China Defines Internet Addiction

narramissic writes "Three years after the first clinic dedicated to Internet addiction opened in Beijing, Chinese doctors have now officially defined it as an ailment. Those afflicted with this ailment spend six or more hours a day online and exhibit at least one of the following symptoms: difficulty sleeping or concentrating, yearning to be online, irritation, and mental or physical distress. Do you meet the criteria? You're in good company: About 10 percent of China's 253 million Internet users exhibit some form of addiction to the medium, and 70 percent of those people are young men, an official Xinhua News Agency report said."

Comments

Addicted to being human, wanting freedom

[polyomninym]

I think someone made this point a long time ago in a comment: If you were as oppressed in your daily life as the Chinese, you might spend a lot of your time where you can be "free" in some form of context, social, MMO, whatever. It's not always about escape, there is also immersion and just plain wanting interaction. We all know that anything can become physically addictive, and whether or not some term is coined for those things or not, it's simply human nature at work.

Re:Addicted to being human, wanting freedom

[Sinbios]

Bullshit. Speaking as an ex-average Chinese, the average Chinese doesn't feel oppressed at all. Government control of everything is and always has been the norm, even before the communists. In fact, nationalism is so ingrained in the culture that the people often feel the government is justified in doing most of the things Western audiences get their panties in a knot over.

Re:Addicted to being human, wanting freedom

[Sinbios]

I personally have never felt oppressed, and my parents have never complained about the government. In fact, they love it so much they could usually rationalize any negative press about the government away. Trusting the government to do the right thing was a way of life; for most people it was the only way they knew and they lived happily by it. Of course, the media usually projects the government in a rather positive light, but hey, it keeps the people happy. The only thing I dislike the Chinese government for is the education system, where nationalism and reverence of communist heroes were ingrained at an early age.

From TFA, the Chinese government is not limiting anyone's leisure activities, rather Chinese doctors have formally defined Internet addiction. This is likely a product of the cultural sentiment of abhorring excess in any form and living life by a framework of rules (three square meals a day, eight hours of sleep, etc.), which prolonged hours surfing the web obviously tends to disrupt. Another factor is since the Internet is a rather new development in China, most users are teens and 20-to-30-somethings. People beyond this age group tend to be very traditional, and tend to look down on all the shiny new technology stuff that they don't get (isn't this a problem in the West too? Maybe to a lesser degree.) I know my mother always bugs me when I'm watching too much TV/on the computer too much/reading too many books (I used to average about ten a week back in high school, so I guess that qualifies as excess for her), and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the government.

I don't quite understand your question regarding the status quo.

My family left China because my father thought he could have better opportunities in America, and later Canada. How wrong he was. He's back in China now, and won't stop going on how about how his old buddies have all struck it rich during the rapid economic development, and how he could have been a lot better off it he stayed behind. Personally I think I've become a more well-rounded person than if I had stayed in China, but I wouldn't mind living or working there once I complete my degree, especially since fluency in English could apparently command quite a premium.

Addiction

[mfh]

Seriously conflicted here. Addiction should never encompass anything that the bulk of society uses every day. I would imagine that the fundamental definition for any addiction should include a majority of negative repercussion, or at least that the addiction would cause the person's ultimate doom.

Look at alcoholism. Approximately 2% of alcoholics get Korsakoff's Syndrome, which ultimately destroys the person's sense of reality while Thiamine B6 is absent from the 3rd & 4th ventricle of the brain long enough for damage to erode/reconfigure brain cells. There is no parallel result in internet addiction, apart from mood swings and perhaps suicide attempts, but these are all mostly related to social mishaps online. Internet abuse does not cause anything like Korsakoff's.

Drug addiction, seems to all fit.

Alas, where a parallel could exist would be with sex addiction, although one could argue that the STD's cause your doom.

About the only thing Internet Addiction could cause is An Hero Syndrome (NSFW).

Medically, there could be serious degenerative disorders as a result of being fixated in one place for long periods of time, or perhaps dietary issues from eating and drinking the worst possible food in order to have more time online, but again that's all a bit of a stretch.

If I had to guess, I would say that the term Internet Addiction is a misnomer. This is more aptly that people who struggle to get back online crave attention because their own lives are sparse or deficient in areas of socialization, so they feel powerful online and therefore need it.

I think there is a long way to go on this subject and China's efforts, while interesting, are not quite there yet.

Bad term?

[Alarindris]

IMHO, an addiction should have some physical counterpart. If it's strictly mental, it's just a bad habit.

For example, an alcoholic will get the DT's if they don't drink. A heroin addict will convulse and sweat if they don't get their fix. A cigarette smoker will get headaches, tremors, and an increased appetite without their smokes. I should also mention that alcoholics and some other drug users, when quitting cold turkey, can actually die from withdrawal.

Take away and addicts internet and what, they read the paper or watch TV instead? That's not an addiction, sorry. Take the internet away from an 'internet addict' for a week and they will have found other things to do. A drug addict will still be thinking about his drugs... for months and even years.

I should mention I smoke cigarettes, I'm a recovering alcoholic and have had various drug addictions when I was younger and stupider. I use the internet all the time and even play WoW, but it's hardly an addiction and don't see any possible way it could be classified as such unless there are marked differences in brain chemistry or something like that.

Re:Good job parroting a popular sentiment.

[descalco]

With any due respect, I am driven to point out the abuse of the term "literally" in the above post. Unless the left hemisphere and right hemisphere are launching action potentials at each other across the corpus callosum and exacting violence upon each other, nothing is "literally" becoming a civil war inside of anyone's head.

Furthermore, all habits involve rewiring of neural circuitry. Some drug habits induce a physiological dependence, which is not to imply that psychological dependence is not physiological, but rather than psychological dependence does not involve the body going into a sort of shock. Take a person off of heroin cold turkey, and there is the possibility of death.

Regardless of the type of addiction, every addiction is a function of the lack of volition. It can be theorized that this is the result of a weakened cingulate gyrus which has been posited as a potential "seat of volition" within the brain.

Regardless of the neuro-correlates, we are responsible for our decisions. And if we fail at being responsible, we are responsible for making ourselves responsible for our decisions.

Furthermore, it is important to take context into consideration when identifying a pathology. Social structures exist that may in themselves be responsible for pathological behaviors, and in some cases, pathological behaviors may not be pathological but entirely adaptive. This does not change the diagnosis of a disorder (which is based entirely on symptomatology and has nothing to do with etiology), but it does bear significance.

That is all

/uselessopinion .Sean