Denying Reality: Why “Internet Addiction” Is a Virtual Red Herring
Last month Dr. Jerald Block, a psychiatrist in private practice in Oregon, wrote an editorial in the American Journal of Psychiatry calling for a diagnosis of ?Internet addiction? to be added to the DSM (which is the catalogue of mental disorders used by doctors and other mental health workers, as well as insurance companies, to classify individuals with diagnosable mental disorders). He argues that that ?Internet addiction? is experienced primarily by people engaged in ?excessive gaming, sexual preoccupations, and e-mail/text messaging? and that its definition should include:
He cites a few studies to support his theory but seems to believe that we?re already past the point of debating if such a thing as ?Internet addiction? exists. Not to put too fine a point on it, we aren?t. Media responses to the editorial were predictable. Newspapers reported on it as if it were a new piece of empirical research, boldly claiming that spending too much time texting or being online was a mental disorder. Bloggers tried their best to mask their understandable anxiety behind defensive jokes about the possibility of being the first to get labeled.
Swallow This with a Grain of Salt
I was particularly surprised by what seemed like a significant omission in the commentary. Of the 103 articles in Nexis and 92 articles linked from Google News that refer to Dr. Block?s editorial not one of them reported the fact that Dr. Block is the co-founder and president of SMARTguard, a company which owns a patent on technology that can be used to restrict computer access. It?s funny that no one mentioned it, since its right there in the editorial footnote. It?s possible no one read the full editorial. It?s more frightening to think that everyone did, but were reassured by the footnote which reads :
I?m sure that Dr. Block is ethical, and I?m sure the reviewer was thorough (although I wonder what sort of evidence would have indicated influence). But I can?t imagine anyone seriously suggesting that his business interests aren?t in some way related to his interest in making this particular argument. Whether or not his opinions are guided by his business interests, the undeniable connection between the two ought to make readers skeptical and perhaps even incredulous.
Denying Reality
I?d like to make an argument of my own about ?Internet addiction?, more specifically about the labeling of it as a mental disorder. Calls for ?Internet addiction? aren?t just attempts to define and treat a behavior; they aren?t even attacks on technology per se. Rather, this all has something to do with a need to keep technology at a distance from human experience, something which it hasn?t been for many years.
In this way it?s hard not to read Block?s argument as an attempt to build some kind of border fence around human experience as a means of fending off the dangerous technologies which threaten to destroy our supposedly idyllic lives. In an era of ubiquitous and intimate computing the lines between computer technology and human experience are increasingly blurring together. I?m not describing a future where robots take over the world, I?m describing the present where we often fail to acknowledge how much computing technology is embedded in our daily lives and our subjective experience of ourselves and the world around us.
This reality is one that still threatens many people and I see this particularly among mental health professionals. Almost without exception, research into online sexuality uses as its yardstick offline psychological markers. To prove that spending too much time online causes social and psychological problems we compare people on how they manage offline. It?s like comparing apples to avatars. There is a faint echo of legitimacy but once you listen closely there?s nothing to hear.
But if mental health and legal professionals succeed in defining the Internet as just another variable to study, just another addiction to manage, they also succeed in momentarily keeping out of their awareness a reality that we are all already living. This reality is hardly a new one; it?s just another iteration of the medium being the message and the message being us.
In this way it seems ironic that mental health professionals are leading the charge, since ultimately the charge is a denial of an integrated part of people?s experience of the world. .
The Real Problem with ?Internet Addiction?
Dr. Block?s editorial is not without its merits. After all, regardless of conscious or unconscious motivation, the editorial is trying to speak about those of us who are having serious problems in the world. Whether Internet use is the cause or the effect, there?s no doubt that some of us are struggling with living, and being online makes things worse, not better.
We should be talking about these people, but more than talking about them, we should be talking with them. There is a time and place for the kind of quantitative social science research on which the DSM is built. But this is not the place or the time. What?s called for now is an effort to describe these experiences in ways that don?t neatly reduce complicated lives to coefficients and standard deviations. Now is the time for us to be collecting descriptive and narrative data. We need to understand the depth and richness of both the struggle and the drive to keep acting in ways that are self-harming. And we need to stop wasting our time pretending that the fault lies with technology and recognize that technology is no longer something we can separate out from our selves.
The American Journal of Psychiatry - Issues for DSM-V: Internet Addiction
More Commentary ? Dr. Petra Boynton, ISIS INC.
