my breathing has become unmanageable.
The AntiJoey
I bet if you look carefully at the psychologists promoting excessive internet use as an addiction, you will find ties to drug companies. Anything to increase sales and generate more profits. At best case its a jobs program for third rate psychologists and addictions counselors.
In regards to addiction, basically, there are two types of reinforcements for behaviors, namely:
When engaged in any behavior, if a person is reinforced through either mechanism, they are more likely to continue to perform that behavior. However, most addictions arise out of behaviors that initially promote negative reinforcement but are eventually linked to the surfacing of negative affects (feelings).
To use alcohol as an example, drinking may reduce stresses, inhibitions, and anxieties (negative reinforcement), but if consumed in excess, will lead to negative results such as a hang over or in extreme cases, the shakes. In the case of alcohol, we have the cliché "You just need a little of the hair of the dog that bit you." Basically, consuming more alcohol will postpone or temporarily alleviate the negative consequences of drinking too much alcohol, which is itself more negative reinforcement. Now we are able to appreciate the cyclical nature of addiction.
With this understanding, its possible to see how something like the internet can become addicting. We need to look no further than MMORPGs to illustrate the point. In SOME cases, people who are unsatisfied with ther "real" social life will engage in online play. This has the effect of removing their feelings of dissatisfaction (negative reinforcement) while quite possibly harming their "real life" social life. Thus, the player must lean even more heavily on gaming to alleviate the feelings of dissatisfaction with his/her "real life".
Now, whether "Internet Addiction" could ever qualify as a medical condition... I have little to say there. I am ever suspicious toward the practice of "medicine", I believe they call it a "practice" for a reason.
both my girlfriend and i are internet addicts. it also doesnt help that i work with computers for a living so its like im a dealer as well.
if there is an internet connection in the house i will be on it
there are tons of things i would love to do other than browse the net reading stuff but i can barely tear myself away from it enough to go to the bathroom or eat.
when we moved to our current place we didnt have dsl setup yet and i delayed and delayed and my girlfriend started getting upset and i told her that i liked not having it because i was getting so much stuff done because i couldnt access it and that i knew as soon as i got it back again it would control my life.
sure enough, its back to controlling my life.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
If we define Internet addiction as a "real" disease, then what else might be considered so? For example: Let's say you are about to terminate an office worker for using the phone for personal business too often. Can this office worker then claim a medical issue in that they are addicted to talking on the phone and then request treatment? I think that is going too far. If anything, we are simply talking about general obsessive-compulsive behavior. Of course, those people might spend less time on the Internet if society placed much more value upon getting out of the house or office to enjoy other people's company in person... perhaps a shorter work week?
Ouch! The truth hurts!
No. It's no more a medical condition than football fanaticism or religion. It's just one of many things people go fanatical over.
When people can't maintain their normal balance they latch on to some activity or item that they derive pleasure from and it can begin to consume them. All the behaviors associated with their psychological addiction can influence their health, but that's not necessarily always the case. Sure there's the guy that sits refreshing blogs all day, straining his eyes, developing blood clots in his legs, eating badly and not getting exercise but it's caused by his lack of balance, or will power. It's entirely a matter of choice.
As long as freedom of choice exists many people will make bad choices, but I much prefer that to the alternatives.
Yes, I find it hard to go without the internet for a few days. In fact, it was just about as bad as going without my eyes for a few days after surgery and, I imagine (though I've never had this happen) going without my ears. Of course, going without my eyes wasn't as bad as it might have been, because I had use of the internet before hand, and was thus able to gather a fair number of useful coping tips from other people who had had the same operation.
The internet is "addicting" in the same way any other sense organ or sense-enhancing tool is addicting--once you are aware that there is a way to find out useful things about the world around you it can be very frustrating to have to live without it. For people who don't get it, I suggest removing all the mirrors from their cars for a few days to see how they like having to twist themselves into knots just to find out what's going on around them.
