The Media Zone

How the media make sense and nonsense of the world

Stuart Fischoff, Ph.D. is Senior Editor of the Journal of Media Psychology and Emeritus Professor of Media Psychology at Cal State, Los Angeles. See full bio

Comments on "Internet Addiction: Real or Really Techno-Hysteria? - Part 3"

Internet Addiction: Real or Really Techno-Hysteria? - Part 3

By Stuart Fischoff, Ph.D. on July 11, 2008 in The Media Zone

Drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, these are heavy baggage, sin-related substances and activities. Curing them may be doing the Lord’s work ... But what of modern day, technology-inspired addictions? Are divine forces operating here too? Read More

Internet Addiction, redux

Submitted by Dr. Mike on July 12, 2008 - 3:44pm.

It's been about a decade since I've given much thought to "IA", having determined for myself at least, that "integration" of online and offline activity is essential for healthy functioning... and that is likely the case for most of us. Anything to excess is likely to be labeled an "addiction" (especially by health professionals, point taken).

I don't see it as necessarily "either/or": one is either an "addict" or a person using information &/or social networking technology a great deal. By the same token I am not sure it's productive (or honest) to apply an either/or "diagnosis" or judgment as to whether the "typical" person who spends "significant" amount of time online, is either an "addict" OR a self-treating, socially shy person who might be frustrated in analagous social activities f2f.

There's a whole middle ground here. Technology is used, cathected to, abused, mis-used, etc. Like other less evolved tools of life. I know people I would call (but not under oath) "addicted" to the computer, not to being online, in isolation. I know people who spent most of their social time online, but while one might think, "addict", "avoiding REAL" (f2f) interaction, as you hint at, for some the CMI is absolutely "real", and even a link to "normal" human interaction, be it f2f dialog, cell-phone addiction, Crackberry time sponging, or whatever. Some are shy and it may be debatable if they "should" try to get out more, etc. Some are physically challenged, and cannot.

I know at least 2 paraplegics who can communicate only via computer, mostly by controlling it via voice or mouth, and resulting in email or forum posts. It can take an hour to write a "simple" social post a sentence or two long, but to responded to as if "normal" and cherished.... Priceless.

Internet Addiction... Know it well, love it, but left it due my addiction to psychology and photography. :-) And making a living.

You rock, Stuart! You have felt the fire of the controversy ("addiction!") and taken it to the higher plane of need-fulfillment, self-esteem, and social context. Should we "damn" computers or bless them?
Maybe both. Maybe they're a reflection of US!

addiction as Rorschach

Submitted by Stuart Fischoff, Ph.D. on July 14, 2008 - 7:15am.

Mike, Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Any subject entered into with any depth is ultimately rather complex -- I've read books on hula hoops and on candy wrappers. Only on psychedelics did I find those subjects worth serious consideration (ceramic coffee cups too). But others found them worthy of serious discourse and mined them for their meaning and revealed their complexity. The Internet is one very complex issue in and of itself. Then when you ride off on a tangent (or tributary), like IA, complexity suddenly compounds astronomically. One is bound to pass over some facet or consideration that another finds rather important and demanding of mention. Most users of the Internet are in the middle. But some just lightly travel the highway, others spend mucho time at various way stations. I generally have to pass over rather quickly the people in the 66 2/3% range and talk about the extreme ranges in order to make points about almost anything. It looks like either/or, but that's just because I've chosen to look at the extremes to make points about the mid-range by which the extremes are sometimes best understood (I think). I still believe that so much use of anything comes, in most instances, in moderation and then swerves off to the extremes at moments in time when other forces detach us or push us deeper; like your photography, I would imagine. But we eventually return to our normal moderate use of anything. Frankly, Michael, I am so tired of our field addictifying everything either to permit treatment to be covered by insurance or to find a speciality or to feel comfortable in a model that we think we understand, but maybe don't. Was Freud correct? Are we dealing with anxiety-binding when we talk of addiction? Or is it symptom-substitution or habit hierarchy, as learning theory would have it when someone trades one "addition" for another? Or is addiction (not physical addictions, now) really focus and life style for some, which works for them where they are, for who they are, and for what they are, at this point in time,then, when life variables change, they move on? I sort of think so. Given the pace of change in our culture, especially with electronic changes (forget about climate changes for the moment), maybe Toffler's concept of "future shock" is not outmoded. Maybe we must talk about shock as a life style, daily shock, appliance shock, fad shock. It's roller coaster time in America. Stuart

Third-party payment

Submitted by Larry Kutner on July 12, 2008 - 6:56pm.

Another seldom-raised reason for the push for an official DSM diagnosis of Internet Addiction or Video Game Addiction is that it would make it easier for mental health providers to get reimbursed by insurance companies for "treating" these problems.

Many of the strong advocates for establishing these diagnoses are not financially disinterested in this.