OMGZ!!1! Internet Addiction Is Not Listed In the DSM-IV!!

kellym78's picture

Can you believe that these people actually have rehab centers set up for this so-called disorder? It's not supported by any evidence, and lots of doctors oppose it as a diagnosis. Besides, all of the supporters of this "disorder" are probably just pissed off that they grew up with Atari instead of XBox. So what if a person never leaves their home or allows their relationships to fail because they need to get to the next skill level in WoW? I won't believe that this a problem until there is REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE--like inclusion in the DSM. If it's not there tomorrow--I'll just tell everybody that you are a liar for pretending that such a thing exists.

Here's a quote that shows that somebody just made this up all on his own, and now they even have people convinced that you need rehab for internet addiction!

Quote:
Internet addiction disorder (IAD) is a theorized disorder originally made as a satirical hoax.[1] by Ivan Goldberg, M.D., in 1995. He took pathological gambling as diagnosed by the DSM-IV as his model for the spoofed description...Despite opposition from many quarters, researcher Kimberly Young, Psy. D. is lobbying for the inclusion of IAD into the DSM-V, the next edition of the DSM. Some proponents believe that its inclusion would open the doors for private insurance companies to pay for Internet addiction counseling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction

For more evidence that this is just a bigot who hates RPGs and pr0n, read the following quotes. Hardly scientific evidence.

Quote:
"Regardless of the technical definition of Internet addiction, there is clearly something unique and powerful going on here," Greenfield says.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/addiction.html

Quote:
What Do I Do If I Think I Have It?

First, don't panic. Second, just because there is a debate about the validity of this diagnostic category amongst professionals doesn't mean there isn't help for it. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, help is readily available for this problem without needing to create all this hoopla about a new diagnosis.

http://psychcentral.com/netaddiction/

Quote:
Treating Internet addiction can only be done effectively, believes Dr. Dannon, if the condition is treated like any other extreme and menacing addiction. For example, a clinician could use talk therapy or prescribe medication such as Serotonin blockers and Naltrexone, which are also effective against kleptomania and pathological gambling.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/08/18/internet-obsession-or-addiction/1152.html

Their only "evidence" is an opinion based on questionable studies that compare it to other existing disorders! They even ADMIT that there is very little data!

Quote:
So far addictions have mainly focused on highs that are produced from the use of drugs or other external forces that affect the brain’s chemical responses. However it has recently been brought to the public’s attention that an individual can receive a similar kind of "high” from using the Internet. This malady has been termed Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD). The research for this disorder is fairly new and scarce, but the results leave something to mull over. It affects everyone involved with the “user,” and moreover there are a few psychologists who know how to treat it.

Since the craving people have to use the Internet unrestrained is a fairly new concept that has been brought to public attention just recently there has not been much research done in the field to date. And it is still a very debatable question whether it exists or not. Some say that the Internet is addictive to the point where it controls one’s life, others say that it is not the same as getting high or drunk to an extreme. Nevertheless the Internet is affecting the people who use it extensively whether it be called addictive or not.

Researchers who concur that the Internet is addictive have already established that the disorder develops into a dependency for the person; they experience tolerance and withdrawal affects(Ferris, par. 1). Similar to what an addict of any other substance goes through, and becomes just as isolated as them. Rejecting the real world and adopting the Internet as a route of escape to a mood altering experience (DeAngelis,2000)

In another research conducted by psychologist Kimberly S. Young,Ph. D., there were 496 heavy Internet participants who were compared to the clinical criteria for Pathological gamblers(Young, 1996, par. 1).The reason this was done was because Pathological gambling is considered the closest type of addiction to internet addiction since it involves failed impulse control without involving an intoxicant (Young, 1996, par. 1).

Treatment for people who have been diagnosed with Internet Addiction is very hard to find. First, one has to deal with finding a psychologist or a physician who will see eye to eye and acknowledge that the disorder is real, and not attributes to another disorder (King, 1996, par. 29). Then, there’s the lack of the psychologists’ knowledge of how to diagnose a treatment, and conduct the follow-ups for the IAD patients (King, 1996, par. 29). Going cold turkey can of course work for some, but not for everyone because it requires a lot of positive support and anti-depressants.

http://allpsych.com/journal/internetaddiction.html

What is wrong with people these days?!

Crap from bigots with no evidence

More crap from aforementioned bigots

These idiots just won't shut up

And finally... for the gullible people at whom this was aimed.

P.S. You are building a beast.

Atheist Books

Hambydammit's picture

Well, damn.  So much for

Well, damn.  So much for my new pimple cream.  I was going to market it specifically to gamerZ who eat nothing but potato chips and pizza while playing WoW 22 hours a day and ignoring even the most basic of social obligations.

Too bad none of those folks actually exist.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Quote: probably just

Quote:

probably just pissed off that they grew up with  Atari instead of XBox.

 

House of lies, Atari E.T is better than all the xbox games combined. 

 

I demand a peer reviewed article in gameinformer of how the xbox is better than the atari. 

Iruka Naminori's picture

Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

probably just pissed off that they grew up with Atari instead of XBox.

 

House of lies, Atari E.T is better than all the xbox games combined.

 

I demand a peer reviewed article in gameinformer of how the xbox is better than the atari.

Isn't there some kind of urban legend that Atari made too many ET cartridges and that they got buried out in the middle of the desert in Nevada somewhere? 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

Iruka Naminori's picture

This reminded me of the

This reminded me of the mini-game "Desert Bus" in a never-released Sega title.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_&_Teller's_Smoke_and_Mirrors#Desert_Bus

Wikipedia wrote:
Desert Bus is the best known minigame in the package, and was a featured part of Electronic Gaming Monthly's preview. The objective of the game is to drive a bus from Tucson, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada in real time at a maximum speed of 45mph, a feat that would take the player 8 hours of continuous play to complete, as the game cannot be paused.

The bus contains no passengers, and there is no scenery or other cars on the road. The bus veers to the right slightly; as a result, it is impossible to tape down a button to go do something else and have the game end properly. If the bus veers off the road it will stall and be towed back to Tucson, also in real time. If the player makes it to Las Vegas, they will score exactly one point. The player then gets the option to make the return trip to Tucson—for another point (a decision they must make in a few seconds or the game ends). Players may continue to make trips and score points as long as their endurance holds out. Some players who have completed the trip have also noted that, although the scenery never changes, a bug splats on the windscreen about five hours through the first trip, and on the return trip the light does fade, with differences at dusk, and later a pitch black road where the player is guided only with headlights.

Penn says, “The best part of that I think was an idea that was not mine, not Teller’s, and not Barry Marx, who designed the game with us. It was an idea by Eddie Gorodetsky, one of the producers on ‘Two and a Half Men,’ really funny guy. I think that Eddie G. is one of the funniest guys in the world"

Penn Jillette commented in his radio show that the overly realistic nature of the game was in response to Janet Reno and the controversy surrounding violent video games at the time. He also stated that there would have been a prize for the person or group to get the highest score in the game, also substantiated by the various "Desert Bus" contest materials prepared for the release of the game. Penn said that the prize "was going to be, you got to go on Desert Bus from Tucson to Vegas with showgirls and a live band and just the most partying bus ever. You got to Vegas, we're going to put you up at the Rio, big thing, and then, you know, big shows."[1] Although this contest did not happen, some of the people who have played the emulator enjoy posting their scores onto forums.

On November 23, 2007, comedy group LoadingReadyRun started a marathon game session of Desert Bus called Desert Bus for Hope to raise money for the charity Child's Play. The four-man team took turns playing the game continuously, with more hours added as more donations were made. As of the end of the event on November 28, 2007, $22,805 had been raised, including donations from Penn and Teller themselves.[2] The total play time for the effort reached four days and 12 hours. James Turner of LoadingReadyRun.com has played over 30 hours during the marathon session and holds the record for the longest session with breaks.[3] LoadingReadyRun had earned 6 points until they crashed. [4][5]

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

I think that some people

I think that some people just want an escape.  There is no question that people take it too far, but there is no question in my mind that those people will take SOMETHING too far whether it be a card game like Magic: The Gathering, an internet video game, a console video game, gambling.  People will find something to spend too much time on that will ultimately be deterimental to their life.

If anyone has IAD it would be me.  I spend way too many hours on the internet, it's part of my regular life.  I have it on my mobile, at work, at home, I do stuff for fun for education and for work all online.  But I don't think that I should be thrown on medication because I was at dictionary.com too many times in a day.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is something there, but I would think that all of these addictions to non-chemical things could probably be categorized  into the same general column and have it associated with the person rather than the activity.

Sapient's picture

Stumble comment that says

Stumble comment that says it best:

I am whatever you say I am, Kelly embraced it. She even called herself a bigot. Think. Grow. Learn.

Theism is disorder of the mind that is dangerous and needs to be overcome. We should all work together as a civilization to help overcome it. At the very least we need to stop taking our religious beliefs so seriously which are not very logical beliefs.

As a society we should hold each other up to a higher standard. We must speak boldly about religion, the religious need to know we care, and that their silly beliefs are silly.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Little Roller Up First's picture

Would I be correct in

Would I be correct in assuming that I may be addicted to the internets?

If you don't know why I ask this, look at my avatar. If you still don't know why I ask this, even after looking at the miniskirted nun to your left, don't worry - you are not addicted to the internet.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.

Little Roller Up First's picture

Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Isn't there some kind of urban legend that Atari made too many ET cartridges and that they got buried out in the middle of the desert in Nevada somewhere? 

It was New Mexico.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.

friendlyskeptic79's picture

Yes Kelly, I get what you

Fyi I'd appreciate if someone would remove the "theist" badge. I haven't been a deist for a while now. 

 

Yes Kelly, I get what you are saying. I think the point many people are trying to make, that still doesn't seem to be getting across is this: so there is such a thing as internet addiction. Does that mean everyone who uses the internet is an addict? That they all have mind disorders? That most or all of them need "help" or "medication"? Of course not. There are plenty of people who use the internet resposibly. I'm sure you yourself are among them.

The point is you guys often come off (not saying you do, this is just how you come off pretty often) as putting people Kent Hovind and Pat Robertson in the same category as people like Stephen Colbert or Al Gore. The former 2 clearly have serious problems. The latter two, not so much-they clearly don't let their beliefs get in the way of believing in science or treating non-xtians well, and they don't intertwine church and state. Also, what about all the people who have helped win the court cases against ID? Contrary to what some say it's not mostly atheists fighting for evolution in many of those cases-it's liberal theists, like scientist Ken Miller in the Dover case. And you can literally find many many cases like that (there was one featured on Penn & Teller's thing on creationsim is bullshit). And I think people just have a hard time when you say people like them have "mental disorders" and that they are "supporting the extremists". It's rather odd to hear that said and then see them actively fighting against them. I can definitely see how many liberal theists like this might be "irrational", but they certainly don't have "mental problems" or a "mind disoder". And yes I know that there are indeed plenty of moderates and even liberals who DO NOT do enough to fight the extremists. But it seems those are the only ones mentioned-the ones that do are ignored, and they are more than just a handful-there's plenty of theist secularists-look at Americans United for separation of church and state which unites theists and nontheist secularists.

People believe a lot of irrational things that they compartmentalize. There are still plenty who believe in astrology and witchcraft and homeopathy and even some old pagan gods. Europe is more secular when it comes to religion but there is plenty of new age stuff there. Some people, actually most people, are going to be irrational in some or another, and many are superstitious. It helps them cope with life I think. If you want to get rid of all that, and label everyone who does it as having a "mental disorder", you'll literally be putting about 90% of the human race in that category. No one is totally rational.

The thing to do is to get these beliefs down to levels where they may be silly, but essentially harmless-i.e. they have no political power, non-believers aren't persecuted, etc, like we've done with astrology (although there was Nancy Regean!). It's like the difference between having a social drink on weekends to decompress and being an alcoholic. You're not going to put them in the same category.

I think I've explained it as best I can, and I'm sure I'll get plenty of angry posts directed at me. The above reasons are what I've gotten from talking to many people who don't agree with some of your tactics (mostly non-religious btw)-and that is essentially the main reason why they don't.

I think Christopher Hitchens put it well in God is not Great: "Thoughtful believers can take some consolation too. Skepticism and discovery have freed them from the burden of having to defend their god as a footling, clumsy, straws-in-the-hair mad scientists, and also from having to answer distressing questions about who inflicted the syphilis bacillus or madated the leper or the idiot child, or devised the torments of Job. The faithful stand acuqitted on that charge: we no longer have any need of a god to explain what is no longer mysterious. What believers will do, now that their faith is optional and private and irrelevant, is a matter for them.  We should not care, as long as they make no further attempt to inculcate religion by any form of coercion." 

I do enjoy your blogs, especially your rebuttals to Dinesh.

Sapient's picture

friendlyskeptic79

friendlyskeptic79 wrote:

Fyi I'd appreciate if someone would remove the "theist" badge. I haven't been a deist for a while now. 

We'll add a deist badge to qualify your theism for you out of courtesy, but we regret to inform you that we refuse to reinforce the uninformed notion that deism is somehow seperate from theism.  God belief is theism, deists have a god belief.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

oh...darn...i`d better stay

oh...darn...i`d better stay away from U.S.....i know i`m sick/addicted and i have such a bad habbit of making others fall for my addiction aswell?

dos that make me some sort of a dealer now?lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VunDQbtNdg

 

a hint about my current addiction....fuckin work...8hours/day...i cant get enough of that stuff lately so i`m entring a critical stage...help...where`s my medicine 

Sapient

Sapient wrote:
friendlyskeptic79 wrote:

Fyi I'd appreciate if someone would remove the "theist" badge. I haven't been a deist for a while now.

We'll add a deist badge to qualify your theism for you out of courtesy, but we regret to inform you that we refuse to reinforce the uninformed notion that deism is somehow seperate from theism. God belief is theism, deists have a god belief.

 

 

uhh, perhaps your should read that again Sapient. He said he HASN'T been a deist for a while. 

I don't have any scientific

I don't have any scientific evidence, but from time to time I read something in the news about some person staying up for days on end on the net playing games or something, and eventually dying. It's rare, probably not enough to claim a whole disorder, but I don't doubt there is a possibility of 'internet addiction'. Do some people have withdrawals if they don't get access to the net for an extended period?

Tarpan wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if there is something there, but I would think that all of these addictions to non-chemical things could probably be categorized into the same general column and have it associated with the person rather than the activity.

Like gambling addiction? Is a gambler going to get addicted to the other non-chemical things or is it just gambling that's their problem?

Sapient's picture

cam wrote: Sapient

cam wrote:
Sapient wrote:
friendlyskeptic79 wrote:

Fyi I'd appreciate if someone would remove the "theist" badge. I haven't been a deist for a while now.

We'll add a deist badge to qualify your theism for you out of courtesy, but we regret to inform you that we refuse to reinforce the uninformed notion that deism is somehow seperate from theism. God belief is theism, deists have a god belief.

 

 

uhh, perhaps your should read that again Sapient. He said he HASN'T been a deist for a while.

 

That's a cool misread.  Sorry about that.  First time I've ever heard it go that way.  The theist and agnostic deist badge have been removed.

 

You are now free to run with the clouds and be one with the world.  Then watch some of this stuff.  Sticking out tongue   

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

 The internet is

 

The internet is reletavley new so it might take time to gather sufficient evidence to everyone satisfaction. But I believe the greatest proof people are totally addicted to the internet, is the fact that they are. I used to visit a lot of chat rooms and everytime I went there the same people where there for hours every day. A lot of times the rooms would have several people in them with absolutely no one talking.

 

I believe the internet has some kind of electro-magnetic pull and possibly subliminal messages are being sent through it. They control our mind through the addictive crap they put in fast food. Why not the internet? It's like another world. People are looking for an escape.

 

I also believe people are now addicted to cell phones. They are so afraid of being alone. People don't want to be alone because they might find out who they really are. They're afraid to listen to the voice of their inner thoughts.

 

It is also my observation that the internet brings out the worst in people. People behave so rudely in chat rooms, blogs, forums and youtube. They would never talk like that in person. People are becoming more and more angry it seems.

 

We lost our manners, respect, politeness and basic human curtesy long ago.

I meant some KIND of

I meant some KIND of electro-magnetic pull.

Archeopteryx's picture

I hope that some of this

I hope that some of this was sarcasm, but just in case. 

 

Incognitus wrote:

The internet is reletavley new so it might take time to gather sufficient evidence to everyone satisfaction. But I believe the greatest proof people are totally addicted to the internet, is the fact that they are.

That kind of support doesn't really work in the real world. I guess what I'm saying is that the reason I think most people on the earth have been taken by the body snatchers is because they obviously have. I mean, look at them.

Quote:
 

I used to visit a lot of chat rooms and everytime I went there the same people where there for hours every day. A lot of times the rooms would have several people in them with absolutely no one talking.

They might have been PMing one another. You also might have been in a room full of nothing but bots and moderators. Sometimes people stay logged in even when they are away from the computers. No big deal. 

 

Quote:

I believe the internet has some kind of electro-magnetic pull and possibly subliminal messages are being sent through it. They control our mind through the addictive crap they put in fast food. Why not the internet? It's like another world. People are looking for an escape.

I'm convinced that you're joking. Please let me be right, because this is good stuff. 

 

Quote:

I also believe people are now addicted to cell phones. They are so afraid of being alone. People don't want to be alone because they might find out who they really are. They're afraid to listen to the voice of their inner thoughts.

I have never owned a cell phone and am very happy about that. I have a lot of pet peeves when it comes to people and their cell phones, but I wouldn't consider cell phones a bad thing. People with cell phones just tend to... you know... be jackasses with them. I'm generalizing, of course. 

 

Quote:

It is also my observation that the internet brings out the worst in people. People behave so rudely in chat rooms, blogs, forums and youtube. They would never talk like that in person. People are becoming more and more angry it seems.

Johnathan Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory:

Quote:

Normal Person + Audience + Anonymity = Total Dickwad

It's because the internet provides a unique setting where people can say almost anything and almost always get away with it. While it is kind of unfortunate and annoying that some people pride themselves on taking advantage of that opportunity, I don't think that we can conclude the people in general becoming angrier. It just proves that people can't resist acting immature when they can get away with it. You don't need the internet to make that conclusion. When was the last time you got teepeed?

 

Quote:

We lost our manners, respect, politeness and basic human curtesy long ago.

I disagree.

 

 



I don't buy that the internet is addicting. It's just that there is a lot of shit to do and see and read on the internetz.

 

Kids love toys and play with them often, but they play with a lot of different toys. We don't say that kids are addicted to toys. There are just a lot of toys, and kids like most of them.

The internet is like a virtual toy store where plenty of the toys are free to play with, right there in the store! The internet isn't one giant doobie that we can't stop smoking. It's an acitivity center. If you're willing to poke around, you are almost guaranteed to find something on the internet that will keep your attention. Once you lose your attention there, you can probably find something else, and so on, and so on.

There is no such thing as internet addiction. You'd have to be more specific.  I'd be more likely to believe in WoW addiction than general internet addiction.

 (Apparently China has laws that prevent people from spending more than three consecutive hours on the net at a time, and MMOs like WoW are one of the reasons? Hm.)

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

RationalSchema's picture

Good job in pointing this

Good job in pointing this out Kelly!

This is such a problem in the mental health field. This is why I think our discussion of Theism as a Mental Disorder should be taken with extreme caution. A couple of things.

1. The DSM-IV is a crude diagnostic system and has so many flaws. That being said, the disorders in the DSM-IV have gone through more rigirous research and testing then this so-called IAD.

2. It appears that there is more of a problem with pornography then anything else. There is nothing to suggest that these individuals did not have already existing relationships problems that may have led them to flirt or look up porn on the internet.

3. How is looking up porn on the internet different then looking at Hustler or Penthouse?

4. Internet use is a behavior just like any other behavior. If an individual is having distress and problems and they think there use of the internet is contributing then they should seek treatment. However, this does not mean that they have a disorder or that there is not an underlying problem at hand. Some parents have trouble controlling themselves at child sporting events. Are we going to make a disorder called-Uncontrollable anger at sporting event disorder? No, but it is a behavior that is problematic that represents underlying problems.

5. The last thing we need more of in this society is more labels and more prescription drugs for them.

6. The last thing somebody needs for any type of addiction is a rehab. They are only useful in the short-term to remove an individual from the so-called addictive object. They have not been found to be anymore effective in treating any type of addiction then outpatient tx or natural recovery.

7. It was funny that part of the treatment for IAD was conducted Online!! I here that Betty Ford is offering tx in crack houses and bars.

8. This is a major problem for legitimate psychology/psychiatry. The real scientists, researchers, and clinicians are not brought into the media all too frequently. There are exceptions. The Oprah's of the world bring in these people that have just made stuff up out of their Ass and sprinkle a little truth in there to make it believable. The last thing we need is more Dr. Phils and Dr. Lauras.

9. I recommend a book if anyone is interested on this topic. It is called "One Nation Under Therapy" by Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Sattle. We have ignored in this country peoples naturally ability to overcome and manage problems. Yes, there are people that need help. But, just because something is wrong does not mean we need to push people into treatment.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."

Neither an addiction nor in need of rehabilitation, but...

Having been on and off the Net according to the situations that arise in my life (i.e. how many chances I get to do something I enjoy more and what demand is put on me to stay online), and cross-examining that with people around the world, friends, and their own testaments on the subject, I can easily come to the conclusion that some people, particularly those with a strong technological inclination and especially when they have little else (or the desire) to do, stay online a lot longer than the rest of the world.

Still, that does not only not prove what these hypocrites suggest, it also points to an entirely different direction: that most "Net junkies" are actually pretty normal and generally intelligent people who just get to a point where little else is appealing to them.

This, while certainly not like an addiction, shows that these people can and should have more opportunities to express themselves outside the Net, and that they can do so without the need of any sort of rehabilitation centre.

Who gives a flying f*ck about the DSM IV?

All the disorders listed in the DSM IV got there by a committee vote...somehow that doesn't impress me.

But if we do compare internet abuse/dependence to what the DSM IV has to say about substance abuse/dependence:

SUBSTANCE ABUSE:

One or more of the following:

* FAILURE TO FULFILL MAJOR OBLIGATIONS
* USE WHEN PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS
* RECURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS
* RECURRENT SOCIAL OR INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS

SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE (ADDICTION/ALCOHOLISM)

Three or more of the following:

* TOLERANCE
* WITHDRAWAL
* LARGE AMOUNTS OVER A LONG PERIOD
* UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO CUT DOWN
* TIME SPENT IN OBTAINING THE SUBSTANCE REPLACES
SOCIAL, OCCUPATIONAL OR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
* CONTINUED USE DESPITE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES

Now, change the word substance to internet and I know I would qualify as an internet abuser/dependent.

kellym78's picture

You're not qualified to

You're not qualified to make that assessment. Just because the criteria fit perfectly doesn't mean you can go around making up your own disorders. 

/sarcasm 

RationalSchema's picture

Anonymous wrote: All the

Anonymous wrote:
All the disorders listed in the DSM IV got there by a committee vote...somehow that doesn't impress me. But if we do compare internet abuse/dependence to what the DSM IV has to say about substance abuse/dependence: SUBSTANCE ABUSE: One or more of the following: * FAILURE TO FULFILL MAJOR OBLIGATIONS * USE WHEN PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS * RECURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS * RECURRENT SOCIAL OR INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE (ADDICTION/ALCOHOLISM) Three or more of the following: * TOLERANCE * WITHDRAWAL * LARGE AMOUNTS OVER A LONG PERIOD * UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO CUT DOWN * TIME SPENT IN OBTAINING THE SUBSTANCE REPLACES SOCIAL, OCCUPATIONAL OR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES * CONTINUED USE DESPITE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES Now, change the word substance to internet and I know I would qualify as an internet abuser/dependent.

Well sorry for bringing up the diagnostic system for mental disorders used in the U.S. when we are discussing the introduction of a potential mental disorder?? Boy, what was I thinking. I mean that would be like bringing up the Clintons in a political discussion.

If you read my post you would recognize that I am not a big fan of the DSM-IV and there are many problems in particular with the substance use/dependence criteria. First, not all substances have withdrawal and tolerance. Yes, the DSM-IV is done by committee (WHICH IS A HUGE PROBLEM!!), but most of the disorders are backed by sound scientific research.

That being said, I don't understand your reasoning. First you bash the DSM-IV (rightfully so) and then use it to prove you have a disorder???