--MarkusQ
Well, I must be addicted to hot water 'cause I find it hard to stay away from a hot shower for more than a couple of days. Come to think of it, I can't leave the telephone alone for more than a few days in a row either! Using electricity, driving a car, microwaving food, the list is endless. My god! What have I become?!?!?!
Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
I think a lot of these addictions are not addictions, but rather a lack of self-control and discipline.
Fair enough... if you're a judge, but scientists aren't really interested in judgments. Science asks why. If you choose to reframe the situation as a lack of self-control and discipline fine. The question becomes why do some people lack self-control and discipline. If you can answer that one in a rigorous way you'll probably win a Nobel prize.
you do know that psychology is a pseudo science and "American Psychiatric Association's DSM" is a load of shit. Take pshyce 101 and you will see how often things are added and removed from that guide simply for political reasons. So, last year you were sick, this year you aren't next year, who knows. Its a game more fun than any ARG i have ever seen.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Then again, maybe Slashdot isn't the best crowd to be asking about this.
...but is it art?
Well selfishness comes to mind. Man's natural tendency to fulfill his desires. Or lack of desire (laziness)
Welcome to a world that lacks accountability and responsibility for your actions.
I mean, if you are addicted to something, it is squarely your fault for being in that position (unless someone tied you up and injected you with $substance every other day).
It's like people blaming cigarette companies for their addiction and health problems, when they should have stopped smoking, knowing that it is dangerous and harmful.
I mean, why bother laying off that pack of smokes or that bottle of vodka when it is just easy to give in and not be responsible for your actions. "Hey, it wasn't me! It was that gene that causes addiction. You know? That disease?"
Obviously you can't be held accountable for your actions, for you getting lung cancer -- it is those damn cigarette companies! Because obviously, they tied you up and made you smoke every day.
With rights and freedom comes responsibility. It's about bloody time that people learnt that. If you're "addicted" to the Internet, get off of it. Stay off it for a week, go out fishing or hiking or camping. Go on a holiday somewhere. Or just read a book. Just how hard is that going to be?
And if your job requires you to be on the Internet, just use it for only that and nothing else. If that is hard for you, take a week off from your job and go to a place without a connection.
Moderation, people. Moderation.
This culture of making every habit or behaviour into a disease is just ridiculous. Folks just need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions.
I had also been fired for being in the online sex chat rooms. Though I think my case maybe a little different... my pants were down when I got caught.
--
Alanna: Saying that Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders
I'm no more addicted to the internet than I am to drinking coffee. Or Cigarettes.
Ryan
Sorry but every behavioral issue is going to be "Medical Condition" if there is enough money in it. Its one of the reason why so many private employers are having trouble with their health care costs. One of the announcments in our end of year benefits meetings was that costs were going up (duh!) but look at all the new things we can do for you (meaning we have been told this has to be covered)
At least most private insurers will stand up and fight new things being classified as medical when they are not but governments probably won't. It will just lead to even more classes of people who don't work because of "medical reasons" that live off the public.
Look at it this way, if the issues are so dangerous that they become medical problems why allow them to persist? Probably because they are not medical issues
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Logging onto the local BBS, trading stuff using my C64 and other non-computer friends not understanding, not wanting to understand and making fun of the general nerdish nature of the whole thing. I was hooked then, I think the whole connectiveness and interactivity thing wore off after a while. The BBS's changed into free university net access, more FTP than anything else, exchanging copies of the latest Mosaic. Still nerdy to every non-computer person I knew.
Now they have paid internet accounts, and they're checking their mail every 30 seconds and chatting to 50 people simultaneously on MSN.
I've been without internet access for a couple of months at a time and during that time never felt the urge to sneak on to check mail or read a site for news. Maybe this addiction doesn't suit me.
