Hooked On The Web 298
MT writes "The New York Times is running an interesting article entitled Hooked On The Web: Help is on the Way. It says that internet addiction is being taken more seriously by big business and mental health workers, and affects a large population (6%-10% of all users)." From the article: "Skeptics argue that even obsessive Internet use does not exact the same toll on health or family life as conventionally recognized addictions. But, mental health professionals who support the diagnosis of Internet addiction say, a majority of obsessive users are online to further addictions to gambling or pornography or have become much more dependent on those vices because of their prevalence on the Internet. But other users have a broader dependency and spend hours online each day, surfing the Web, trading stocks, instant messaging or blogging, and a fast-rising number are becoming addicted to Internet video games."
Re:Web, a Distraction at Work (Score:1, Informative)
Not a permanent modification, of course. And there is no physical dependency (the original meaning of "addiction"). I'm not sure any expert on the subject would describe marijuana's effects as "modification of the reward pathway system in the brain".
Between the two, marijuana actually modifies the brain negatively while email only distracts.
Negatively? Based on what metric, exactly?
How do you feel about alcohol, by the way? I'm curious why your mind jumped from "Internet" addiction to "Marijuana" addiction, as opposed to truly addictive and deadly substances like tobacco, alcohol, morphine, heroin, etc.
Perhaps just a semi-subtle troll attempt?
Re:Psychology is just so much crap (Score:3, Informative)
In your analogy to reading, you said, "WE MUST BAN READING! Train people to STOP READING, and if they can't medicate them out of the habit. A couple doses of Thorazine mixed with Xanax will probably do the trick!"
Psychologists are not looking to ban anything, or even to prevent behavior. This is a common misconception likely forwarded as a result of sensationalist reporting and the misuse of studies by special interest groups. For example, many anti-drug crusaders have latched onto reports that marijuana can instigate schizophrenic episodes. What they don't tell you is that the studies have only shown a casual connection and even then mostly in individuals with genetic predisposition and other risk factors.
Later in your rant, you said, "There is no such thing as an obsession, unless you view it as such, or said behaviour adversely impacts the lives of others." The funny thing is that even though you thought you were disagreeing with psychologists on this point, you were actually stating (approximately) the accepted psychological definition of an addiction. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm'; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as 'addiction'."
Finally, in your last paragraph you said, "These 'psychologists' are the same bunch of lame boneheads who write scripts for ADHD at the least sign of impatience or Social Anxiety Disorder because of simple shyness or apprehension." This is a very incorrect statement. Psychologists [wikipedia.org] cannot and do not write prescriptions. They do frequently have knowledge of the effects of drugs used to treat mental health problems. A psychologist studies the mind and (sometimes) offers therapy (of the "talking" variety) to help those with mental health problems. Psychiatrists [wikipedia.org] are individuals who have been trained in both psychological practices and medical pratices. Psychiatrists must complete medical school (like other doctors) before prescribing medication.
Like doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, programmers, etc., etc., psychologists and psychiatrists can act ethically and professionally, or they can act unethically and unprofessionally. Just as antibiotics were once over-prescribed for apparent bacterial infections (which could just have easily been viral infections), psychiatrists (and even many doctors) have over-diagnosed and over-treated the different forms of attention deficit disorder and depression. Does that make all psychology/psychiatry crap? Hardly. It means that the practitioners of this science are human like the practitioners of any other science.
Taft
Re:Web, a Distraction at Work (Score:4, Informative)
This is completely wrong.
The current models indicate that the reward pathway is indeed modified in people who are dependent, but that is not because of a particular substance.
Simply stated, the BEHAVIOR causes the brain to rewire itself in such a way that certain reward pathways are strengthened, while others atrophy. When engaging in certain behaviors, the brain issues rewards, leading to more of that behavior.
The specific substance/activity is irrelevant. The rewiring takes place in the same manner, regardless of substance or activity.
Now it is also possible to become physically dependent, as in the case of heroin where withdrawal has very real physical effects, but that is particular to each substance. There are also drugs, such as cocaine and MDMA that cause physical damage in the brain, but that type of damage can't be reliably tied to specific behaviors.
In short, the changes in the reward pathways are the same regardless of what a person is dependent on.
So, in most cases you're not actually dependent on a behavior (like sex) or a chemical (like coke) but on your own brain's rewards.
"I really wish these people had taken the time to realize this before putting out a sensationalist piece of work."
I wish you'd taken the time to educate yourself so that you don't spread disinformation. Seriously, if you plan to talk about things like this, take them seriously enough to know what you're talking about.
PS, my information is current as of 6 months ago. If there is new information that you think I might be interested in, please post it.