Category: Health and Wellness
Over the last decade or so, there's been something of an... well... addiction to calling any sort of overuse of a product an addiction. So we've seen email addiction, web addiction, online porn addiction, video game addiction, internet addiction, and mobile phones or other gadget addictions among other things. More often than not, it seems that the calls to label these things as an addiction isn't fueled by any actual addiction, but by psychologists or psychiatrists looking to build a practice treating people who play too much World of Warcraft, rather than drug addicts. When you dig deeper, nearly all of these "technological addictions" don't really appear to be addictions to the technology, but rather a symptom of some other issue (such as depression) that manifests itself by focusing an inordinate amount of time on some technology. Focusing too much on the symptom, by falsely labeling it an addiction, could lead to poor treatment, as the focus is on treating the symptom, rather than the actual problem.
Yet, some psychiatrists have been pushing hard to have internet addiction officially classified in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). We had thought that these silly ideas had been shot down, but apparently not. The American Psychiatric Association recently proposed its new changes for DSM-5, the first update since 1994. And, unfortunately, internet addiction is being considered -- though almost no one thinks it will make it in (gambling addiction, on the other hand...). What's troubling is that the door is being opened to classifying such behavioral issues as addictions.
Thankfully, at least some in the profession are quite worried about this. An opinion piece at Psychology Today worries about this decision to append the addiction label, noting that even though it offers an opportunity for him to make more money, it may make it harder to actually help people:
As someone who makes his living as a psychotherapist I know I should shout, "Bravo DSM-5 addiction workgroup!" After all, if "behavioral addictions" makes it through field trials into the eventual manual it will open a a whole new market. Maybe I could even franchise "Internet addiction" clinics to funnel tons of insurance money into my pocket--after all, once "Internet addiction" is in the DSM insurance companies will pay to "treat" and I am sure there are lots of panicked well-insured parents out there who don't like that junior spends so much time playing World of Warcraft.
But I can't bring myself to come close to anything like that. Making "Internet addiction" an official diagnostic category is just wrong on so many levels, including, I believe, making it more difficult to get the right kind of help to those who have actually become painfully stuck online. Many people are turning from life lived to life online and they need help, but real help for real problems, not newly-minted addictions.
By sanctioning behavioral addictions the new DSM opens the diagnostic door to the full menu of confessional daytime TV problems: gambling, shopping, eating, playing World of Warcraft, visiting porn sites, chatting online, having sex with dozens of women with teased blonde hair (hello Tiger), getting too many tattoos, hoarding newspapers (addicted to print!), or whatever else comes along. Who knows, should the political tide turn Republican Senators might successfully plead they were not ruining the country, they were just suffering from "Anti-American Filibuster Addiction Disorder."
Medically sanctioning the category of "behavioral addictions" also changes how we will think about freedom and responsibility. Making bad choices, developing destructive habits, and attempting solutions to problems in living that then become serious problems themselves will all become less important as the locus of responsibility shifts from the person doing something to the something being done.
Let's hope common sense like the above prevail...
I'm sorry. I'm no psychologist, but I find it disturbing that some people can actually call this a mental illness. True, many people who spend nearly their entire lives online probably need to add some spice to their lives, but I still don't know how anyone can call it a mental illness. Great topic, Dan.
Having been through something kind of like this in my early to mid teens, which was quite recently, what I would suggest is for parents to keep a close eye on this, rather than treat your child as though they are sick, or doing something wrong, perhaps suggesting something else to do might help. You'd be surprised how many people spend too much time online mainly because they really don't know of anything else to do. While it really is the responsibility of the person in question, I think a push in the right direction and support from family members will help much more than seeking psychological help right away, as was the case for me. I see now why my mother took this course of action, but I was personally offended by her treating me like I had a drug addiction. Sure enough, when some opportunities sparked my interest, my internet usage went from about 12 hours a day to less than 4 hours. No therapy helped that along.