Do you have internet withdrawal?? Due you develop an internet tolerance?? You mean to say that the more you spend on the internet you then need more internet to feel satisfied. Due you sell your belongings to get access to the internet??

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."

Not sure what "/sarcasm" means but...

Was your husband incapable of determining whether or not he was a drug abuser/addict?

I seemed fully capable of determining that I was an alcohol abuser/addict.

I am just as capable of determining that I am an internet abuser/addict.

The DSM IV is not the end all be all. What you seem to be saying is that any psychiatric disorder that is not in the DSM IV does not exist...if that is your position I am suprised you don't see the idiocy in it.

The cure for any addiction is the same too...when you have had enough of any addiction you decide to do something about it...you simply decide to stop.

kellym78's picture

I'm confused as to whom you

I'm confused as to whom you are responding.

Good point

Good points Kelly! Even theist Dr. Laura harps on those that mistake poor behavior for addiction.

Whenever I hear people say computer games are bad or lead to social problems etc... I often ask them what the difference is between doing that vs. wasting time watching football, soap operas, ABC's Lost, or Texas Hold 'em at the local pub. The blank looks I get from these bigot's faces are priceless.

I have my doubts about

I have my doubts about internet addiction, first of all I don't think addiction is the right word for it. What is an internet addiction rehab supposed to do to get people healed anyways? As long as there is internet they will fall into "addiction" far to easily. I don't know, perhaps I need to get used to the idea, I used to think that rehab centers are meant to treat drug addiction.

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

Well, IRL I am a psychiatric

Well, IRL I am a psychiatric social worker so I handle this stuff all the time.  I really wish that people would not wave the DSM around as if it was proof of anything, especially scientific proof.

 

Internet addiction, even if controversial would be 312.30 Impulse-control disorder NOS.

 

You see, the work is designed in such a way that everyone on the planet can be classified in some way.  Actually, in many ways as the system is fully open ended.  For example, I would qualify under the following categories:

 

305.10 Dependence (nicotine)

307.00 Stuttering

296.31 Mild recurrent depression

300.30 OCD

 

Also, I don't have to go to work tommorow, so shortly, I intend to be:

 

303.00 Intoxication (alcohol)

292.89 Intoxication (yes, it is the book twice)

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

Vastet's picture

kellym78 wrote:Can you

kellym78 wrote:

Can you believe that these people actually have rehab centers set up for this so-called disorder? It's not supported by any evidence, and lots of doctors oppose it as a diagnosis. Besides, all of the supporters of this "disorder" are probably just pissed off that they grew up with Atari instead of XBox. So what if a person never leaves their home or allows their relationships to fail because they need to get to the next skill level in WoW? I won't believe that this a problem until there is REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE--like inclusion in the DSM. If it's not there tomorrow--I'll just tell everybody that you are a liar for pretending that such a thing exists.

I doubt there's anyone who grew up in the golden era of gaming who wishes that they could be growing up now. Todays games are more flash than substance, usually(there are exceptions, even from EA, they're just rarer than they once were). There was no flash back then, so substance was a requirement.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Vastet's picture

Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

probably just pissed off that they grew up with  Atari instead of XBox.

 

House of lies, Atari E.T is better than all the xbox games combined. 

 

I demand a peer reviewed article in gameinformer of how the xbox is better than the atari. 

The XBox is better than the Atari. The games, however, are another story entirely.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

Vastet wrote:I doubt there's

Vastet wrote:
I doubt there's anyone who grew up in the golden era of gaming who wishes that they could be growing up now. Todays games are more flash than substance, usually(there are exceptions, even from EA, they're just rarer than they once were). There was no flash back then, so substance was a requirement.


Dude, the English version of the European release of Zero Wing...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

Vastet's picture

Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I doubt there's anyone who grew up in the golden era of gaming who wishes that they could be growing up now. Todays games are more flash than substance, usually(there are exceptions, even from EA, they're just rarer than they once were). There was no flash back then, so substance was a requirement.


Dude, the English version of the European release of Zero Wing...

Wow dude. It's not often someone teaches me something about gaming. Now I know where "All your base..." came from. Thanks. I'd never heard of Zero Wing, or at least had forgotten about hearing about it. Still, I wasn't quite referring to storylines. Gameplay has suffered the most since the end of the 80`s.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.