Talk:Internet addiction disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Information from Internet addiction disorder appeared on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section on October 10, 2006.
Did You Know


Contents

[edit] Systemic bias

As far as objectivity goes, it's probably not a great idea to have a bunch of frequent internet users writing about an addiction they may well have.

Well, somebody has to write it. --DanielCD 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hooray for Wikipedia bias!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia bias? So you're saying it's logically justified that someone, just by being a Wikipedia editor, is too biased to write this article? Interesting logic. The comment wasn't that serious. --DanielCD 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I started this topic originally a few years ago because I wrote a paper about the subject. I just wanted to share my findings. Noah 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It's good. This thread is just about nonsense response to a nonsense comment that got out of hand. --DanielCD 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Addiction Disorder

I added a brief outline of what IAD is, and included another short section stating some criticisms of the theorized disorder. With all likely-hood IAD will be added to the DSM-V which is due out before 2010. If anyone would like to add some internal linking please be my guest. I added several references if you would like to double check the information provided. Any other questions either ask here, or in the discussion area on my page. Noah 07:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)


Mmcdougall 19:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Consider merging or taking large bits from Computer addiction

[edit] Surprisingly enough...

... no one listed Wikipedia as an example. :) « alerante ✆ ✉ » 14:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

I am addicted to Wikipedia. It's like asking God questions, it knows everything.

I see I'm not the first.

We're all addicted to wikipedia one way or the other. Wikipediholics is the term used to describe such person. Sooner or later, someone will study the wikipedia addiction. I hope it will be me!--Janarius 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this article is clearly POV, wikipedia is an addiction or requires to be an addiction in order to work, for example here is how Wikipedia resembles other addictions:
  • one try wont hurt, thats what all the dealers say... one look for info here at wikipedia and youll be hooked into looking for more info, and then contributing with a word or two to the article... it gets sicker and sicker until the last phase, you find yourself actually spending 3 hours re-writing an article about "Technotronic".
  • did i say re-write?, here's phase two, to watch over the article and visit it 5 times a day to make sure that no one changes it because of whatever stupid made-up law (whats a weasel word??).
  • has your article stayed in place?, cos like a marihuana plant, it needs constant care (vandals!, they are going to come and write "poop" somewhere on the article), and like a World of Warcraft character, you need to build it up until you get a nomination for good article, without any real reward except maybe an extension to the "40 virgins by Allah" thingie.
  • by this point, family and friends are secondary to your articles you watch, and if you still have friends, you sure found your way to outsmart them them with little crappy trivia ("bet you didnt knew that Harry Truman's middle name was just S., no... see?, you didnt"), boring them a little a long the way, when they rememeber that you used to watch Football with them instead of writing articles about it.
  • by this point, you probably spend 4 hours a day discussing articles, watching if anyone has made a change to your articles... and, god forbids, you even had gaved money to wikipedia. You probably feel yourself like a good "wikipedian" too.
  • positive things about wikipedia, or the great fallacy: youll probably be somewhat smarter, but a snobbish smart guy if we see that most of what you have learned is actually just concentrated information, and quite often POV. Would you accept an open heart surgery just because the guy who is making the surgery is a wikipedian that went through the articles "heart", "surgery" and "Optimus Prime" last night?... no one in its right mind would, this fake sense of actually feeling like we have learned something, thats perhaps what keeps wikipedia running. A horrible addiction to feeling smarter than the rest, that sweet Dopamine that the brain releases.

[edit] This is ridiculous

I think the fact that they are even considering turning this in to a mental disorder is ridiculous. There is no way that one can become addicted to the internet. You simply cannot build up "tolerance" to the internet like you can with drugs and even gambling.

I admit that some people are on the internet way too much and that it could cause problems for that person, but it is not an addiction. It is simply an obsession that is probably co-existing with other psychological problems like depression. A perfect example of someone like that would be me.

I sincerely hope that this disorder does not actually appear in the offical DSM-IV. If it does than I think psychiatry is going a little too far. Pretty soon they are going to be handing out drugs for people who are a little bit shy. It is the sad truth.

I understand that internet addiction may seem ridiculous and you have given a good point that other disorders may be a factor. However, we cannot be sure that these are the causes or symptoms of internet addiction. Of course, it would years before the next edition of the DSM comes out and in the meantime many professionals would have made considerable discussions. Please sign your posts. --Janarius 14:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a psychological addiction, and it is real. It would include Internet pornography addiction, as well as things like using chat and such (even Wikipedia?) as a substitute for real-world relations. It's really more complicated than it may seem. I understand your concern, and it is legitimate: things should be questioned in the stimulus/label-saturated world we live in. But I do think there is a good deal of legitimacy to the concept. I don't know about any actual diagnosis, but there is something here that merits formal conceptualizing. Is there another article on Computer addiction in general? I think that the Internet is more a concern though because that's how people exchange things and connect.
In fact, I came to this article to ask if anyone is familiar with any concepts drawing a similarity between road rage and angry Wikipedians, something like "Internet rage". Things can seem impersonal on the computer, and people get driven into a rage over nothing. Unfortinately, I myself can confess to being prey to this difficulty, which is why I thought examining the issue a little more may help me define and deal with it better. But if anyone knows about any such ideas, please LMK. Thanks. --DanielCD 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Per my reading on the subject, the construct validity of Internet addiction is still very poor. It is not a formal term and not a part of any formal diagnosis, and should not be treated as such. It has yet to be defined as to separate it from the influence of other possible comorbidities. --DanielCD 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
From my research, I came to the conclusion that "internet addiction" does not exist, but "excessive internet overuse" does. There's a difference, although slight. The "addiction" is being compared to gambling, which is very anti-social, while the internet is extremely social, as shown on Wikipedia. Noah 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neopets

Somebody should add something about the addictive properties of neopets.com. No joke, I was seriously addicted to that site for almost two years and had to get blocking software to block it for months until I taught myself to use it in moderation. I am not the only one who experiences this, and it seems to affect preteens and young teenagers (9-15 age group) the most.

Lady6String 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This concept...

I think this is a silly concept, despite spending 10+ hours a day on the internet - while I would enjoy spending even more time it's because it's something I enjoy, just like most people would prefer to do more of their hobbies than do less of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.4.39 (talk • contribs).

I think the point is that, for some people, it becomes a problem they have difficulty controlling, even though it has a negative effect on their lives. If you use the compter that much and it's not a problem, good for you. But for other people, it may be an upsetting or negative experience when they can't seem to pull themselves away when they need to. That's what the point is. --DanielCD 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Bookmarking and Webslideshows

I want to add the following to the Examples:

What do you think about this addition?

[edit] Runescape

i may not agree with the concept of internet addiction and there was a very good article arguing that it is ridiculous (i wish i could find the link) but i agree with the part of the page where it says games like runescape are addictive. I was so addicted to that game. only cure was: a girlfriend, lol. 70.247.73.235 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is clearly not a hoax

Because I fit basically every "symptom" they have going. I first became addicted to Neopets a few years ago but managed to keep it under control. In August last year I became addicted to finding about BEAUTY PAGEANTS of all things. This has progressed to include an addiction to Wikipedia. I started searching on here about this today, after I just discovered I got a C+ in one exam and a B in another (which I put down simply to being unable to control the amount of time I spend on the internet)... I had similar marks last semester despite getting two A-'s and one A+ in the first semester (before the addiction really set in). I just went through the "symptoms" and realised I fit every one there. Yet I don't know what to do about it! It is actually painful because I know I'm hurting myself but I can't stop it. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Term first coined

I just wondered about the date given at the top of the article for when the term was first used “(IAD) is a theorized disorder coined by Ivan Goldberg, M.D., in 1997”.

I came across an article in The Lancet (Mitchell P, Internet addiction: genuine diagnosis or not? Lancet, {Lancet}, 19 Feb 2000, vol. 355, no. 9204, p. 632) that states “The existence of internet addiction as a discrete disorder was first proposed, albeit not entirely seriously, in 1995 by Ivan Goldberg, a New York psychiatrist. But it was a 1996 study by Kimberly Young of the University of Pittsburgh (Bradford, PA, USA) that triggered the controversy”. Which, obviously, would make the date earlier. Unfortunately the article didn’t state a reference for where Goldberg first used the term so I haven’t been able to check this. What I did find though was a reference for what is I think earlier work by Kimberly Young in the form of a conference presentation ie: Young KS: Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, Aug 1996.


--Rgas 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pro-social"?

"The Internet is largely a pro-social, interactive, and informational-driven medium, while gambling is seen as a single, anti-social behavior that has very little social redeeming value."

I don't know, I would think that this largely depends on what one does on the internet. Many people (such as myself) do not primarily use the internet for chatting with other people. Being a wiki-holic is just one example. Basically, that sentence seems to be false. Esn 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"pro-social" does not necessarily mean you have to "chat" to people. Do you send emails? Do you visit digg.com? Do you respond to comments on Wikipedia? Do you read the latest news clippings on CNN or Yahoo.com? Those are all "pro-social" types of activities, and the article is directly comparing that to the "anti-social" activity that which is called gambling (as defined by the DSM-IV). Make sense? :) Noah 08:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternet_addiction_disorder_d903.html"