Comment by superkuh

Comment by superkuh 4 days ago

Gambling disorder was introduced in DSM 3 (1980) before much was known about human neurobiology under 'impulse control disorder not elsewhere classified'. Back then they even thought dopamine was a 'pleasure' chemical. And we now know it's about wanting, not liking. You may be mixing it up when it was reclassified as the DSM 4 (not 5!) did a big reorganization.

Kent Berridges' lab review articles are a great place to start to understand addiction, wanting, and liking and how they are different. But mostly importantly, how addiction works so you can see how chemical addictive substances are vastly different. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/selected-review-art...

Edit: and re: "porn disorder/gaming disorder/behavioral impulse disorders to 'screens' in general" and the behavior of the ICD re: china, see the widely cited Nichole Prause' work https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yySl87AAAAAJ&hl=en

adi_kurian 4 days ago

I don't follow. DSM-5 (2013) moved gambling into 'Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.' What specifically are you saying happened in DSM-4?

Thanks for sharing. I'll read Berridge.

The distinction you're drawing is mechanistic. I'm not submitting a paper to a journal. Kids are scrolling until 3am, teen mental health is cratering, boomers are getting radicalized by bot farms, and democracy is being sold for pennies on the dollar. If your response is 'technically not addiction,' we're not having the same conversation.

Reply View 3 replies

superkuh 3 days ago

This is untrue. Take it from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t39/ "Impact of the DSM-IV to DSM-5 Changes on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health [Internet]." In 5 they actually moved it to the 'Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders' because it was grandfathered into it's own class and really fit nowhere else in the reorganization. It shouldn't be there either but it was too late.
You've prescribed some outcomes: I am not saying you have not personally observed these things. I am saying they are not due to addiction and that using comparisons to addictive drugs and addiction implies that people have no volition when reading things or watching things on screens instead of, say, watching them in their environment directly. That's a very dangerous claim. If you think that it's okay to claim screens can make you do things and need to be regulated like addictive drugs, we are definitely not having the same conversation. You're advocating that text and video need to be regulated by government use of force and that's really dangerous and wrong.
I agree that the corporations pushing these propaganda machines are a huge problem. But it's not one involving addiction.

Reply View | 2 replies
- adi_kurian 3 days ago
  
  The DSM-5 work group chair said the move was based on brain imaging showing gambling activates reward systems like drugs do [1]. That's not grandfathering, that's reclassification based on neuroscience. Your source is a comparison table of criteria, not a rationale for the reclassification.
  The WHO recognized gaming disorder in 2019. The field is expanding. But even if it never formally recognizes social media addiction—call it whatever you want.
  I'm assuming good faith, though you are putting words in my mouth. I said social media is a cheap, shitty, and extremely addictive drug. I'm happy to rephrase that to 'cheap, shitty, and extremely compulsive in ways that damage health, relationships, attention and has immensely negative effects for society as a whole.' I never once mentioned government regulation, you can reread my comments.
  My opinion is that people should view it as lame and self regulate. I do not think it is likely to happen.
  [1] https://www.icrg.org/blog/the-evolving-definition-of-patholo...
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  superkuh 2 days ago
  
  Uh, every enjoyable experience activates glutamergic activity the bilateral shell of the nucleus accumbens, even looking at a pretty sunset. The problem is when it's not the result of processing attributes intrinsic to an experience but instead mediated chemically.
  The argument that, "That brain brains when you $x." is so trivial and useless I usually assume it's done in bad faith. But you seem to be engaging on the level, so why?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies