In a recent article on Internet addiction, I will give David Greenfield the benefit of the doubt when quoted in this article over the weekend where he states,
“It’s almost impossible to self-limit and monitor your Internet use,” says Greenfield. “Almost everybody abuses the Internet, even if they’re not addicted. Even I do.”
Honestly, if everyone is engaging in a behavior, it’s neither addiction nor abuse, by very definition. It’s “normal.” Unless you’re the morality police or something, when someone chooses to spend more time talking to their friends online or playing an online game, that’s their right and choice. It’s not “abuse” by any stretch of the imagination.
But even more amusing is the assertion before this quote–
But Greenfield says the technology and lure of the Internet is different from television or telephone because of its magnitude and 24/7 cheap, easy access to just about anything. Users perceive a certain amount of anonymity, lose their inhibitions online and, subsequently, their concept of time.
Really? The telephone opened up the world to international communication to any ordinary person, an act that before then, took a trained telegraph operator to transmit. Before the telegraph, it would take weeks — and often, months — to send a message from one country to another. The telegraph changed that to hours, but required specialized knowledge and equipment that could only be operated by trained personnel. The telephone changed that to instantant communication by any ordinary person, to any other ordinary person within one generation.
The telephone, indeed, was a significant and life-changing technology for the world. (And eventually, most people’s first experience with online communication was through those exact same telephone lines a hundred years later!)
The television was a little less life-altering, but did open up people’s homes inexpensively to an international world of visual imagery of entertainment and news that was previously limited to voice-only (the radio).
How important is visual imagery to humans? Well, before the World Wide Web, there was gopher, the text-only equivalent of the Web. Guess how popular that service was? (If you haven’t heard of it, there’s your answer.) Humans love imagery — it’s how we process a great deal of information in the world. So the advent of the television was a significant milestone in human development (for better or worse).
The television brought images for the first time into most people’s homes of places they’ve never seen or experienced (e.g., Times Square on New Year’s Eve; the moonwalk; the Korean and Vietnam conflicts). It opened a whole new world of possibilities for millions. While many dismiss television as simply an entertainment technology, it was much, much more at its onset.
So, with all due respect to David Greenfield, I’d say history has many examples like the telephone and television that had a significant, society-altering impact that we feel to this day. To suggest that the Internet is somehow so unique and different that it won’t follow the same or a similar path of adoption and integration into our modern lives is to misunderstand history.
Yes, the Internet is unique and different than those two other technology examples. But not so unique or different that it needs its own disorder diagnosis, which is demonizing the technology over the behavioral issue. Remember that some professionals have also called for television (in the 1960’s) and video game addiction (in the 1970’s) and neither exist today, and for good reason. People learned to cope with these technologies in their lives, as they will learn to cope with the Internet in due time.
10 comments
I do agree with Greenfield. Even if there’s no addiction there’s something closely resembling abuse in many cases. And yes, I agree that it is because it is free. But then, the same thing applies to television. People spend much too long sitting in front of it watching programs they don’t even care about. At the expense of other healthier or more interesting activities. The telephone too had its moments. People who could afford it spent hours chatting, many did not abuse it but that was for economic reasons, had it been free they would,I am sure. With time thought, it will probably tone down a bit.
Right. I don’t depend on the DSM IV to tell me whether something is potentially problematic or not. While I agree that the Internet doesn’t need it’s own diagnostic category, I don’t think much of any of the categories.
There are a lot of variables that combine in some kind of continuous way in order for something problematic to be maintained. In the end, only the individual’s opinion matters about whether or not something is a problem – unless the individual is a danger to others.
I think that watching too much television is a tragedy – a missed chance to live life in person. The internet has this potential as well. But like any psychological problem, it doesn’t really matter what I think, or what the DSM says. It’s whether the person wants help with something or not.
I believe someone could have a problem with gardening, walking, meditating, reading, if the behavior gets in the way of living a full life, and becomes identified as a problem by an individual.
On the other hand, we find people trapped in houses full of newspapers, garbage, cat dropping, etc. I’m not going to get out my DSM to decide what to call it, but people get locked into problematic behavior patterns all the time. Can we, should we intervene without being asked? Sometimes, maybe we should. Will it help? Depends on the situation. But aside from institutionalizing people, there is not much we can do without an invitation.
But the discussion of what should or should not be in the DSM? Burn the book as far as I’m concerned.
I pretty much agree with Greg Rogers, just a tad bit shy of burning the DSM. What should and should not be in it will likely always be open to debate – and addictions and/or abuses/dependencies will be right near the top of the leader board when it comes to votes, probably.
Mr. Rogers identifies some common sense reasoning with respect to his comment “But like any psychological problem, it doesn’t really matter what I think, or what the DSM says. It’s whether the person wants help with something or not.” Such common sense appears to me to be a breath of fresh air when it comes some of the more detailed tombs of the helping profession.
I disagree with this comment:
> Honestly, if everyone is engaging in a behavior, it’s neither addiction nor abuse, by very definition. It’s “normal.â€
Surely it would be possible for the majority of people to be addicted to cigarettes or alchohol or for the majority to engage in abusive behaviour such as beating up on their spouses or sexually abusing their children. I don’t see that the majority can’t engage in addiction or abusive behaviour and hence these notions come apart from the statistical notion of ‘normality’.
That being said, I agree that the internet isn’t so very different from TV and the phone and so forth.
I don’t think that we need different diagnostic categories or codes for all the different objects of addiction (different kinds of drugs, tv, telephone, pornography, internet) anymore than we need different diagnostic categories or codes for all the diferent contents of delusions (my wife has been replaced by a robot, clone, being from the planet zog) or different diagnostic codes for all the different kinds of phobias (though of course such lists have been compiled).
I’m wondering whether addictive or abusive behaviours for internet and tv and the like could be part of compulsions. Compulsive behaviour. Perhaps…
Marx predicted in Praxis the generation gap between those who built the technological age and those who have experienced only the technological age. I believe we are just now starting to feel this generation gap. Defining internet use as addiction is the old generation attempting to control the new generation by creating a negative image of the net. Traditionalists view the internet as threatening to their way of life and will go to great lengths to stop it. There are all types of behavioral issues that cause stress and strain in people’s lives. Lumping the net with alcoholism and drug addiction is, as Dr Grohl points out, “demonizing the technology over the behavioral issue.†There are numerous positives related to the net, but I can not think of a single one for heroin abuse.