Korea's Internet "addiction" boot-camps
I believe that it's possible to do anything to excess, but I balk at the use of the term "addict" to describe someone whose problem doesn't involve an actual substance with the concomitant changes to brain-chemistry. An addiction is something that afflicts you because you take the drug, regardless of the other circumstances.
For example, if you are a happy, well-adjusted person who smokes cigarettes on a daily basis, you'll still have trouble giving them up, no matter that you're otherwise a paragon of good habits. But "addictions" to activities like using the Internet presumably have their origins in problems with your life or outlook -- root causes that mere separation can't address.
As a drill instructor barked orders, Chang-hoon and 17 other boys marched through a cold autumn rain to the obstacle course. Wet and shivering, Chang-hoon began climbing the first obstacle, a telephone pole with small metal rungs. At the top, he slowly stood up, legs quaking, arms outstretched for balance. Below, the other boys held a safety rope attached to a harness on his chest.Link (via /.)“Do you have anything to tell your mother?” the drill instructor shouted from below.
“No!” he yelled back.
“Tell your mother you love her!” ordered the instructor.
“I love you, my parents!” he replied.
“Then jump!” ordered the instructor. Chang-hoon squatted and leapt to a nearby trapeze, catching it in his hands.
“Fighting!” yelled the other boys, using the English word that in South Korea means the rough equivalent of “Don’t give up!”
After Chang-hoon descended, he said, “That was better than games!”
Was it thrilling enough to wean him from the Internet?
“I’m not thinking about games now, so maybe this will help,” he replied. “From now on, maybe I’ll just spend five hours a day online.”
the latest
latest episodes
While I agree with you the the word addiction is often misused, I think that "problems with your life or outlook" as you put it, are often the root cause of substance addiction, too.
And as for changes in brain chemistry caused by substances, well, the brain can experience changes in chemistry without introducing chemicals, too. We call these changes in brain chemistry moods and emotions.
So I think the line between what can be addictive (gambling? cocaine? the internet?) and what can't is often pretty fuzzy.
Bottom line is we don't know much about what causes addiction, and even less about how to treat it.
Yes, surely problems with your life can lead to substance abuse too, but not always. I started smoking at 14 because I was a teenager and dumb, but not because I had any especial problems with my relationships or mental health or development. By the time I was 32 (when I quit), I was physiologically addicted to cigarettes, and confronted physical withdrawal (as well as all the "purely mental" effects of giving up) when I quit.
There are many interventions that might have prevented me from taking up smoking -- and that might have led to my giving up sooner. But none of them involved solving problems with my mental health or economic situation or social circumstances, because none of those were problematic.
So while we can imagine the possibility of an addict who doesn't have underlying problems to solve, someone who is obsessed with an activity (spending 17h/day online to the exclusion of friendship and family, for example) has these problems by definition.
My wife was a gambling counselor, so I've heard the spiel many, many times.
Gambling addiction (and I suspect internet addiction) releases the same endorphins into the brain that chemical addiction does. The addict brain becomes wired over time to need more and more endorphins. At the same time, the brain is also wiring itself to optimize the endorphin output from that activity, to the detriment of other activities. At some point, it stops being about the money (or even levelling your dwarf), and more about the high.
The other interesting point was that it is rare that she would have an addict that didn't "win big" at the beginning of their addiction.
>>I believe that it's possible to do anything to excess, but I balk at the use of the term "addict" to describe someone whose problem doesn't involve an actual substance with the concomitant changes to brain-chemistry.
Unfortunately, you're working off a pretty limited definition of addiction.
Many activities, such as gambling, have documented effects on brain chemistry, such as increased levels of norepinephrine, dopamine, and beta-endorphins during and for some time after the activity. If someone performs that activity enough, the brain becomes habituated to that state, thus qualifying as an addiction.
No drug need be involved for an addiction to form.
A well-adjusted person who becomes an alcoholic is not a well-adjusted person anymore. The drug itself can cause the problem. Same thing with the internet. Your use of cigarettes is misleading, as cigarettes are almost alone among addictive substances in not having many negative psychological side effects.
Drug addiction is a problem because it damages you. Gambling addiction is a problem because it wipes out your money.
