06-23-2008, 11:37 AM
You’d think that because compulsive gambling has been in the current diagnosis manual professionals use diagnose people, it would be fairly well-understood and professionals would be agreement about some of the basics about this disorder.
And you would be wrong.
Earlier this week, Mind Hacks had a thoughtful entry about how even gambling addiction professionals are still learning what makes a behavior an “addiction.” Vaughn also rightfully points out how ridiculous it can get when the media just tacks on “addiction” to any behavior done more frequently than “normal” (whatever that is), and voilà! — a new diagnosis is born:
Not a single one of these is based on research. It’s just people announcing a new form of addiction. That’s all you have to do and you can get international press.
For extra bonus points you can mention dopamine, and it sounds like science.
We know dopamine is involved in drug addiction, but we also know that anything we enjoy, ‘addictive’ or not, also engages the dopamine system. So saying that the activity is addictive because it engages the dopamine system is an empty statement.
This of course has been my concern with “Internet addiction disorder” from Day One. If you use terms with little agreed-upon meaning in science, you’re bound to wind up with a fuzzy disorder that has few boundaries and little usefulness.
Read the full entry: Loaded dice in gambling addiction research (Source: World of Psychology)
Posted on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:59:26 +0100 at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...ddictions/
Author: World of Psychology
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1535727
And you would be wrong.
Earlier this week, Mind Hacks had a thoughtful entry about how even gambling addiction professionals are still learning what makes a behavior an “addiction.” Vaughn also rightfully points out how ridiculous it can get when the media just tacks on “addiction” to any behavior done more frequently than “normal” (whatever that is), and voilà! — a new diagnosis is born:
Not a single one of these is based on research. It’s just people announcing a new form of addiction. That’s all you have to do and you can get international press.
For extra bonus points you can mention dopamine, and it sounds like science.
We know dopamine is involved in drug addiction, but we also know that anything we enjoy, ‘addictive’ or not, also engages the dopamine system. So saying that the activity is addictive because it engages the dopamine system is an empty statement.
This of course has been my concern with “Internet addiction disorder” from Day One. If you use terms with little agreed-upon meaning in science, you’re bound to wind up with a fuzzy disorder that has few boundaries and little usefulness.
Read the full entry: Loaded dice in gambling addiction research (Source: World of Psychology)
Posted on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:59:26 +0100 at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...ddictions/
Author: World of Psychology
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1535727