Internet Addiction More Serious Than OCD

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A new study says internet addiction is more serious than OCD. How do you gauge that? Does that make internet addicts more or less popular? Makes you wonder if the OCD people are obsessing over us internet nerds taking their slot on the disorder list.

"Internet addiction is not manifesting itself as an 'urge.' It's more than that. It's a deep 'craving.' And if we don't make the change in the way we classify Internet addiction, we won't be able to treat it in the proper way," Dannon said Friday in a release. He said the two groups at greatest risk from Internet addiction disorder are teenagers and people in their mid-50s suffering from the loneliness of an empty nest.
Click to expand...
 
LeTUOtter said:
Bullshit. That's all it is. Total bullshit. Internet addiction, my ass.
Click to expand...

No, no it isn't. You seem to have the "disorder." I can treat your "disease." I charge $150 per hour, but it's worth it to save your sanity and get back to happy isn't it?

Associated disorders include keyboarding addiction, mousing addiction, and fan noise addiction. Each can be treated separately for additional fees.
 
All I know is that I get a bit nervous and itchy if I can't use the internet for more than a day or so. Especially [H]ardforum :D

Even my vacation to Cabo San Lucas I had to bring my laptop :D
 
Internet addiction is just a symptom. The disease is modern society and its emphasis on surrounding ourselves with things instead of connecting with people. The internet is the phenomenon that it is precisely because it allows people in this type of society to connect. In fact, it allows us to easily find people who share our interests or viewpoints. People who lose their sense of perspective may become dependent on the virtual connections and prefer them over their real world relationships.

That will be $150 please.
 
Sadly that is true, my wife had an internet addiction. Is it really that much different then gambling addiction or alcohol addiction? You can become addicted to almost anything, given the right situations, just the symptoms my be different.
 
Cannon_Fodder said:
Is it really that much different then gambling addiction or alcohol addiction?
Click to expand...

Knowing that I'm just stoking a fire, I have to say yes, it is. At least with the alcohol one. Something that gives you a physical "high" (and NOT just an emotional/psychological one, e.g., THE INTERNET) is harder to let go of. Gambling addiction is just another name for having no self control.
 
LeTUOtter said:
Knowing that I'm just stoking a fire, I have to say yes, it is. At least with the alcohol one. Something that gives you a physical "high" (and NOT just an emotional/psychological one, e.g., THE INTERNET) is harder to let go of. Gambling addiction is just another name for having no self control.
Click to expand...

Anything that makes you happy gives you a physical high.
 
Eickst said:
Anything that makes you happy gives you a physical high.
Click to expand...

*sighs* Endorphins aside, I still don't see it as a viable "sickness". Aside from your having a recognizable mental condition that makes it impossible or very difficult to quit something, labeling it as a "sickness" or "addiction" just makes it easier for people to accept having it. Like it's an excuse or something.

And yes, I know I'm an asshole, so there's no need to tell me how heartless I am. I just don't buy into it, and I feel strongly about it.
 
I think we need a reasonable classification of "normal" before we start adding any more "disorders" to the list....
 
lol everything we seem to do is bad. Even if we don't use the Internet and go to work all the time like a reponsible person, we'd be labeled as workaholic.

I said it before and I'll say it again. PC people and shrinks can kiss my ass. It's my life and I'll do what I want. (well, and what the girlfriend wants too). You can take your labels and shove it.

Maybe there's a disorder for people who puts a label on everyone's habits too.
 
I thought I was gonna die before [H] just came back up. I have FS threads, subscribed topics, etc that I always refer to in my non-busy time. I don't smoke, but if I did, I imagine quitting being similar to not having internet ..... only a litter harder.

The internet is my best friend.
 
The wiki has a number of good points against it:
IAD suffers first from its misleading title. Psychiatrist Dr. Goldberg acknowledges that Internet Addiction Disorder is not a true addiction and may in fact be no more than a symptom of other, existing disorders.[4] An overbroad description of addiction leaves open the possibility of every compensatory behavior being declared an addiction. For example, a person who has lengthy telephone conversations with a friend to avoid an unpleasant situation could be declared "addicted to the telephone" with equal validity as a person who chats on the Internet with the same basic goal at bottom.

Many others, including Carol Potera and Jonathan Bishop, agree that Internet Addiction is inappropriately named. To the extent that the Internet is a social medium instead of an object, people cannot be addicted to it. The analogy is made to an environment: a person can not be truly addicted to living in a favorite town (no matter how distressing a change of home might be), and a goldfish can not be addicted to living in a pond.

Secondly, it is widely recognized, even by its supporters, that most if not all "Internet addicts" already fall under existing, legitimate diagnostic labels.[5] For many patients, overuse or inappropriate use of the Internet is merely a manifestation of their depression, anxiety, impulse control disorders, or pathological gambling.[6] In this criticism, IAD is compared to food addiction, in which patients overeat as a form of self-medication for depression, anxiety, etc., without actually being truly addicted to eating.

It is possible that a person could have a pathological relationship with a specific aspects of the Internet, such as bidding on online auctions, viewing pornography, or online gambling (which is included under the existing Pathological Gambling, but that does not make the Internet medium itself be addictive. Here are common problems which are improperly lumped together under the IAD label:[7]

  • A pathological gambler is a pathological gambler regardless of whether the gambling is done a computer or face-to-face.
  • A person with poor impulse control can lose sleep over a suspenseful novel or favorite television show just as easily as he or she can lose sleep over an exciting computer game or the temptation to click on another web link.
  • A person with a sexual obsession is still a person with a sexual obsession, whether the pornography is viewed on a screen or on paper.
  • A person who shops obsessively (including during a manic phase) has an obsessive shopping problem whether the purchases are made in person, by mail, by phone, or online.
  • A problem day trader, who has a form of pathological gambling, is still a problem day trader regardless of whether the stock trading is done by computer, over the phone, or face-to-face.
  • Also, there are significant and critical differences between common Internet activities (e-mail, chatting, web surfing) and pathological gambling, which the IAD notion heavily parallels. The Internet is largely a pro-social, interactive, and information-driven medium, while gambling is seen as a single, anti-social behavior that has very little social redeeming value. So-called Internet addicts do not suffer from the same damage to health and relationships that are common to established addictions.[8]
Click to expand...
In other words, internet addiction is not 'an addiction' in the conventional sense, but a new manifestation of preexisting addictions.
 
Lou Cypher said:
I think we need a reasonable classification of "normal" before we start adding any more "disorders" to the list....
Click to expand...

Here here!!! *applauds*

Seems the ONLY reason to come up with new illnesses these days is to sell (market) more drugs to those that are sucker enough to go "ohhhhhhhh....I think I might have that."

Nevermind the fact that it's totally contrived in the first place. More and more, rational thought takes a backseat to "ut oh, I can relate to that... I must have <insert random fabricated classification here>".

Oh, and when the "cure" causes worse problems than the original illness...
*DING DING DING... helloooo CLUE!!!!* rofl *sheesh*
 
I can quit the internet any time I want, but I'll just do it tomorrow. :p

I really should take care of my procrastination first, but I'll take care of that in due time too :D
 
LMAO, internet addiction, what will they think of next? Who pays these nuggets?


And for us it's not OCD, it's OCP baby! :D
 
Lou Cypher said:
I think we need a reasonable classification of "normal" before we start adding any more "disorders" to the list....
Click to expand...

The problem is if you do that, you'll find that most "disorders" are quite normal. Let's see - the ones mentioned in the article are a good start: ADD, ADHD, OCD, and the list goes on.

The simple fact is that it is normal for Homo Sapiens to become addicted to behaviors. The fact that we have brief moments where some people happen to exhibit "self-control disorder" (look ma, I just made up SCD! Now give me a Ph.D. in psych.) is the exception that proves the rule. Or some such BS... :rolleyes:
 
Lou Cypher said:
I think we need a reasonable classification of "normal" before we start adding any more "disorders" to the list....
Click to expand...

I have always wondered and always questioned my parents as to what "normal" is. Parents always tell you to "act normal" or "dress normal" but yet when you ask them what "normal" is , they don't have the answer.

I wish I were "normal" :rolleyes:
 
LeTUOtter said:
Bullshit. That's all it is. Total bullshit. Internet addiction, my ass. :mad:
Click to expand...

QFT.

It IS bullshit, and I'll you why: comparing one addiction to another is one thing. In that case, there are accuracies that will hold-up.

However, OCD (which I have, as well as a Master's in psychology and always had an extremely keen ability where it's concerned) is not an appropriate or accurate thing to which anyone should compare internet "addiction", or any other addiction.

OCD occurs as a specific mechanism in the brain, physically, and is a biological disorder (i.e. physical) like such things as ADD, BPD and anything else physiological in nature.

OCD does not make one more prone to any type of addiction, never mind "internet addiction", hence why the comparison is inappropriate and even insulting to those who suffer from OCD.

I believe that there are those who do get "addicted" to the internet, as it has a psychological effect in this day and age, being an odd form of "socializing" and can offer a lot in terms of content, and actually be "content overload".

However, the issue of "internet addiction" aside, the article is flawed from the get-go by it's immediate comparison to OCD in seriousness or it's mechanism.

It should be compared to other addictions, not to a physiological disorder that is completely unrelated.

If anyone knows anything about OCD, and I don't just mean "textbook" knowledge (I go far beyond "the books" where psychology is concerned, as you always should) then you'll understand why the comparison should not have been made as such in this article.
 
I will read this after I touch everything in my cubicle twice and click on each word in this thread once and then surf some internets.
 
LeTUOtter said:
Bullshit. That's all it is. Total bullshit. Internet addiction, my ass. :mad:
Click to expand...

*Before you read the following, keep in mind that this is my opinion and most of it is in reference to complete BS I hear from people every day, whetehr on tv or in real life concerning this. If your too immature to handle someones opinion, dont bother reading or replying*

Finnaly someone speaking sense.. Its one thing to call constant methamphetamine use/abuse, an addiction (which it usually is)... but interent addiction? I dont want to sound like im trying to completley put up a wall around this idea of... "internet addiction".. but for the most part, when people talk about it (in the real world), all I hear is complete nonsense. This is a similar problem I have with people calling copyright infrigement, stealing. Go ahead and lump in internet usage with heorin, cocaine, alcohol, methamphetamines and other REAL addictive problem causing things if you really feel its necessary... but its a horribly off-scale comparison in my opinion.

http://www.netaddiction.com/resources/internet_addiction_test.htm
Anyone with a few spare minutes, think of something you usually spend a lot of time doing. Fishing, spending time with your kids, reading, doing yard work. Substitute that in, and see how easily it can fit into this "addiction test". For example:

How often do you find that you stay fishing longer than you intended?
How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time fishing?
How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount of time you spend fishing?

If these questions, and the idea of addiction to a behavoir were real, then I must be addicted to fishing, addicted to going to school, addicted to drinking water, and addicted to airconditioning. The real issue im having here with this, is not the term internet addiction, but the addiction branding of every activity and idea. The rule for porn on the internet was "If you can think of it, theres porn of it". Now it seems, "If you cant think of it, theres a website dedicated to the addictions of it". Dont beleive me? Google some things with the word addiction after it.

I can easily substitute anything into most of those questions on that website, and make it seem like the activity is bad.

to keep this short: I feel that any adult who has become "addicted" to an activity such as using the internet or watching tv, would have some other problems that are a of greater concern. I grew up with the term addiction being saved for only the big problems, the things that end up with people dieing and lives/families ruined in a hurry.

"Internet addiction". A mental health disorder, or simply a case of humans acting NORMAL? I suppose this will be debated for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top