Now on ScienceBlogs: A virus walks into a bar . . .

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination
Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC getting a PhD in Behavioral Neuroscience. He holds a BS and MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University. If a volcano were to erupt Pompei-style in Central Park, his body would be preserved in a scoliotic posture over his lab desk. Archeaologists would later conclude that he spent most of his day training rats to perform tricks, until he went blind building electrical equipment by hand using a dissecting microscope. But, still, he died happy...because science is cool.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision-making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments I currently attend or attended in the past.

Search

Archives

Blogroll


The Daily Read Science News Science Blogs Medicine Blogs Econ Blogs Papers to Read Comics Links to Pure Pedantry via

« These stem cell injections in China are a bad idea | Main | Using a mirror to combat phantom pain »

Internet addiction?

Category: Mental Health
Posted on: March 20, 2008 8:40 AM, by NotoriousLTP

Mind Hacks discusses an editorial in the American Journal of Psychiatry that argues that the DSM-IV -- the diagnostic manual that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental disorders -- should include internet addiction. Vaughan is quite legitimately skeptical:

Rather curiously, the editorial mentions the figure that 86% of people with 'internet addiction' have another mental illness. What this suggests is that heavy use of the internet is not the major problem that brings people into treatment.

In fact, 'internet addiction', however it is defined, is associated with depression and anxiety but no-one has ever found this to be a causal connection.

Recent research shows that shy or depressed people use the internet excessively to (surprise, surprise) meet people and manage their shyness.

And in fact, as I mentioned in an earlier article, one of the only longitudinal studies [pdf] on the general population found that internet use is generally associated with positive effects on communication, social involvement, and well-being, although interestingly, those who were already introverts show increased withdrawal.

In other words, the internet is a communication tool and people use it manage their emotional states, like they do with any other technology.

Of course there are some people who are depressed and anxious who use the internet (or follow sports teams, or read books, or watch TV...) to excess, but why we have to describe this as an addiction still completely baffles me. (Links in the original.)

A couple things...

First, I totally hear Vaughan on this. I fail to see how they are going to differentiate between normal and abnormal internet use in this case. Not unlike the DSM criterion for personality disorders, a condition is defined as abnormal if it has negative consequences in the patient's life. But who determines what is negative? If you have someone who is extremely shy, their baseline social behavior might be a negative for me but works just fine for them. Abnormality in this case is a shifting baseline.

Second, I have a proposal. Could we have a single entry in the DSM for all addictions regardless of the focus? I am talking about throwing alcoholism, nymphomania, fanatical running, and smack use into one basket. Why is this a good idea? Well, what evidence I have read from brain imaging shows that addiction affects a neurological system for reward regardless of the origin of that reward. Whether you are getting your jollies from food or sex or drugs, you are getting them through the same neural system. So it stands to reason that the mechanisms of these diseases are relatively similar, and their treatments should be relatively similar. Why not put them all together as the same disease for simplicity's sake?

This is of course a horrible over-simplification. Drugs of abuse short-circuit the reward system by imitating neurotransmitters or affecting channels at different steps. However, I think that you could make an argument related to purely behavioral addictions -- food, sex, running, being an academic, whatever so long as drugs aren't involved -- that the mechanism of potentiating the reward system and leading to addiction is similar. Maybe we could have a drug addiction and a behavioral addiction category. (The common elements between obesity and addiction are reviewed here. The differences in the effects of food and drugs on the dopamine system is discussed in this review.)

Discuss.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

1

Eating disorders are another common mental illness with neurological mechanisms analogous to drug addictions, many studies have shown that a lot of the characteristic symptoms are the result of a type of unconscious "endorphin addiction" in the brain.

Posted by: Anne-Marie | March 20, 2008 4:21 PM

2

Which is just a roundabout way of saying that people tend to obsessively overindulge in the things that make them feel good.

Well, duh.

I fail to see how they are going to differentiate between normal and abnormal internet use in this case.

The DSM does not attempt to describe a normal/abnormal distinction present in nature. It exists to define the standards that psychiatrists and psychologists use to call things 'normal' and 'abnormal'. Asking how they do this is like asking how lawmakers know that letting young people drink alcohol before 21 is wrong but after 21 is okay.

Posted by: Caledonian | March 20, 2008 7:24 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM