Discussion of Internet Addiction as Mental Illness Resurfaces

Lone Writer writes "The editorial section of the American Journal of Psychiatry for March offers the opinion that Internet addiction is a 'compulsive-impulsive' disorder, and should be added to the official guidebook of disorders. The editorial characterizes net addiction as including 'excessive gaming, [online] sexual pre-occupations and e-mail/text messaging'. From the article: 'Like other addicts, users experience cravings, urges, withdrawal and tolerance, requiring more and better equipment and software, or more and more hours online, according to Dr. Jerald Block, a psychiatrist at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. Dr. Block says people can lose all track of time or neglect "basic drives," like eating or sleeping. Relapse rates are high, he writes, and some people may need psychoactive medications or hospitalization."

Comments

Re:What if your job requires it?

[Kandenshi]

The DSM(the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) typically uses when it causes clinically significant distress on the part of the person, or in their work, social, personal lives.

The DSM is usually reluctant to pathologize something unless it's really bothering the person themselves, or makes it impossible for them to live a normal life.

You have a tendency to check twice if the door to your house is locked after leaving? That's not really going to cause you major problems, and odds are you're not freaking out about it. Not OCD.
Have frequent compulsions to drive back home and check if your door is locked, occuring throughout the day, making you get fired from your job, ruining your social life and making you feel like crap? That might be more likely to get you that diagnosis.

You doing lots of e-mail for work is not likely to interfere with your ability to work. :P So you're fine.

Heroin junkies might not mind their heroin(though some do), but if it screws up their lives then it's something the DSM will look at.

Bloody psychiatrists are ruining medicine!

[swordgeek]

OK, first of all let's be clear on something: Internet "addiction" isn't addiction. Neither is sex addiction, shopping addiction, and so forth.
"Behavioral addictions" are mental in nature. True addiction is physiological.

Secondly, it should be trivially obvious that ALL of these so-called behavioral addictions are SYMPTOMS of some other root cause, often some manifestation of OCD. You can treat heroin addiction by removing the substance and healing the body (i.e. go through withdrawal and detox--nasty business, but fairly effective). You don't treat internet addiction by taking away the internet, you find what is driving the person towards addict-like behaviour, and solve that. Voila--internet addiction is a symptom.

I don't know why the psychiatry field is so determined to label all symptomatic behaviours as diseases, but they're not doing themselves any good.

Re:So how much is too much?

[psydzl]

It doesn't make sense to choose an arbitrary number, the central question is: Is it ruining my life? If some is on the Internet for every minute of their spare time, and the overall quality of their life is greater, or about the same as before the Internet, then no medical illness is present. However, if another person is failing to go to school or work, losing important relationships, and suffering other serious negative consequences, AND they cannot stop in spite of all the loss, that is probably an illness. Illness doesn't mean excessive use, it means very serious consequences, up to and including death. This is an uncommon illness, but probably not rare.

Re:Maybe

[ColdWetDog]

So, do we also need a category of book addiction? Or do we just need to get a reality check, and accept that people in a relatively affluent society are lucky to have the luxury to give up on sleep or food for a little while in order to pursue an interest?

Nope, we've got enough generalized "addiction" categories already. And we treat them the same. Drugs and counseling - same old saw.

But what you describe doesn't really fall into the "addiction" category if it's not materially interfering with the rest of your life. So what does that mean? Good question. In dealing with the spectrum of human mental illness you have to realize that it is spectrum. We all have personality "traits" and sometimes these traits can lead to problems. If they lead to serious and persistent problems, then it's a personality "disorder" and a problem. The dividing line can be pretty arbitrary. Just remember that some of the most influential people in history clearly meet current DSM criteria for one or another mental illness. As do nearly all of the people in an emergency room at 2:00 AM.

Re:What kind of drugs do they give out for this?

[causality]

This is what I said: "I don't really blame the companies for trying this. I blame the medical establishment and the general public for going along with it without some serious challenges to whether more medications are the best way to deal with our problems." Did you miss that "medical establishment" part? Reading comprehension is a useful thing!

And yes, I do place some blame on the "hustled"... just from a "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" standpoint. Their unrealistic, strong desire for magical instant solutions to deep and significant personal problems (which are often self-inflicted) is a big part of this; whether you or I enjoy hearing that is irrelevant.

Its not the drugs, its the money I worry about

[Shivetya]

I already know of a few mildly disabled friends who do nothing more than sponge off the government because of their disabilities. From rent controlled housing; not allowed to cost them more than 30% of their income; to free transportation to get even more benefits.

This is about creating another dependent class. About opening the doors to new lawsuits because if someone is addicted then their has to be someone causing it and if they have deep pockets the blame shifts from the one addicted to the one with the money (see cigarette suits - sorry, but we've known that truth since like, when, the 70s, yet people still act as if they were fooled - worse we let them vote?).

Some times with all these declarations of what is an addiction or what is a mental illness I begin to think Tom Cruise isn't such a bad guy

Re:Who defines "excessive?"

[Iron Condor]

The new definition for the word "addiction" is the same as the old word for "habituation".

No. You can have a habit for something that does no objective harm to you. But when YOU yourself realize that something is bad for you (like, apparently, you noticed that smoking is bad for you) and yet you STILL choose to continue the practice -- then you're addicted.

OK, what is the new word for physical addiction, like with heroin or alcohol, where you can die from not getting your drug?

It's not a "new word" -- this effect has always been called "chemical dependence". I don't know what vocabulary the unwashed masses use, but in all the years of my medscape subscription (15 now? wow.) I've never heard chemical dependence referred to as "physical addiction".

Of course every slashdotter knows that joe sixpack tends to mis-use jargon. Quite horribly, in fact. And when you correct him, he'll insist that "it was always called that way".