I have to disagree with the two of you. I see no difference between the person who's truly addicted to the net and one who's addicted to gambling, sex, porn, food or even drugs that aren't technically addictive. In the cases of those that are, of course, one could argue rightly that it's the drugs themselves forcing the users to go back to them. That certainly doesn't mean that the users shouldn't be held accountable and that they don't have any choice at all in the matter. But porn and slot machines don't give the body negative effects when they're not seen/used. All that said, these other addictions are certainly a real problem. I doubt that those suffering with gambling, food or sex addictions lead perfectly healthy and happy lives and I'm sure their families struggle with their obsession and how they're not around, lose money, gain wait, don't pay attention to them anymore and so on. But the same holds true for people who lock themselves away all day long on the net and who don't eat well because they're preoccupied with doing stuff online, don't talk to their families, don't feed their pets etc. Yes, the net can be replaced with something else and yes, t he problems themselves do need to be dealt with, but I fail to see how these can't all be considered addictions.
Okay. I think I'm confusing something in my mind here. So, if accessive internet use is an addiction, which I can't argue with, is addiction a mental illness?
On a show I watched about a year back, an intervener was trying to pry two young boys away from video games, noticing that they would play these games up to eight hours a day every day. On further time spent with the family, the intervener noticed that the parents were encouraging these children to play games so it would keep them out of their hair. There was not one word about suggesting something to do together as a family. The intervener suggested this to the parents. It took some time for the boys to get used to this, but once the family activities started increasing, the video game play decreased considerably. This is why I wonder how addictions such as TV, internet, and video games can be considered a mental illness if so many parents are actually aggravating the situation. How are children supposed to know that there is something wrong with this kind of behavior if the parents are encouraging it?
That works for children but what about for adults? I mean, surely we know by now what's a good idea and what's not. And also, I'm curious if these types of addictions are more previlent among those who are either housebound or who just don't go out much.
I'm sure they probably are, or indirectly caused by another issue.
I think that some addictions are caused by bordem, depression, and other issues, as well as being housebound. It can be either or because there are people who have families and jobs or school and end up losing it all because of addictions to the internet, drugs, or video games. I have heard stories of people getting divorced or breaking up, losing their jobs, and dropping out of school because of these things. It's really ridiculous.
As far as calling any addiction a mental illness, I'm gonna go with no on that one.
Definition of puritan: The fear that somewhere, someone will be happy - H. L. Mencken
Anything is labeled an adiction, it seems, if it is first, enjoyed with relish or fervor to the exclusion of anything else, and second, if it is not acceptable within a certain circle.
So ... with that kind of thinking - if it is thinking - labeling everything an addiction ... is an adiction?
Boot to the head!
I think, as far as labeling is concerned, there are addicts of almost anything. I don't agree with this, but I've heard of health addicts, food addicts, technology addicts, money addicts, cleaning addicts...ETC. It's ridiculous.
I agree with post 2, and again with rosie. A person who studies psychology, and other simular subjects, i can say this is not an mental illness. it doesn't even fit at all.
Okay, health addicts and cleaning addicts? Are these people sure it's an addiction and not a form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
I'm reasonably positive none of it is covered by most insurance carriers. And for that which is, it's the pits for the rest of us as just wants to get our kiddies' sickness and all insured.
I think people are far too quick to label people with a disorder, rather than work on why people rely on these things in the first place.
I personally enjoy the internet, particularly for communicating with friends, and finding books, and music.
However, I used to spend hours a day on it before I met my partner, and started attending university. Many people use it to fill in time, too.
I think the point of the article was to underline the fact that the people who seem to be 'adicted' to the internet are actually suffering from something else rather than actual adiction. I think the point is is that it's not really dealing with the real issue, whitch lies behind the internet adiction.
there's usually something behind every adiction, and working through that is the biggest step to beating any adiction.
