![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Rosa on August 17, 2001, at 7:24:49
There is an Internet Addiction e-mail group at Yahoo.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/1AInternetAddiction
Do you think Internet Addiction is a problem?
How many hours a day/month do you think is acceptable?
Just Curious,
Rosa
Posted by Mitch on August 19, 2001, at 11:22:33
In reply to Internet Addiction, posted by Rosa on August 17, 2001, at 7:24:49
> Do you think Internet Addiction is a problem?
I suppose it could be if you were on it day and nite without a break.
>
> How many hours a day/month do you think is acceptable?I don't know, that is a tough question. I guess if it is interfering with getting other things done that are more important then I guess it could become a problem.
>
> Just Curious,
>
> Rosa
Posted by Kingfish on August 22, 2001, at 15:32:37
In reply to Re: Internet Addiction » Rosa, posted by Mitch on August 19, 2001, at 11:22:33
Rosa:
You seem to have a concern with addictions. What about addiction to addiction?
- K.
Posted by Mitch on August 22, 2001, at 23:37:42
In reply to Other Addictions?, posted by Kingfish on August 22, 2001, at 15:32:37
> Rosa:
>
> You seem to have a concern with addictions. What about addiction to addiction?
>
> - K.K.
Well, philosophically speaking you raise an interesting point. Internet "addiction" would be fundamentally only a mental phenomenon. No external *material* is being introduced into your body to affect your mind/brain. The *material* being *created* in your mind (hormones, neurotransmitters,etc.) would be purely a result of normal experience with your perceptual system.
Oh BTW,
"K" is the main character or narrator or something in Franz Kafka's novel-I think "The Castle" (hey it has been 25 years since I read it). It just struck me, coolMitch
Posted by Rosa on August 23, 2001, at 8:28:20
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Kingfish, posted by Mitch on August 22, 2001, at 23:37:42
In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
"A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
This doesn't sound like it's psychological.
What do you think?
Rosa
> > Rosa:
> >
> > You seem to have a concern with addictions. What about addiction to addiction?
> >
> > - K.
>
> K.
>
> Well, philosophically speaking you raise an interesting point. Internet "addiction" would be fundamentally only a mental phenomenon. No external *material* is being introduced into your body to affect your mind/brain. The *material* being *created* in your mind (hormones, neurotransmitters,etc.) would be purely a result of normal experience with your perceptual system.
>
> Oh BTW,
> "K" is the main character or narrator or something in Franz Kafka's novel-I think "The Castle" (hey it has been 25 years since I read it). It just struck me, cool
>
> Mitch
Posted by Mitch on August 23, 2001, at 10:18:55
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Mitch, posted by Rosa on August 23, 2001, at 8:28:20
> In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
>
> "A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
>
> This doesn't sound like it's psychological.
>
> What do you think?
>
> RosaRosa,
That is thought-provoking. However, given the widespread occurence of all of the "non-substantive addictive" behaviours mentioned by the Dr. couldn't this all be explained by just plain old *boredom*? We need to "kill time", so to speak. I read one of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s books last year, I think it was "Time Quake". In it he describes how he made a living writing short fiction for periodicals, and that was the "hot" thing to kill time with before TV. After television that just drifted away, and he decided to write novels instead. I suppose one could argue that the internet is less "passive" than television so that would represent some improvement. You do have to read and write.
Mitch
Posted by Simcha on August 23, 2001, at 10:45:59
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Mitch, posted by Rosa on August 23, 2001, at 8:28:20
Rosa,
I think it is the way I'm wired. It seems that the pdocs classify the behavioral addictions as compulsions. I'm not sure that that distinction is entirely necessary. Behavioral addictions have their chemical rewards as certain endorphines are released in performing the behaviors.
Not sure... That's a theory.
> In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
>
> "A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
>
> This doesn't sound like it's psychological.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Rosa
>
> > > Rosa:
> > >
> > > You seem to have a concern with addictions. What about addiction to addiction?
> > >
> > > - K.
> >
> > K.
> >
> > Well, philosophically speaking you raise an interesting point. Internet "addiction" would be fundamentally only a mental phenomenon. No external *material* is being introduced into your body to affect your mind/brain. The *material* being *created* in your mind (hormones, neurotransmitters,etc.) would be purely a result of normal experience with your perceptual system.
> >
> > Oh BTW,
> > "K" is the main character or narrator or something in Franz Kafka's novel-I think "The Castle" (hey it has been 25 years since I read it). It just struck me, cool
> >
> > Mitch
Posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 10:56:09
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Rosa, posted by Mitch on August 23, 2001, at 10:18:55
> > In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
> >
> > "A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
> >
> > This doesn't sound like it's psychological.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Rosa
>
> Rosa,
>
> That is thought-provoking. However, given the widespread occurence of all of the "non-substantive addictive" behaviours mentioned by the Dr. couldn't this all be explained by just plain old *boredom*? We need to "kill time", so to speak. I read one of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s books last year, I think it was "Time Quake". In it he describes how he made a living writing short fiction for periodicals, and that was the "hot" thing to kill time with before TV. After television that just drifted away, and he decided to write novels instead.And then before the radio and phonograph there were pianos and sheet music
susan C.
>I suppose one could argue that the internet is less "passive" than television so that would represent some improvement. You do have to read and write.
>
> Mitch
Posted by Rosa on August 23, 2001, at 11:04:52
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Rosa, posted by Mitch on August 23, 2001, at 10:18:55
Mitch,
I don't watch very much television, however, I do use it to get away from the computer occasionally. If I can get interested in something on television, it will keep me away from the computer at least an hour.
I have to get offline and go to the bank. I have been online since about 8:00 AM, that's about 4 hours. Later.
Rosa
---------------------
Rosa,
That is thought-provoking. However, given the widespread occurence of all of the "non-substantive addictive" behaviours mentioned by the Dr. couldn't this all be explained by just plain old *boredom*? We need to "kill time", so to speak. I read one of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s books last year, I think it was "Time Quake". In it he describes how he made a living writing short fiction for periodicals, and that was the "hot" thing to kill time with before TV. After television that just drifted away, and he decided to write novels instead. I suppose one could argue that the internet is less "passive" than television so that would represent some improvement. You do have to read and write.
>
> Mitch
Posted by Rosa on August 23, 2001, at 11:12:34
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Rosa, posted by Simcha on August 23, 2001, at 10:45:59
Now that begins to sound like a "chemical" addiction.
Rosa
> Rosa,
>
> I think it is the way I'm wired. It seems that the pdocs classify the behavioral addictions as compulsions. I'm not sure that that distinction is entirely necessary. Behavioral addictions have their chemical rewards as certain endorphines are released in performing the behaviors.
>
> Not sure... That's a theory.
>
>
> > In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
> >
> > "A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
> >
> > This doesn't sound like it's psychological.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Rosa
> >
Posted by Mitch on August 23, 2001, at 12:39:24
In reply to Re: Other Addictions?, posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 10:56:09
> > > In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
> > >
> > > "A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
> > >
> > > This doesn't sound like it's psychological.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Rosa
> >
> > Rosa,
> >
> > That is thought-provoking. However, given the widespread occurence of all of the "non-substantive addictive" behaviours mentioned by the Dr. couldn't this all be explained by just plain old *boredom*? We need to "kill time", so to speak. I read one of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s books last year, I think it was "Time Quake". In it he describes how he made a living writing short fiction for periodicals, and that was the "hot" thing to kill time with before TV. After television that just drifted away, and he decided to write novels instead.
>
> And then before the radio and phonograph there were pianos and sheet music
>
> susan C.
>
> >I suppose one could argue that the internet is less "passive" than television so that would represent some improvement. You do have to read and write.
> >
> > MitchSusan/Rosa:
It looks as though there is a continuum of mental engagement to kill time with that is very passive (TV) at one extreme and very active *learning* (pianos/sheet music) at the other end. Say computers, etc. somewhere in the middle. I have to admit that *learning* is more stimulating than anything else. TV tends to just turn into a burn of sorts.
Mitch
Posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 12:57:46
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » susan C, posted by Mitch on August 23, 2001, at 12:39:24
> > > > In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
> > > >
> > > > "A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't sound like it's psychological.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Rosa
> > >
> > > Rosa,
> > >
> > > That is thought-provoking. However, given the widespread occurence of all of the "non-substantive addictive" behaviours mentioned by the Dr. couldn't this all be explained by just plain old *boredom*? We need to "kill time", so to speak. I read one of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s books last year, I think it was "Time Quake". In it he describes how he made a living writing short fiction for periodicals, and that was the "hot" thing to kill time with before TV. After television that just drifted away, and he decided to write novels instead.
> >
> > And then before the radio and phonograph there were pianos and sheet music
> >
> > susan C.
> >
> > >I suppose one could argue that the internet is less "passive" than television so that would represent some improvement. You do have to read and write.
> > >
> > > Mitch
>
> Susan/Rosa:
>
> It looks as though there is a continuum of mental engagement to kill time with that is very passive (TV) at one extreme and very active *learning* (pianos/sheet music) at the other end. Say computers, etc. somewhere in the middle. I have to admit that *learning* is more stimulating than anything else. TV tends to just turn into a burn of sorts.
>
> MitchAhh, but then there is 'Educational' TV...and then there is Marshal Mcleuen (sp) the media is the message, the mentally intreguing aspect of the screen refreshrate itself...I need to reread that book. Then there is the relatively new phenomonem(sp) of conversation via typing, like morse code or telegraphs but instant...more food for thought, speaking of food...
mouse out hunting for morsels
Posted by Kingfish on August 25, 2001, at 18:26:45
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Kingfish, posted by Mitch on August 22, 2001, at 23:37:42
> Oh, man, Mitch, I've been asleep the last two days because I started Depakote, and completely forgot about this thread. I have reread your comments about three times. They're not sinking in. But they seem very interesting. :)
I always like being called "K" - short for "Kelly", as well. Thank you - I accept your assignment of coolness gladly.
Posted by Kingfish on August 25, 2001, at 18:31:17
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » susan C, posted by Mitch on August 23, 2001, at 12:39:24
Absolutely it's "a burn of sorts" - unless you're watching the History Channel, or the Discovery Channel, or the Food Channel (but you have to be writing the recipes down)...
>
Posted by Kingfish on August 25, 2001, at 18:34:43
In reply to Re: Other Addictions?, posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 12:57:46
is sleeping right now...
- I see Susan got the educational TV aspect. Should have known she'd beat me to it.;)
At times, both helped by depression, and medication, I can sit and stare at whatever happens to be in front of me, and just think.
Can you be addicted to thinking?
What about to playing with your dogs? Or petting your cat?
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 25, 2001, at 23:20:57
In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Mitch, posted by Rosa on August 23, 2001, at 8:28:20
Rosa wrote:
In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
"A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
____________________________________I don’t think Dr. Grohol wrote those words, but I think the author would take it as a compliment that the prose was attributed to an actual doctor. I think the excerpt is from an essay posted to the International Mental Health On-line general Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ismho-general/message/1361 )
As a friend of the pretty nurse behind the shelter in a roundabout who is selling poppies from a tray, I have a special insight into addiction. Our understanding of behaviors described as addiction is a result of the sacrifices by countless heroin addicts (who often sacrifice other’s lives as well as their own). Our understanding of the neurology of addiction started with an understanding of addiction to opiates, then advanced through the discovery of an endogenous opiod system to a more rounded understanding of the reward system of the brain.
Since opiates are most closely related to the endorphines that help trigger dopamine activity in the reward networks, they tend to trigger the most obvious signs of physical addiction. But the processes opiates trigger are similar to the processes triggered by *good* addictions. Our reward system attenuates us to return to productive behaviors, hopefully. In pathological addiction, the reward system attenuates us to destructive behaviors. The crisis, for addictionologists, is distinguishing between productive and pathological attachments.
One can rationally argue that addiction to opiates, if dosages are controlled and the habit is not tainted by the social problems of opiate prohibition, might be no more harmful than addiction to television. Perhaps harm is a poor measure of addiction, though it is a measure commonly used in some settings. Perhaps an opposite measure – of benefit, rather than of harm – would be more useful in sorting out which rewarding behaviors are truly worthy of our attachment. Granted, other factors including salience, tolerance, relief and withdrawal are described as elements of addiction. But the measurement of salience, tolerance, relief, withdrawal and harm does not always inform efforts to distinguish between beneficial attachments and pathological addiction. Certainly amorous love evokes patterns of salience, relief, tolerance and withdrawal. (I can’t get enough of you, baby, etc.) And love can lead to some very harmful sorts of attachments. But then suffering through harmful aspects of personal attachment can be useful, for individuals and for their community. Some things, like maybe freedom, might even be worth dying for - that seems very addictive but maybe the pursuit of freedom is a worthy addiction.
We describe pathological attachments as addictive in part because we learned about the reward system by studying addiction. Addiction is the word science grew up with, but it might not be the most fitting term. We now talk about process addictions as well as substance addictions. Opiod addictions antagonize the endorphine system and hence attenuate the dopaminergic networks that mediate our attachments to worldly things. Cocaine and amphetamines antagonize the dopamine system more directly, with similar results, though with less obvious physical symptoms of withdrawal. Processes – gambling, sex, communication and other behaviors – seem to stimulate activity throughout the reward system, and can have many of the same effects as substance addictions. As our collective understanding of the reward system increases, perhaps we will develop more precise language for describing the neurochemistry that mediates our attachment to worldly things. The pejorative and pathological implications of to the term “addiction” might best be left in the dust-bin of history.
A more precise terminology might let us better sort out which of our habits are useful and which are needlessly burdensome. With brains, use it or lose it is the rule. So communication, via the Internet, television, telephone or by gregarious engagement of strangers at parties can be productive. But motion – physical motion – is also an important element of developing neural networks. In as much as communication – via television, Internet, music or otherwise – builds connectivity in the brain, it can be useful. But when communication habits interfere with physical mobility, chances are they are slowing down some neural processes. Information overload can also be problematic – we can assimilate more information than we can effectively process and as a result might tend to ignore otherwise relevant information when it does not rise above the noise level.
In the final analysis, it does not matter whether we are addicted or not. What probably matters more is how productive are our attachments for the purposes we hold to be important during our brief mortal lives, and whether we can effectively choose for ourselves our endearments in this life.
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 25, 2001, at 23:36:31
In reply to Re: Other Addictions?, posted by Pennie Lane on August 25, 2001, at 23:20:57
Dr. John Grohol says "Internet Addiction Disorder" was created as a parody then caught on as a psuedo-diagnosis. And that was long before two-thirds of American families were on-line. A 1998 footnote to a 1995 Grohol article hints at the origins of "Internet Addiction Disorder":
http://psychcentral.com/new2.htm
"This article was originally written regarding the creation of "Internet Addiction Disorder" (IAD), which was done so as a parody. That it was created as a parody was not readily known to most people (myself included) until well after the fact. IAD has since "caught on" as a pseudo-diagnosis and become quite popular, despite the lack of research into it as a distinct diagnostic category. Despite some professionals protestations to the contrary, IAD is not a disorder and IAD does not exist; there is little research to show otherwise (and much of that is poorly done). - JMG (4/98)"
Posted by Rosa on August 26, 2001, at 6:40:31
In reply to Re: Other Addictions?, posted by Pennie Lane on August 25, 2001, at 23:20:57
You may be right! Excellent response.
Relationship addictions can be a challenge especially if they are of a sexual nature. The challenge is to know when to "let go" of the relationship. Abandonment and rejection issues are difficult for most of us.
Rosa
> Rosa wrote:
>
> In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
> "A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
> ____________________________________
>
> I don’t think Dr. Grohol wrote those words, but I think the author would take it as a compliment that the prose was attributed to an actual doctor. I think the excerpt is from an essay posted to the International Mental Health On-line general Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ismho-general/message/1361 )
>
[snip]
Posted by susan C on August 26, 2001, at 12:52:46
In reply to Internet Addiction Disorder, posted by Pennie Lane on August 25, 2001, at 23:36:31
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.