Task Mangler
But there's being addicted, and then there's it being a "disease." Frankly, I think B. F. Skinner would scoff at the notion. To him, everything was stimulus -> response -> reinforcement, and the more reinforcing an activity was, the more an organism would engage in it. I
Additionally, the less regular the response the more addictive it can be. The old story of the mouse who presses at the lever occasionally when it always dispenses a treat, but feverishly when it randomly dispenses a treat. Slot machines work on the same principle.
In other words, go into your Slashdot preferences and turn off mails about moderation of your comments. Don't go back and look at how your comments were moderated. They're exactly that kind of stimulus.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Is reading an addiction? Most people do it alot, and have for many years. It can be for practical uses, or for pleasure. Actually, most of my time on the Internet is spent reading. If I wasn't allowed to read anything for a week, I would feel deprived. Finding stuff online to read just happens to be more convenient for me. Same with the phone vs. IM. Does that mean I'm addicted? Now games are a different matter...
Adventures in Shaanxi
"Alcoholism is the only disease you can get yelled at for having. 'Dammit Otto, you're an alcoholic.' 'Dammit Otto, you have Lupus'. One of these just doesn't sound right".
- Mitch Hedberg
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
ADD, et al, have actual _genetic_ causes. If there is some gene in our body that makes us more prone to internet addiction (that isn't also identified with any other particular condition) it may as well be considered a medical condition.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if there is a genetic corellation, it's probably exactly the same gene that would cause people to be more inclined to be addicted to almost anything else though.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Does checking Slashdot every 5 minutes mean I have a problem? I can stop anytime I want, I swear. I drive better when web surfing too, now give me my keys!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I happen to be a co-author of Addictionary: A Primer of Recovery Terms and Concepts from Abstinence to Withdrawal, and we did not include Internet Addiction only because it was published shortly before the Web became popular.
The best way I have found to explain addiction is as a regulation problem. A "normal" drinker might have too much to drink at a party, and then, whether they have any consequences or not, decide "I won't do that again for a long time." And they don't.
A "normal" eater has too much to eat at Thanksgiving, feels stuffed and uncomfortable for a while, and then returns to a reasonable diet. A "normal" game player sees that they are spending too much time playing games and moves back to more moderate behavior.
An addict finds it much more difficult to regulate excessive behaviors. If you buy that this is due to some kind of brain chemistry problem, then you will be more likely to call it a disease. Many people have difficulty thinking something could be an addiction unless some drug is ingested or injected, but gambling addiction seems a lot like any other addiction. Gambling, extreme sports, exercising, computer gaming, or other activities can in fact release neurotransmitters just as alcohol or drugs can.
A non-addicted person finds it much easier to regulate and back off (return to other pursuits) while the addict finds it increasingly difficult to turn away from the addictive substance(s) or activities. Medical disorder? Your call.
They were never scientifically proven to be anything. The definition of what was considered a disease was set and then things were checked against it. The definitions are what changed, not the scientific process. Being a drunk was considered normal and only the lower classes got drunk a lot so it wasn't worth analyzing. Then when they did start analyzing it they found physical effects, withdrawl and mental addiction.
Look at what happened with Pluto, it was a planet, now it isn't. Did Pluto change? Of course not, it is the definition of what a planet is that has changed.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I think it was that damn StumbleUpon FF extension that pushed me over the addiction edge. I just can't stop clicking it to see what's next!
Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
By that logic we shouldn't treat AIDS because people who get it tend to have character flaws that put themselves in at risk situations.
Or the common cold because of character flaws of bad personal hygiene.
It seems that the real problem is not necessarily an addiction to the internet, but an addiction to the things the internet provides. Everything described in TFA is already available outside of the 'net. Porn, gambling, shopping, whatever it may be has long established traditions in our culture. The internet is just the messenger. These people need to get help for their real problems. Is there a treatment option for "Stupidity"?
I think the simple answer is: if gambling addiction is a medical condition, Internet addiction (i.e. the state where you feel withdrawal) also is. If we're not to consider gambling addiction to be such a condition, "Internet addiction" isn't either. I think the two are very closely related to each other anyway. Playing a game and feeling the reward from progress or gambling and occasionally (of course -- far too rarely, logically speaking) winning and getting the urge to continue thanks to that, is there a big difference really?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Yes, but it goes further than that. Once it's officially a disease, the money kicks in.
