Explanation of why this is V 2.0 is at the end of this diary.
Because reading this means you are on the internet, and depending on how often and how intense your engagement, your behavior just could be described as a mental illness, or personality disorder under new definitions now in development.
The bible of what is and what is not a mental disorder is found in a publication of the American Psychiatric Association entitled Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The link is useful as it gives history of this document as well as how the latest version, DSM-5 to be published in a couple of years is developing.
I was doing research as a Grad Student at one of the centers of research, N.Y State Psychiatric Institute, when the earlier version was being developed in the late 1970s, so I had a flavor of the thinking, which was to put mental illnesses in the same objective categories as somatic illnesses were, with a complete definition of etiology and symptoms. Wikipedia has an excellent essayon the history of this manual, which is also the history of American Psychiatry
This is the paragraph in an LA Times articlethat got my attention:
Gambling, sex addiction and Internet addiction -- formerly dismissed as harmful habits that could be defeated with willpower -- may also be labeled illnesses.
"Internet Addiction" is actually a bizarre concept, since there is a universe of activities that can be engaged in through the internet. So, for those who want to explore how the psychiatric profession views this problem, I'll quote from an Editorialfrom the American Journal of Psychiatry
Issues for DSM-V: Internet Addiction
Jerald J. Block, M.D. see V 2.0
Internet addiction appears to be a common disorder that merits inclusion in DSM-V. Conceptually, the diagnosis is a compulsive-impulsive spectrum disorder that involves online and/or offline computer usage (1, 2) and consists of at least three subtypes: excessive gaming, sexual preoccupations, and e-mail/text messaging (3). All of the variants share the following four components: 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 (3, 4).
While I spend considerable time on this site, I'm not sure whether I fit these preliminary criteria, but I would argue that the definition is conceptually flawed. How does a third party, even a mental health professional, judge what is excessive use of exchanging emails. I would say it would depend on the nature of the conversation going on by this medium, and whether it is pathological or not is always a judgment call, and one based on the judges values.
Writing emails, along with writing diaries and comments on a political blog, is not a generic activity. When I'm on this diary I can choose to interact on diaries that interest me, to share others experiences, and to address the issue either personally or abstractly.
If the issue is technical-political, legal or historical, I often do a quick bit of research before engaging, or I elicit my own memories, which for someone with a real fear of dementia is often amazing that I remembered the name of that play I saw two decades ago. And then I evaluate the others who may be on the site for this diary to make it relate to their sentiments and approach.
So, to consider the hours that I spend on this particular corner of the internet as potentially an addiction to be coded by the APA in their new DSM-5 is rather disturbing. It also bothers me when I see such lack of understanding from an editor of the house organ that attempts to aggregate that which is not at all fungible.
There are internet sites for sexual titillation and there are internet sets that explore theoretical physics, along and everything in between. The internet is a magic lens into all that is known to the world, only a few keystrokes away for those with the keys to enter it. It is a monumental waste of time for some, while being an amazing magnificent medium for interacting with all the world.
Anything can be an addiction: Crossword puzzles, quilting, bird watching, jogging, or collecting match covers. It is as though they classified reading as addictive, ignoring what was being read and for what purpose. It is a poor reflection on the American Psychiatric Association that it chooses "The Internet" as the one medium to include as potentially problematic in the new DSM-5.
For a group of learned professionals who considered homosexuality an illness until 1974 I have just a bit of reluctance to let them be the official body to decide on what is and is not mental illness. And based on what I have presented here, they don't seem to even remotely have the right approach to thinking about the subject.
--------------
V 2.0
This diary was published here late last night, and elicited a good discussion. Medical diagnosis is a major issue that is intertwined in the change to universal health care, whatever form it may take. Every problem that humans face that can become a medical "illness" means it will be treatable at the public's expense. And as humans a degree of suffering is our destiny.
I'm putting out this V 2.0 for single reason, a line I noticed a the the end of the editorial I excerpted above by the editor of the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association:
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.
This explains why of all activities that can be addictive, Dr. Block is focusing on the Internet, which is also an activity that can provide immense value to the user. And we are asked to be reassured that this is not influencing him because "Dr. Freedman" said so.
This is a vast problem, as described in the LA Times article linked above:
A study published online in the current issue of the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics found that of 20 work group members writing clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and major depression, 18 had at least one financial tie to industry.
A commentary in the May 7 New England Journal of Medicine said that 56% of DSM-V task force and committee members have industry ties.
DSM-V committee members have been asked to abide by conflict-of-interest rules, including agreeing to receive no more than $10,000 annually from industry sources during the period they serve on the committee.
But that isn't going far enough, said Lisa Cosgrove, lead author of the Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics analysis and an associate professor and clinical psychologist at the University of Massachusetts. "There are currently work groups where every single person has ties," Cosgrove said. "It doesn't seem like genuine progress has been made."
As striking as the above statistics of industry involvement are, I would doubt that Dr. Block's internet restriction patent would even be included.
Human behavior, in all its messy variety, should not be defined, sorted, and tacitly judged by a group of professionals with narrow, if extensive, training. This is made even more clear by the blatant self interest that has infected this process, where those who are making these decisions stand to profit greatly by expansion of "official" disease entities.