http://www.psychiatrymmc.com/should-dsm-v-designate-%E2%80%9Cinternet-addiction%E2%80%9D-a-mental-disorder/

Ronald Pies MD

My general point is to just raise the question that, if a person is involved in a behavior which becomes the center of one’s life that is then interfering with what should be appropriate functions/expectations, that others view as unhealthy and worthless when involved in said behavior, it needs to be identified as, at least, possibly “____ abuse or dependency”. And, if truly an addiction, then change is needed.

I believe there is a noteable population that are internet addicts, maybe with other addictions as well, but the internet is one that causes strife with others. And, in the end, if that is a determination a person should be told and advised changed, it should be put out there. I won’t push the issue further here, but we do identify gambling, sex, substances, shopping as unique addictions that now have separate group processes for treatment interventions. The internet is a unique entity, so I do not see it as terrible to offer it as a subset in the general definition of addiction. Again, just an opinion, but one of some experience for me.

Appreciate the brief dialogue, and nice posts the last few weeks by the way. No comment about the Seroquel controversy started by Furious Seasons and furthered by Clin Psych?

There’s nothing unique or special about the Internet that suggests we should single it out for special treatment and a single diagnosis, when the foundation for such a diagnosis is based upon sand. Might as well single out people’s Blackberries as well.

I can only conclude that if we’re going to go down this path of “excessive use” for any behavior, we not single out a characteristic of that behavior (“Internet use,” “watching TV,” “reading”), but find a solid theoretical foundation that would be inclusive enough for any type of excessive use behavior.

I’m not suggesting this would be a good thing, though, as I believe we already have more than enough diagnoses (although none of them perfect fits) to cover these kinds of behavior in our existing diagnostic system.

There’s this misnomer that if we just had the “right” label to place on something like this, we’d be able to better target treatment. And yet decades worth of research has only produced targeted treatments for broad spectrums of disorders, not Treatment 12890 for Patient XZY.

By the way, after giving it much thought, you might have some validity to say people read to isolate and disconnect, but how is that equivalent to being on the internet; the latter is interacting and connecting. And in the end, don’t people read to educate and rejuvenate if innundated with too much humanity? Just an opinion.

Thank you for the reply though.

I could conduct a completely valid study showing that reading meets all of the same addiction criteria as “Internet addiction,” using the same biased methodology. And while the results would be “valid” in terms of confirming my hypothesis, we still wouldn’t suggest reading is an “addiction.” (Reading, by the way, is also a very isolating behavior that people often do to disconnect from the world around them.)

Just a media article, but seems to echo my concern that the screen is a source for addiction, as the environment to isolate can only add to this dynamic of dependency.

We were extremely with this psychologist.

You can find more info at: http://yourcaffeineaddiction.com/

I took sociology and social psych in college and i know about qualitative and quantitative metrics, etc., and I don’t think its accurate at all. To begin with the two answers ‘frequently’ and ‘often’ are near synonyms and probably skew some answers.

My score indicated i was in the ‘normal internet user’ range, despite having scored several questions 4 or 5, and despite that by my own self-assessment I believe myself to be addicted and to display symptoms of internet addiction (interferes w/ life, etc)

for what its worth, the test is squat, honestly hard to believe its the only certifiable one. probably was a good first go but by now its way overdue to be tightened up on.

also, I agree w/ Stephanie. nice job on the softcore photo ;(