Grant money to study it. Federal money to treat it. The big insurance boondoggle over covering its treatment. Of course, labor will insist that you can't be fired for catching a cold, right? Then you get the ADA brigade insisting that the poor sufferers of this disease should have "fair access" to strip clubs, restaurants, and sporting events without being harassed by constant reminders of the presence of alcohol. We'll get telethons and benefit concerts (Sot-Aid '09) and special in-school programs ("Why Can't Johnny Drink?") and maybe vomit-colored ribbons for Hollywood celebrities to wear on awards shows ("Here's to you, Mel") and high-profile lawsuits against makers of cold medicine, mouth wash, and vanilla extract for "negligently" slipping alcohol into their products and PC-police storm troopers excoriating writers for writing crass, insensitive drunk jokes based on taboo stereotypes ("Not all drunks puke on their shoes, you know!").
Good times ahead.
Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
I do. I spend lots of time at work surfing the Internet, reading /., etc. instead of working. I really ought to quit, but can't muster the willpower. I've also been pigging out the last few months. I'll probably have to hit rock bottom like addicts do (have a heart attack and/or get fired). I don't consider it an addiction, though, just good old-fashioned laziness.
...just like viewing pr0n ...just like smoking ...just like being gay
You can always choose to stop, it's just that most aren't willing to make that choice.
"No physical symptoms" you say ?
I believe that behavioural problems as a result of withdrawal count as physical symptoms. Some people like to say that marijuana isn't addictive. While I tend to agree with this stance, I also accept that most people do in fact consider it an addictive substance. Some draw the line between "mentally" and "physically" addictive by saying that unlike heroin, which can make you actually sick, give you shivers etc... marijuana just creates behavioural problems as a result of the withdrawal.
But where do you draw the line ? If I choose to suddenly give up pot after two years of hardcore use every day, I not only get cranky, irritable, moody, aggressive, psychotic, but I might even get a headache, suffer from insomnia, and feel the compulsion to substitute another addiction in order to ease my "pain".
Surely these things are physical symptoms. Headache and insomnia definitely are. Mood swings and psychotic behaviour, while mentally-based, are still physical in the sense that they can be measured in terms of brain chemistry, and would show up on various brain scans which measure chemical and electrical activity.
All these symptoms can be associated with internet withdrawal just as easily as marijuana withdrawal. I guarantee you that if you measured the brainwave/electrical activity of a person's brain who was suffering from internet withdrawal, you would see abnormal activity. Does this not qualify as a "physical symptom" of withdrawal ? Just because it doesn't make you vomit, does not make it any less a "physical symptom".
There's a big difference between "psychological" and "physiological" symptoms and I think it's important to realise that withdrawal from something like the internet can cause both just as easily as withdrawal from marijuana, amphetamines etc.
Having said all that, the topic of this article is not whether the internet is addictive, but whether that addiction is a MEDICAL CONDITION. The author clearly indicates that the internet's addictive potential is assumed, and poses the question of medical basis as an extension of this.
Many people in this thread have tried to suggest that labeling it as a medical condition immediately makes it a "disorder" or "disease" and therefore something which we are incapable of having any control over. This is NOT a valid conclusion to reach ! What is being asked is whether the simple fact of being addicted to the internet has an effect on you which is measurable via medical criteria. If an addictive habit or pastime affects you MEDICALLY, then it is a Medical Condition to be addicted to this activity.
Noone apart from the trolls are trying to say that just because we label internet addiction as a medical condition that it will instantly become an EXCUSE for any particular type of behavior, or that we are recognising it as something unavoidable that we have no control over such as a disease.
This is why alcoholism is NOT a disease or disorder, but ADD IS. ADD is something the affected person has no control over. They can try and control how it affects them, but they cannot simply choose to "turn off" the condition, or more importantly, to NOT GET the condition in the first place.