Gaming addiction... well, it uses time. So do any number of other activities. Music is my big one -- I make it, I listen to it. I bring my Zune to work every day, but I will turn it off the second anyone needs to talk to me. I spent 9 solid hours yesterday putting together a track for NaSoAlMo. I would be extremely surprised if my brain chemistry was much different from a WoW player's.
But I am not "addicted" to music, nor do I know anyone who is, nor are there camps to get people to stop liking music.
Cory's distinction is real. If a well-adjusted person plays video games, they won't be harmed nor become an addict. If a well-adjusted person shoots heroin, well, you know the rest.
This notion of "Internet addiction" is extremely dangerous.
Imagine that they were sending bookworms to be treated for their addiction like this. I'll bet a strong reading habit has a similar brain chemistry...
unfortunately, there's no article comments section addiction boot camp. :\
>>Imagine that they were sending bookworms to be treated for their addiction like this. I'll bet a strong reading habit has a similar brain chemistry...
If said bookworms were spending seven or eight hours a day reading books at the expense of other obligations and at the detriment to their health, treatment for an addiction would definitely be in consideration.
The people who are being treated for Internet addiction are not analogous to people with a simple appreciation for reading. The people receiving treatment are the kind of people who die after spending days playing videogames, skip school, and think that spending 17 hours online at a time is perfectly fine.
I had a student who dropped out of all her classes due to a forum addiction. Yes, one can get addicted to reading but the 24/7 drip of posts to an internet message board is a different beast, I think.
And yes, as an ex-smoker I too have had that prissy "no-one else knows what addiction truly IS unless they've experienced physical withdrawal symptoms" attitude, but it's bogus. Addictions come in all shapes and forms: drugs, sex, gambling, danger, social. Internet addiction is a social addiction: these people aren't spending their time browsing online technical manuals or Project Gutenberg.
Internet addiction isn't possible? Do you believe that when addictive crap like opium goes into the body, that it magically CREATES the neuroreceptors they must attach themselves to? Nope. Those receptors (the source of nearly every addiction) are already there and quite capable of receiving megadoses of body's internal opiates (endorphins).
Substance addiction is a weak substitute for the intense dosages possible from endorphin addiction. And I say that with sadness, not gladness. Lotta poor suckers are addicted to gambling, sex, food, and work but since they know it's not substance abuse, they're figure they're imagining their addiction.
Wondering which specific behaviors trigger endorphin release? Open your local phone book to "anonymous" groups. Those ones that previously seemed kinda bogus like workaholics, overeaters, gamblers, sexaholics.... those people don't go to meeting for the fun of it. They've triggered a NON-stubstance activity that releases endorphins in sufficient quantities to create a bona fide physical addiction. Lucky them, hmm?
I'd opine that the internet's problem is it's a perfect carrier of these addictions. Check out the most popular commercial web sites. Sex, gambling, food, work. Hmm. Do I see a pattern? Do you? Behavior addiction recovery is just like substance addiction recovery. Either drop a few grand on rehab or trudge down to a group meeting. It's safe to say that boot camp is a temporary answer, at best.
Not to sidestep the entire previous discussion, but there was a wonderful article in Harpers about a year ago (maybe less) where one of the writers enrolled himself in a Chinese internet clinic and has some interesting results. It's available here but requires a subscription
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/0081438
though by the end, I'm not sure he's cured.
The term addiction is definitely overused, and I used to think things like "internet addiction" were nonsense until I spent a large portion of last year studying addiction and working on Wikipedia's alcoholism article. I have to agree with the earlier comments pointing out that the structural changes to the brain associated with addition are only directly caused by substance use, and can also be indirectly caused by behaviors, including gambling, eating, self-starvation, cutting, and perhaps even internet use.
One common misconception people have about addiction is that the term applies to anyone who has problems associated with a behavior or substance. On the contrary, most people who have problems due to alcohol use (for instance), are not actually addicted, and tend to return to moderate drinking. But that doesn't mean that nobody is addicted, and it's important to realize that addiction is something more specific than just a bad habit. The same is probably true for internet use: most people who use the internet too much, aren't addicted, but there may still be some people who are.
Cory, I was already to storm in here and refute your idea of "addiction", but it seems others have done it nicely for me.
Working with people who are substance dependence / "addicted", in a Clean Needle Program, you get to see exactly what addiction and dependence are, and how to two vary greatly.
The smoker is a good example - some people can smoke to the point where they are physically dependent and just stop, withdrawal be damned, where others simply can't. Not because of physical withdrawal (it's fairly minor with nicotine), but because of a psychological dependence.
Ask a doctor is that benzodiazepine or SSRI anti-depressent is "addictive" (which they most certainly are, the former more-so) and they'll refute you all the way to the bank. A semantic proposal borne mainly from sensitivities about creating "addiction".
All in all "addiction" is a blunt, crude term that deservers to be replaced by 'dependence', and a few other terms, whether refering to something psychological or physiological.
Err, excuse the gramatical car-crash above that was my first thought on a Monday morning...
"Those receptors (the source of nearly every addiction) are already there and quite capable of receiving megadoses of body's internal opiates (endorphins)."
Nicotine actually causes the brain to create more nicotine receptors. Or so I've read.
"Substance addiction is a weak substitute for the intense dosages possible from endorphin addiction."
Really? I'm thinking a shot of heroin's just a wee bit more intense than playing Grand Theft Auto.
"Wondering which specific behaviors trigger endorphin release? Open your local phone book to "anonymous" groups. Those ones that previously seemed kinda bogus like workaholics, overeaters, gamblers, sexaholics...."
Hugging a child or a puppy releases endorphins, too. Are you addicted to your loved ones or pets? I'm just sayin'
Endorphin release and receptors aside, an addiction is any which activity which impairs your ability to function normally should you:
a) continue doing it.
b) cease to do it.
By that definition of course we're addicted to breathing and eating, but it's a fairly valid acid test.
For example, I'm addicted to caffeine. As long as I have 3/4 mugs a day I'm fine, but if I stop I get a killer headache which impairs my ability to function.
If you're masturbating 15 times a day, I'd imagine that would classify as an addiction because (unless you're Flash) I imagine that would mean that you're skiving off work to run and have a tug.
Addiction is just another illness though, if you're happy in your addiction and it doesn't hurt anyone else then I figure: go forth! I'm sure as hell not giving up the java.
It's dismaying to me that even the medical community doesn't have a useful definition of "addiction," unless I'm mistaken.
I've even seen it asserted that the difference between "addiction" and "dependence" is that an addict craves the substance, whereas dependence doesn't involve a craving. WTF? (I know, not very enlightening, but I do try....)
If said bookworms were spending seven or eight hours a day reading books at the expense of other obligations and at the detriment to their health, treatment for an addiction would definitely be in consideration.
Yet people throughout history have done so, and no one except for some totalitarian regimes has attacked books as dangerous.
My point is that in conveniently ignoring the real anti-social problems these individuals face, authorities are creating a boogeyman out of powerful tool that can undermine them. That they don't re-educate antisocial TV watchers is pretty telling.
>Yet people throughout history have done so, and no one except for some totalitarian regimes has attacked books as dangerous.
Well, it's certainly not possible that people didn't understand the neurochemical bases of addiction before recent times. And it's DEFINITELY not possible that what was considered acceptable in the past can change.
I'll be frank: I don't understand the point you're making. Are you implying that people who discover that some activities have the same brain functions as drug addictions and the people who make decisions based on that information are on the same level as a totalitarian regime?
I'm sorry, but if that is your point that's utterly ridiculous.
The word "addiction" is not mysterious. In Roman court, if you couldn't pay your debts, the judge would declare you "addicted to your creditor". That meant you had to satisfy the debt by surrendering your status as freeman and become the creditor's slave. It could happen to pauper or nobleman.
It's an easy leap from that meaning to the current one. Someone "borrows" as little fun from a bottle or other source, but ends up turning their life over to the stuff.
If you're not an addict, just remember this. Addicts act like a corny mime bound by chains that no one else can see. Chuckle if you like, but help the sonofagun to a recovery meeting. Emancipation, even from behavioral addictions like gambling, food and sex, is a blessing.
'm wth Cry n ths n. wld dd tht sng th trm "ddctn" fr th ntrnt wld b slp n th fc t smn wth rl ddctn. Thr s n cmprsn btwn hrn wthdrwl nd ntrnt wthdrwl.
Ys, t's pssbl th ngg th ntrnt t th rn f yr prsn bt tht's tr f vrythng. f y blg s mch tht y nglct frnds nd wrk, ds tht mk y blg ddct? f y'd rthr rd bks thn g t wth frnds ds tht mk y bk ddct? thnk ths dfntn f "ddctn" s lttl ls nd thnk t's bng sd s n xcs. ddctn s gnrlly pt n trms f " cn't hlp myslf" whch smply sn't tr whn t cms t thngs lk th ntrnt. Thr's dffrnc btwn bng ddctd t smthng nd smply bng t lzy t g d smthng ls.
"There's no comparison between heroin withdrawal and internet withdrawal." No argument. But bear in mind that withdrawal and recovery are two different things.
"Withdrawal" is marked by physical agony resulting from the depletion of opiods from the blood stream. In the heroin addict, the body stops producing natural opiates, and when the man-made chemistry is gone, the resulting pain is horrible. Natural relief won't come until the body resumes production of natural opiods; a process that won't even BEGIN for several day and will require up to a year to really solidify. Meanwhile, the poor sod experiences skin-clawing agony. No wonder so many just give up and stay on the junk.
Behavior addicts are in a different stew. They've manipulated their own endorphin system to flood their bloodstream with natural opiods. The day a behavior addict "quits" doesn't trigger immediate sweats, convulsions, etc. Their blood is so rich with the goods, they feel no pain until a day or two later when their enzymes reuptake the last of the previous endorphin dose. Then the hooey hits the fan.
A withdrawing behavior addicts get the whole parade of sweat, nerve and joint pain, restlessness, and night tremors. While the heroin junky is at least getting some decent hospital care, the behavior addict is sweating out their "imaginary" withdrawal alone. It may take several days longer to hit, but they go through the same meat-grinder as heroin addicts. It's more slow-motion but the result is the same: tough it out or go back into the behavior.
Regardless of the addiction, "withdrawal" can be finished in perhaps two weeks. "Drying out" (the longer period when the addict's nervous system begins returning to homeostasis) takes months or a year. Sobriety (where the person canfully realize that life without numbness and a dopey high is actually not so bad) takes years to decades.
If you're not a boozer, don't blame yourself for doubting alcohol is really "addictive". Same with drug use. And if you're not a behavior addict, don't blame yourself for being highly skeptical. Frankly, I thank God you're not one, my friend.
My daughter is a drug addict. It started when she was prescribed to pain killers at the age of 14. She got them from the orthodontist when she got her braces on. Nice, huh? She's 20 now, did a year in jail, 2 months of rehab and 4 months more in a halfway house, all mandated by the courts. Drug addiction is a disease and should be treated as one. I had words with my daughters probation officer once and told him being on Probation doesn't cure addiction. Instead of throwing someone back in jail because they used a painkiller serves no purpose. It's just covering a gaping wound with a bandaid. So, for the next 5 years, my daughter is on parole and will be watched closely. So far, she's clean, and has been out of jail for 15 months. I just have to pray it continues. People choose to take the drug, but if it's given freely by a doctor for honest to god pain, then it's pretty hard just to blame the addict for their addiction.
@ 24 Morganna,
I'm sorry, that must be terrible to go through as a mother.
You're right, addiction has underlying factors. Anyone who doesn't believe this should just look at Native American susceptibility to alcoholism. Some people don't get addicted, some do. Me, I've smoked before and experienced various things, and I return to -none- of them. Some people, the first thing they try takes prey on them.
I dislike it when anyone asserts that there is not some sort of factor contributing to people's dependence on chemicals. There are people whose bodies treat uppers as downers (Ritalin), whose bodies treat peanuts as hands on the off switch, people whose bodies respond more eficiently to medications, why on earth can't people be alcoholic / drug addicts because of underlying reasons?
And therefore, can't behavior addiction (which as FriendNDeed said, is because of training the body) be a terrible thing as well?
We saw an article here earlier about how the brain manufactures seratonin when confronted with new information. Is it not possible to want that seratonin enough to be 'addicted'?