Related ? About Sex and Technology
1) excessive use, often associated with a loss of sense of time or a neglect of basic drives, 2) withdrawal, including feelings of anger, tension, and/or depression when the computer is inaccessible, 3) tolerance, including the need for better computer equipment, more software, or more hours of use, and 4) negative repercussions, including arguments, lying, poor achievement, social isolation, and fatigue.
He cites a few studies to support his theory but seems to believe that we?re already past the point of debating if such a thing as ?Internet addiction? exists. Not to put too fine a point on it, we aren?t. Media responses to the editorial were predictable. Newspapers reported on it as if it were a new piece of empirical research, boldly claiming that spending too much time texting or being online was a mental disorder. Bloggers tried their best to mask their understandable anxiety behind defensive jokes about the possibility of being the first to get labeled.
Swallow This with a Grain of Salt
I was particularly surprised by what seemed like a significant omission in the commentary. Of the 103 articles in Nexis and 92 articles linked from Google News that refer to Dr. Block?s editorial not one of them reported the fact that Dr. Block is the co-founder and president of SMARTguard, a company which owns a patent on technology that can be used to restrict computer access. It?s funny that no one mentioned it, since its right there in the editorial footnote. It?s possible no one read the full editorial. It?s more frightening to think that everyone did, but were reassured by the footnote which reads :
Dr. Block owns a patent on technology that can be used to restrict computer access. Dr. Freedman has reviewed this editorial and found no evidence of influence from this relationship.
I?m sure that Dr. Block is ethical, and I?m sure the reviewer was thorough (although I wonder what sort of evidence would have indicated influence). But I can?t imagine anyone seriously suggesting that his business interests aren?t in some way related to his interest in making this particular argument. Whether or not his opinions are guided by his business interests, the undeniable connection between the two ought to make readers skeptical and perhaps even incredulous.
Denying Reality
I?d like to make an argument of my own about ?Internet addiction?, more specifically about the labeling of it as a mental disorder. Calls for ?Internet addiction? aren?t just attempts to define and treat a behavior; they aren?t even attacks on technology per se. Rather, this all has something to do with a need to keep technology at a distance from human experience, something which it hasn?t been for many years.
In this way it?s hard not to read Block?s argument as an attempt to build some kind of border fence around human experience as a means of fending off the dangerous technologies which threaten to destroy our supposedly idyllic lives. In an era of ubiquitous and intimate computing the lines between computer technology and human experience are increasingly blurring together. I?m not describing a future where robots take over the world, I?m describing the present where we often fail to acknowledge how much computing technology is embedded in our daily lives and our subjective experience of ourselves and the world around us.
This reality is one that still threatens many people and I see this particularly among mental health professionals. Almost without exception, research into online sexuality uses as its yardstick offline psychological markers. To prove that spending too much time online causes social and psychological problems we compare people on how they manage offline. It?s like comparing apples to avatars. There is a faint echo of legitimacy but once you listen closely there?s nothing to hear.
But if mental health and legal professionals succeed in defining the Internet as just another variable to study, just another addiction to manage, they also succeed in momentarily keeping out of their awareness a reality that we are all already living. This reality is hardly a new one; it?s just another iteration of the medium being the message and the message being us.
In this way it seems ironic that mental health professionals are leading the charge, since ultimately the charge is a denial of an integrated part of people?s experience of the world. .
The Real Problem with ?Internet Addiction?
Dr. Block?s editorial is not without its merits. After all, regardless of conscious or unconscious motivation, the editorial is trying to speak about those of us who are having serious problems in the world. Whether Internet use is the cause or the effect, there?s no doubt that some of us are struggling with living, and being online makes things worse, not better.
We should be talking about these people, but more than talking about them, we should be talking with them. There is a time and place for the kind of quantitative social science research on which the DSM is built. But this is not the place or the time. What?s called for now is an effort to describe these experiences in ways that don?t neatly reduce complicated lives to coefficients and standard deviations. Now is the time for us to be collecting descriptive and narrative data. We need to understand the depth and richness of both the struggle and the drive to keep acting in ways that are self-harming. And we need to stop wasting our time pretending that the fault lies with technology and recognize that technology is no longer something we can separate out from our selves.
The American Journal of Psychiatry - Issues for DSM-V: Internet Addiction
More Commentary ? Dr. Petra Boynton, ISIS INC.
Related ? About Sex and Technology
Source...