Because alcoholism is an addiction, we cannot "turn it off" once we have it. That's what addiction means. However, we can choose not to suffer the addiction in the first place simply by not engaging in an activity (excessive drinking) which will cause ourselves to BECOME addicted. Regardless of whether some people are more PRONE to addiction or not, the fact is, we can still avoid becoming addicted in the first place by simply not drinking, or not drinking excessively (where excess is defined as the point at which the addiction occurs). Similarly, we can choose NOT to become addicted to the internet by limiting our exposure to it, choosing how we use it, and by monitoring how it influences the rest of our life.
A disease is something we cannot choose to avoid. A disease is something over which we
I'm with you. God forbid we actually admit we enjoy it.
{And I could ramble for days about my thoughts on the disease model.)
Sweet informative mod.
Seriously. I've been thinking of writing one myself but haven't a clue how to start.
Spec:
1 - U can set time limits, or Finish times for each day of the week.
2 - It tracks your usage on that day.
3 - It gives you 5 minute and 1 minute warnings when you are about to hit the limit.
4 - When you hit the limit you have to enter a randomly created 25 digit code to get another 5 minutes browsing, and so on.
I can seriously considermyself adicted.. as i should have gone to be hours ago and have to be up for work soon. Tired... so tired..
Thank God!
I myself have been showing disturbing signs of being compulsively human. I've noticed that I feel an urge I simply cannot control to be social. This really began to scare me when I tried not to talk and found that after a mere seven hours - seven hours! -- I said, "Howya doin'?" to the bagger at the supermarket. I didn't want to. It just slipped out. I couldn't control myself. Ever since, I've given in to my urge - yes, I know, I'm sick - answering the phone when it rings, responding not only to questions but to mere pleasantries, and even initiating conversations when they weren't strictly required.
It's a nightmare. And it gets worse.
it's not just that when I'm with others, I - ugh! - participate in destructive social rituals like caring what people are saying. Even when I'm alone, kind thoughts about other people invade my consciousness. I feel an impulse to wonder what they're thinking and what matters to them. I try to focus on computing pi or to remember the 1955 Dodgers starting lineup, but I just can't shut out those images and feelings.
Sometimes - and I'm so ashamed to admit this - I use the Internet to sate these shameful urges.
Admitting all this in public is, I can only hope, the first step towards healing.
"Net Usage Item"
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/225/
"Usage Counter"
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3482/
Not exactly what you're looking for, but maybe a start?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
> Attorneys say recognition by a court -- whether in this or some future
> litigation -- that Internet abuse is an uncontrollable addiction, and not
> just a bad habit, could redefine the condition as a psychological
> impairment worthy of protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.'
An addiction has a biological definition, which includes re-regulation of the number of receptors based on the presence or absence of a substance that mimic or blocks neurotransmitters (or, technically, hormones, which are frequently the same chemicals as neurotransmitters, but outside the brain). The law can, and does, ignore such things as scientific definitions, such as when they instead use the entirely non-psychological term "instanity". Far be it from them to let people who know the field tell them anything.
> The condition could even make it into the next edition of the American
> Psychiatric Association's DSM, making it a full-blown neurosis.
Neurosis is an out dated term. It's from Freudian theory, which has so far failed to have any experimental support. The DSM does not use the term, except perhaps in historical context.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I'm noticing a lot of skepticism about calling this a disease.
Addiction is a mental condition. It has real, physical symptoms and causes. It can be more problematic than many other serious neurological disorders. I suggest you doubters take a few neuroscience classes before forming a solid opinion on this.
One of the problems with addiction is that there can be many bases for it... Many typical drugs will produce similar end results in the brain (through alternate methods - [some] drugs are typically more direct in their addiction inducing nature) as a wide variety of activities ranging from gaming, to porn, to "the internet" and pretty much anything else someone intensely enjoys.
On the other hand, this presents a dilemma. I haven't been in classes for a while, but if I remember correctly, the only way to really test for an addiction is to see how badly someone fucks up their life (DSM requires several key things like the effect it has on work, sleep, and other needs). This, combined with the fact that different people will be predisposed to addiction (and perhaps different types of addiction) at different levels... It makes it hard to tell if it really is an addiction.
But then, you need to ask yourself... Before we knew what AIDS (insert other diseases here as well) was, was it not a disease?
It's the disease, ya know. I can't help it. Please excuse parent. He's got a disease known FoPS -- Forthright Posting Syndrome. He knows not what he does...
Damn! I missed the opportunity for an excellent pun! I should've named it FoPos (faux pas...)
OTOH, if there truly is an addiction in this case, the lawyer is a textbook "enabler" because he's trying to shield the addict from the consequences of his actions.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
It wouldn't be a huge surprise, with a recent Stanford study showing that 14% of people state it would be 'hard to stay away from the Net for even a few days in a row."
I find it hard to stay away from my car for even a few days in a row. Am I addicted?
I guess the Greens would say yes ...
Seriously, that is not the way it was for me...... I was held down and internet was forced on me by a magical leprechaun who drove a 97 Ford flying carpet. Same with beer except the gnomes made me drink. IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a disease!
It's all true. God's an astronaut. Oz is over the rainbow, and Midian is where the monsters live.
When people talk about addiction in the popular sense (I'm not a doctor or a psychologist, so I don't speak with special authority) they're refering to at least a couple different things. Obviously
1. Physical addiction -- where stopping the activity causes actual physical withdrawl symptoms; i.e. smoking tobacco, abusing opiates, etc.
2. Psychological addiction -- where the activity causes the person to fail where they otherwise would succeed, particularly in maintenance of human relationships and in fulfillment of work responsibilities. We also usually mean that the behavior is socially unacceptable, and that the person is unhappy about it.
The first is quantitatively, experimentally verifiable. The second is more difficult, and where the controversy lies. Remember those introductory psych courses back in college? They told us that a lot of what determines what a disorder is was tied to the social beliefs and patient attitude. Two examples: 1) self flagelation is a normal religious practice in some cultures, but would look like illness here. 2) Believing God is sending you messages through a statue or icon is not considered an illness. Believing president Bush is sending you messages through a statue or icon probably would be.
Additionally, people will mean "addicted" to mean they engage in a behavior to an extent which they regret later. Under that sort of popular definition, we're all addicted to almost everything.
If I get fired for it, then yes,it is a disease and I'll sue. Until then though, it isn't a disease any more than doing any normal activity that you enjoy.
"For example, homosexuality was scientifically proven to be a disease before the 70's."
care to cite one scientific example?
It may have been a disease by litigation; meaning the courts have called it a disease, but that is different then scientifically proven.
A good example of the is 'building sickness' or mold.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you asked people to go without human contact for a period of time.. people NEED social interaction, it is bred into us, and the internet (albiet dijointed somewhat) gives us that fix...
seriously. All those World of Warcraft addicts are on unsupervised computers at home. Tell me they aren't multitasking their online gaming addiction with masturbation at the computer? Sexual release is a very powerful drug: http://www.mcmanweb.com/love_lust.htm
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
A pattern of Internet use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period: 1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following: * A need for markedly increased amounts of time on Internet to achieve satisfaction. * Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of time on Internet. 2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either A or B below: * (A) the characteristic withdrawal syndrome, 1, 2 and 3 below 1. Cessation of (or reduction in) Internet use that has been heavy and prolonged. 2. Two (or more) of the following, developing within several days to a month after Criterion: o (a) psychomotor agitation o (b) anxiety o (c) obsessive thinking about what is happening on the Internet o (d) fantasies or dreams about the Internet o (e) voluntary or involuntary typing movements of the fingers 3. The symptoms in Criterion 2 cause distress or impairment in social, occupational or another important area of functioning * (B) Use of Internet or a similar on-line service is engaged in to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms. 3. Internet is often accessed more often or for longer periods of time than was intended. 4. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control Internet use. 5. A great deal of time is spent in activities related to Internet use (for example, buying Internet books, trying out new WWW browsers, researching Internet vendors, organizing files of downloaded materials). 6. Frequent talks about the Internet in daily life. 7. Important family, social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced in duration and/or frequency because of Internet use. 8. 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 (for example, sleep deprivation, marital difficulties, lateness for early morning appointments, neglect of occupational duties, or feelings of abandonment in significant others).
Psychology is one thing but the emphasis on so-called modern psychiatry seems to be that of alleviating one's self of personal responsibility while emphasizing pharmacotherapeutics.
I'm very sorry here, but all you're referring to here is the difference between a physical and a psychological dependency, and both are very real forms of addiction.
Again you are just reframing the question. I don't care about your negative connotations! If internet addiction is just "Man's natural tendency to fulfill his desires", then wouldn't we all be addicted. Why do some people exhibit "selfish" traits, or "laziness", while others are altruistic or highly productive?
I don't think "using the internet" (an umbrella term, to say the least) is necessarily antisocial. I've found that I use it when I can't actually interact with people, but still want to feel connected to them. I like websites that frequenly update not only because there are new things to read and learn, but it makes me feel like there is someone on the other end of the line. Even if it is simply a MySQL flip past 'now()'.
...
Think about the fastest growing parts of the internet: social networking, video sharing, along with the old standby's, blogs and instant messaging - it's all about connecting to people. I don't think humans are any more addicted to the internet than they are addicted to being around other humans
Take a look at my post. Thanks for making /. a truly wonderful place.
While a constant connection at work is useful, it as also a tempting distraction, but it certainly not an addiction. However, try simply unplugging the ethernet cable and see how much real work you can get done.
You might say, well, that won't work because you can easily plug the cable back in and you're addicted again. Try it, and you'll see that you'll keep working at the task at hand 9 times out of 10 whenever you feel the internet urge.
This method requires you to actually think about whether another check of you email is actually a good use of your time.
"Follow me" the wise man said, but he walked behind.
Since I usually get bashed for using wiki as a source, here's a shitload of links
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It's everyone elses fault but mine.
...this is like saying I'm microwave addicted because I use it everyday. For those who can't cook, one might say they were 'addicted' to the microwave (maybe they can't live without it). Maybe we're addicted to gasoline -- can't go for too long without a refuel. I, for one, am addicted to clothing. I feel very nervous without it in public and I'm always looking for my next fix. In short, perhaps we can't always attribute addiction to things we use very commonly.
A major new development that ushers in a new age is not something that can be shrunk back down to a page in DSM. The Information Age is here. The usage range goes from zero "I hate those goddamn computers" to the extensive use we are discussing here.
If a non-work activity is interfering with work, then name the problem very specifically.
"This person is hooked on paid sex chat services that are interfering with work." This is NOT an 'internet addiction', because then they could just change delivery mechanisms to their cell phone while their breaks lengthen. Get the person counseling so they don't have to discuss sex with outsiders at work.
If someone is not breaking work policies, then it becomes even more unclear. So some guy likes to spend 8 non-work hours a day playing MMORPGs. Okay. What's your point? Is someone else a better person because they like to do 'manly stuff' like fishing and working on their truck?
Plus there's tremendous risk to get certain people tagged with a medical label for dubious reasons, because all kinds of consequences then arise.
We have to make sure the inflammatory media doesn't brainwash people with this ruse.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Have you seen those "Restless Leg Syndrome" commercials? How bout you !@#$ing use your legs, maybe, I don't know, take a hike? Then your legs wouldn't be restless. Patient: I'M CURED, DOC! Doctor: Wonderful. So the 3 prescription medications I put you on helped, eh? Patient: No, I took a hike! But those pills, man, they're wonderfully addictive. Hey can I get refill?
How rude! [note to moderators: Please mod parent "flamebait".
Although I don't personally believe that it's true, let's suppose for the sake of argument that internet addiction could be considered legitimate. Although it has become increasingly rare in this ever-more litigious society, it is possible to be fired for an addiction, especially when it impinges on your ability to do your job. Alcoholics and drug addicts (legal and not) are often fired once their addiction is discovered, and it's usually discovered simply because it prevents them from performing sufficiently well at their place of employment. The reason they can be fired is because (hypothetically) they could choose to go into rehab of some kind, and their choice not to do so is relevant. So, if you couldn't control your internet addiction and it kept you from being able to do your job, you could potentially be fired. That makes sense to me.
However, if you count internet addiction as a disability, suddenly workplaces will be required to keep you on even if they find out about it. You can't fire someone for being restricted to a wheelchair, or having OCD, or being HIV-positive. Granted, your employer may, for instance, find a position for someone in an office instead of, say, manual labour, but your boss would have serious legal problems if they fired you for having a disability. So if internet addiction were recognized as a disability, nobody could fire you for it. The problem is, in this day and age, most businesses are highly computerized, so finding a position for someone that doesn't use a computer at all would be remarkably difficult.
So I say it may be an addiction, but for God's sake don't call it a disability, especially a legally-recognized disability. Stupid things happen in upper-management heads when something is called a disability. For example, at a friend's place of work, he had to actively argue against an employee being transferred to reception. The upper-level management couldn't understand why you wouldn't want someone with Tourette's syndrome being the first point of contact for your customers.
Having a disability does not mean that you are inferior, but it does mean that there are some things you simply can't do. However, when something is legally recognized as a disability, in an effort towards equality, too many people try to fit a square peg into a round hole. If someone did not have Tourette's, but had a potty-mouth, would you put them in a receptionist's role? If someone was not in a wheelchair, but was not strong enough to lift heavy boxes, would you hire them as a mover?
Note to mods- Mod parent "hypocritical"
Usually, yes, I'd agree with this.
If you get lung cancer because you smoked cigarettes knowing full well the whole time that cigarettes tend to cause lung cancer then yes, you're clearly to blame for this. Nowadays that's pretty much everyone, though in the past before we knew that cigarettes caused lung cancer I find it harder to say that someone should be held accountable for such a thing.
But here's the thing: this doesn't follow from any of the rest of your post. Yes, people need to be responsible for their actions. But this doesn't mean that lung cancer isn't a medical condition. Why should internet addiction be any different? Because it deals with the brain, and the brain is more complicated than the lungs?
The ADA is a stupid law. Medical conditions like "internet addiction" make this obvious, but why should it be any different if the medical condition is lung cancer caused by smoking, or paraplegism caused by drunk driving, or blindness caused by staring at the sun?
How about the person has big assignments to submit and sits at his computer to work and then spend 4 hours on Slashdot. This is much more destructive to a persons career than getting drunk. Drunks at least make new friends. I know internet addiction is real because it has destroyed my life. e.g. Tomorrow I have to submit a final paper which is 40% of my grade and I am typing comments on Slashdot. I dont even have the luxury of getting away from the internet as I need to use it to do the research. Wish I was a drunk. I could just lock away my bottles and get on with my work.
**Life is too short to be serious**
The brief mention that he had PTSD may indicate the true problem. There may be a connection between the episodes of panic attacks related to PTSD and addiction to activities that supply subliminal stimulation caused by exposure to Subliminal Distraction.
a l_Operant_Conditioning.htm
_ can_do.htm
Working for IBM it is likely he uses a cubicle thus the exposure must be elsewhere unless he modified his workstation.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/modern_cubical.htm
PTSD is a problem that is suspected in many cases.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/PTSD.htm
The phenomenon is actually operant conditioning.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/Subliminal_Accident
Perform this psychology demonstration to understand how the problem happens.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/a_demonstration_you