It is called escapism...that is what we are talking about. Youu know, it's interesting, I often quip that the internet has taken my youth...but that's not the case. I was escaping reality because...well things took a bad turn. The point is, when we confront the actual issue we see that something like the internet is a smoke screen. We log on, check our email, and tell our msn (or irc chat) "friends" that we're doing okay.
Time keeper,
I'd appreciate it if you could please clarify something for me. You stated that gambling too much is not considered an adiction? I never knew this. So all those people who go to gamblers annonymous are treating nothing? My uncle who went through five marriages and had an inordinate amount of money flowing through his fingers had no problem? My friend's husband who had to go in to hiding because the big bad boys from atlantic city were after him for unpaid debts was hiding from
from a person who has been diagnosed with an adictive personality, here is my take. addicts make poor choices. it is the rare situation where some one actually held them down and made them do whatever it is that is taking over their life using an outside stimuli instead of inner resources to solve problems leads to alcoholism, drug addiction, and all the others.. so a non problem?
Too much internet sounds like a four p situation. That is a piss poor parenting problem. If young people are encouraged by example and experience that moderation in all things is the desired goal, then these problems would diminsh. of course then you would be unemployed as well.
It is a problem but there is an underlying issue at work. To much gambling is a simtum
turricane.
apart from the artickle in post 1 ( which i've just checked through and can't find what you're claiming) where did i write gambling is not an addiction.
(gambling addiction, on the other hand...).
ah that's in the artickle.
i didon't write that part.
I think the point of the article is that these things cover up other issues.
I totally agree. Honestly, could you see someone saying: "My life is really productive, so I think I'll spend all day on the internet?". Well, maybe if they said it sarcastically, but that sort of thing just doesn't make sense to me.
It makes sense to them...hence the issues.
I'm sure everybody is different, but I know for me, when I went through this...phase, I hated it, and I didn't, to any degree, think my life was productive. It was just a passtime to cover up my real feelings about my life.
That's the whole point...check my earlier posts...
I agree with you, Margorp. Some people seem to think that we should just dismiss the idea altogether. That wouldn't be good either, but logic would say that there is a reason behind any addiction, whether it would be internet, or drugs.
yup.
I thinkThe main issue with me is the name it and claim it phenomenon. You know, there are some folks who pick up the latest syndrome or addiction. Instead of realizing they have a problem,and trying to get over it, they now have an excuse for their bad behavior. Oh and we are suppose to be supportive and understanding.
Supportive, yes. I don't know about understanding, though. The only reason why many people will not do anything about a person's addiction is because it really has to be up to the person with the addiction to change. You can't change what you don't acknowledge. Once the person has decided to get on the road to recovery, then it is time to address what caused the addiction in the first place. That's where the understanding part comes into play.
It is difficult for a person to face a problem. It is quite humbling.
It really is. They really have to think highly of themselves as a person, and I don't mean they have to be egotistic or anything, but they really need to be secure enough that they can admit that they do have a serious problem that needs to be changed, and know how to go about bringing about this change.
Even if it is just a tiny problem, it is difficult.
Sometimes the smallest problems are the biggest problems.
Just a bump in the road can really jarr a person.
i used to spend time in the internet like crazy, but after i got a cat, i spend less time on the internet because i have something to lok forward. lol. but that didn't mean i was adicted to it. i usually spend like 4 hours or so on the internet depending on the stuff i'm doing and if it's important. but the big problem with internet addiction is if the person refuses to eat or sleep while using the internet. that's a big issue. i actually googled signs of addiction to internet and it said that the person doesn't stop thinking of computers and stuff, if the person refuses to eat or sleep, if the person dropps out of social activities and prefers the computer, etc. that's a big issue. another issue with that is once the person is not on the computer, the person gets overly anxious and can't wait to be on the computer. same thing goes with any addiction so i would go with yess up to acertain extent and only if that causes health problems. but otherwise i'd go with no if that doesn't cause major issues.
Adiction is serious shit.