Internet Addiction, The Fake Disorder
In my last post, I gave one side of the issue — how internet addiction is seen as a disease and disorder. This week, I am going to focus on the flip side of this issue and how it is argued to not be a disease or disorder. Many people support the idea that internet addiction does not exist, and it is solely based on bad habits. It is said to be an excuse for habits that other people actually have but do not face the reality of.
One of the main reasons argued why internet addiction is not considered a disorder is when looking at the DSM-5, also known as version 5 of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the most up to date appendix of disorders, IUD, or Internet Use Disorder is not included in it. Because the DSM is said to be high in credibility, especially since many psychiatrists use it as reference, there are parallels made by people about how because the DSM is uncertain and needs further research on whether or not IUD is an addiction and how that results into the idea that IUD really is not an addiction. Ronald Pies, in his paper about whether or not the DSM should designate internet addiction as a mental disorder, quotes many other specialists in addiction who are skeptical about IUD as a disorder. For example, research shows that excessive internet use was correlated to people who have underlying disorders such as anxiety disorders. This research resulted in the conclusion that IUD is not independent, therefore it is not able to be able to called a disease alone. Which brings in how internet addiction is actually an addiction that exists by the help of the internet. These underlying addictions and diseases are the ones that actually need addressing. One of the main examples of this is online gambling. Online gambling is not an internet addiction, it is a gambling addiction. The existence of the internet just makes it more convenient to gamble. But with online gambling, it seems like there is an excessive use of internet use, which leads to the conclusion that the person has an internet addiction rather than a gambling addiction. Internet addiction, as a result, is argued to be too broad of an umbrella to be placed as its own category of addictions.
But beyond the idea that internet addiction is just a big umbrella for many other addictions, internet addiction as a disorder is not recognized because it offers, concluded by Levy, “direct benefits” to society. And in turn, it should not be criticized to be addictive. The internet has too much to offer to make it a negative thing to have some sort of addiction to. It is opinionated that the life problems it can cause are relatively minor and it does not actually directly affect the health of the user. No new substances are introduced to the body, unlike drugs or alcohol.
Overall, because credited sources do not recognize and define internet addiction as a disorder or disease, many people do claim and believe it is not as well. This insists upon how the denial of the existence of internet addiction is not solely based on because the internet is so new or the uncertainty of it and further research is needed to prove it as real, because it is convincingly nonexistent for many.
