Doctors are deciding whether or not an addiction to the internet and messaging can be considered a "textbook illness" and whether it should be included or not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Supposedly, 10 people have died in internet cafes in South Korea and at least 7 of them were due to online gaming. I personally find this a little crazy.
Here's the top of the story from the Ottawa Citizen:
Compulsive e-mailing and text messaging could soon become classified as an official brain illness.An editorial in this month's issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry says Internet addiction -- including "excessive gaming, sexual pre-occupations and e-mail/text messaging" -- is a common compulsive-impulsive disorder that should be added to psychiatry's official guidebook of mental disorders.
Like other addicts, users experience cravings, urges, withdrawal and tolerance, requiring more and better equipment and software, or more and more hours online, according to Dr. Jerald Block, a psychiatrist at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. Dr. Block says people can lose all track of time or neglect "basic drives," like eating or sleeping. Relapse rates are high, he writes, and some people may need psychoactive medications or hospitalization.
What do you think? Real or no? What's going on here? The implication is that people are substituting online gratifications for real-world, physical needs.
7 comments:
I wasn't able to access the article, but I also think the idea of diagnosing an addiction to the internet and messaging is crazy. I have a big problem with diagnosing illnesses because I feel like people are always looking to put a name to a problem or disease. Additionally, advertisers and others have been known to create problems to scare the public so that they can sell their solution. If they make the diagnosis, I wouldn't be surprised if a pharmaceutical company would eventually claim that a drug they make would curb the use of the need to use the internet.
Additionally, considering addiction to the internet and messaging an illness insinuates that other activities like reading books or newspapers have the potential to be addiction and could be considered an illness. Everyone chooses to gratify their personal needs in many different ways and to different extents. The internet doesn't substitute for real-world, physical needs...it is simply an additional avenue by which people achieve the goals they have.
For lack of a better word, I think that this is ridiculous. I agree with Marissa that money is one of the reasons behind these “studies” but I also think that it is due, in part, because people are not willing to take responsibility for their actions. This makes me think of how they are they researching and arguing over whether there is a “fat gene.” I’ll apologize in advance if this offends anybody, but I think this is one of the most ludicrous studies ever. Why are people so incapable of admitting and taking responsibility for their vices and behaviors that may result in their downfall? Offering drugs that can save these people and making up excuses only encourage people to do the same. Instead of reasons why, we need to inform people how to stop. Instead of excuses, let’s find preventative measures. Justifying does little except for perpetuating the cycle. Research which blames other factors does not tell people why engaging in these behaviors are wrong, it just reinforces that those behavior are normal.
Also, because I could not open up the article, if somebody knows how they died/what were the causes, that would be helpful.
The link should be fixed now. I also added a bit of the article in the post.
I completely agree with Marissa and Brooke. Calling someone's gaming or facebook activity an addiction is absolutley crazy. Once we get into calling things like this a "disease" we are opening a whole new can of worms. I think this can also apply to crimes that are perpetrated online, for example a people who commit crimes they discovered from the gaming world can claim an addiction and therefore an insanity defense.
I believe the people who die from playing games online have different problems. Perhaps we are seeing a display of one of Lule's myths; this article can in a way be seen as portraying the people who died as victims, however I don't believe the internet can be the villian in this case. Their deaths are their own fault. In addition, I agree with Brooke that people should take responsibility for their actions and not look for their "addiction" to be labeled an illness. Spending 36 hours playing a game online and not stopping to eat, drink, go to the bathroom or sleep is ridiculous and stupidity, not an addiction.
I also agree with what Marissa said about opening a door to labeling addictions to books and newspapers as illnesses, I believe that would be percieved as crazy by the general public, why should the internet be any different?
I disagree with a few points in some of the arguments. One being that the internet doesn't substitute for real-world, physical needs. For some, it does. How do you explain the popularity of online gaming and dating. People can converse, meet and play with others without ever leaving the comfort of their own home. That's why they become addicted is because they can do all the things necessary to fulfill those physical needs by doing nothing more physical than clicking a mouse or typing on a keyboard. Perhaps its empowering to them, but either way I do think it could be diagnosed as an addiction.
And to counter the good point made that then books and magazines can become addictive, yes they can but not in the way the Web can. Again the Web provides so many real-life simulations that books cannot. I think internet is a serious problem and an issue that's only going to get worse with a generation that knows nothing else.
I agree with everyone who feels that diagnosing excessive internet use/addiction as a disease is ridiculous and another money scam by pharmaceutical companies, but I believe that this is an issue that needs to be monitored more strictly.
The interactivity of the internet does provide some people with a sense of belonging and participation in 'real world' activities. I do think that online gamers can become addicted to the world the have created for their character(s) and detach themselves from life. I read an article a few years ago detailing the number of online gamers who had to drop-out of college because they were failing their classes because all of their time was committed to 'living online'; The article also said that professionals were fired as a result of poor performance due to the time spent gaming.
I don't think it is an illness that can be cured medicinally, but I do believe that it is an addiction.
I have to go with Quinn on this one. I took a Com Arts class on Internet studies and we had a whole section on online gaming and things of the like. After learning this information I found that some people were really playing out their real lives in the gaming world. For example, with MMORPGs (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game) people can create avatars that fit all the characteristics that the user wants, almost making a superior version of him/herself. This avatar allows for these people to take on traits that they may in fact lack in real life, but desire.
Also, there is another online community (sorry can't remember the name of it right now) that people can actually go on the site, create a character, and buy land, have a job, and form relationships. In fact, there are even monetary exchanges for this land and space. If you go on there and want to throw a concert, you pay money to buy that space, and this is real money being spent by these people.
I know that these are brief examples, but after studying both of these online spaces, it's hard not to see that people really are substituting real-life activities for online ones. After studying these spaces, a classmate found that some of these users were spending anywhere from 10-15 hours of their days on these sites and focused their entire day around when they were "meeting" friends for lunch in this online community.
So although I take issue with labeling this a medical addiction, I do think that users like this need to be studied more to see why their reality now lays on the Internet. And not only what these people are like, but what is their environment like. Just as we debated about violence and media, what really the forces behind this so-called addiction?
Post a Comment