Thursday, June 8, 2017

LIFE is like Hook's Law (F= 1/2kx)
By Farhan,

            Strong. When people say "I want to kill myself", "I'm useless", "I don't want to live anymore", or "I wanna die!" we might think that they are not strong enough to stay motivated. Indeed there are many factors could consider when people say these sentences, but what and how do we define "strong"? One of the ways people think strong person is a person who has big muscle, person who has plenty of money, or a person who has political power. For me, strong is when a person who has high level of patient because it can cause the person to success in life, and handle everything properly.

          What is the different between a strong person and non-strong person? Is strong person more muscular than non-strong person? It sounds logic. A strong person is a person who can carry heavy things such as 50kg dumbbell with one hand and can do many tiring physical activities in a long period of time. On the other hand, weak person is a person who cannot do anything physically challenging. Maybe weak person cannot even carry a 10kg of rice packet. The question is, is that strong? If is it strong, then how can there are many athletes have suicide attempt? Christ Benuit, WWE superstar hanged himself at his house and murdered his wife and child? "...Chris's heart at the time of Chris's death after murdering his wife, Nancy, and their son, Daniel." (Keith Harris). Imagine there are two rulers. One ruler is a steel and the other is a plastic that can be bent. Then my question is when we try to make he rulers bent, what happen to the rulers? Steel ruler might be bent and stay bent while plastic ruler might be back to it's original shape. This analogy is for the definition of a strong person based on the size of muscles. The steel ruler is for the person who is tough (has big bicept and etc) while the plastic ruler represents non-tough person with high patient. The force exerted to the ruler represent challenge or stress that the person faces. The steel ruler stays bend and might be broke if we do it repeatedly indicating a person with tough body but low patient will easy to give up in life, run from challenges in life, and quit. On the other hand, plastic ruler represent a person with mediocre muscle which is just necessary for movements but with high patient indicating they will focus and get back to their original state after facing the challenges in their life. What do i mean by these? I mean no matter how big a person's muscle is, they will considered as a weak person if they do not have patient.

      Another example to prove this is imagine what will happen to a person who is hot-tempered in fighting. Most of mad people in fighting are loss because they lose focus due to the anger. Every day we have plenty of opportunities to get angry, stressed or offended. "But what you're doing when you indulge these negative emotions is giving something outside yourself power over your happiness. You can choose to not let little things upset you." Joel Osteen (Brainyquote). 


Work cited:

1.http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/joelosteen579093.html#1iaxlysXU0Ued7UE.99

2. Keith Harris. http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_71625. 18th April 2015. Web.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Camel, Father, and a Child
By Mohamad Farhan Huszaimi Bin M. Pajar
     
           Once upon a time, there were a camel, father, and his son. They planned to attend to their big family gathering which is far from the place they live. In order to go there, they decided to ride a camel that they own because they need to pass through Saharan desert. They started packing their stuff and prepared themselves for the journey which will take seven hours to reach their destination.


            They left their house early morning at 6:00 am after finish prayer. Both of them ride the camel. They started walking for about one hour before they meet someone in the middle of their journey. The person name is Pedro, he asked them "why both of you riding the camel? Do you think what the camel feel?". The father and his son looked at each other and both get down from the camel. After Pedro leaves, the father and his son decided to walk instead of riding the camel.
    
            After a while, they meet with another person name Elias. Elias asked them "Why both of you walk while you have the camel? Why do you bring the camel with you if you want to walk?". Again, the father and his son look at each other. The father later decided to let his son sit on the camel while he walks while pulling the camel which is tied with rope around the camel's face. 

         Not long after that, Shinji who passed through them and asked the son "Why you let your father walking while you relax sitting on the camel? Don't you have some respect for your father? You should think about his age, he becomes weaker.". The father and his son agree with Shinji, then they exchange place. The father sits on the camel, while his son walking and pulling the camel by using rope toward their destination. 

       Then, they continue their journey to meet the rest of their family. After a while, another person passed by, which her name is Sarah. She asked the father "Why do you let your little boy walking and pulling the camel while you sit on the camel chilling? Don't you feel sympathy toward your son?" angrily. The father then gets down from the camel and think for a while. He found that everything he does, and all decision he made on who sit on the camel, people always questions and suggest other than what they do. He saw that and he decided to ride the camel with his son until they reach their destination for the big family reunion. 

        Later on, the father continues his journey with his son. Both of them riding the camel. They passed by many people, and almost everybody asked them why both of them riding the camel, and people think it is cruel because both of them ride the camel. The father just ignores all of them and keep heading to their destination. At last, they reach the destination where all the other of their family members decided to meet. They celebrate the party happily and all of them were happy because they got a chance to meet each other. 

      The moral of this story is that people will always disagree with our decisions and actions. everything we do, people always oppose it because human is variety. Some people like green color, some like blue, some people love to hike, while there are some who like to read novels. No matter what we do, people will always complain and comment on our actions and decision. We need to have a strong will and be confident with ourselves. If we always keep thinking and considering other's comments, we will not go anywhere.

       Same goes to the father in the story. Imagine what will happen to him if he does not learn from what happen. Will he reach his destination? Yes maybe, but it might be late. After he has learned from his mistake (considering others' says), he decided to ignore people around him and just continue his journey without worry what other people talk about them. 

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Cognitive Development in Early Childhood
By Mohamad Farhan Huszaimi Bin M. Pajar
Introduction
            Cognitive development in early childhood is the development of thought processes such as memory, and problem solving for children from two until six years old (Lightfoot, Cole, & Cole, 2003). Cognitive development is observing how children in early childhood deal with problems, and how they learn from experiences such as ability to name colors, arrange objects, and name shapes. It is important to understand the normal cognitive abilities and milestones for children in early childhood because it can be the baseline for clinicians to detect the presence of psychological disorders in children such as autism and mental retardation as quickly as possible. Thus, studying cognitive ability and milestones in early childhood is important to detect psychological disorder quickly so that early treatment can be provided and to prevent further developmental problems the children might face that could affect their life in the future.
Cognitive Abilities
            During early childhood period, young children often fall into error and confusion because they are still unable to engage in true mental operation (Lightfoot et al., 2013). However, children in this stage are able to label colors, shapes, and sizes. They are able to categorize things based on similarity such as color and shape as they use toys, art materials and equipment. The children should be able to solve simple problems. One of the problems, for instance, is to build a house for a bear doll by using wood bricks. The children are able to put things, and pick the right size of wood bricks to make a rectangular house for the bear doll. They are also be able to solve the puzzle. During early childhood, children are able to navigate and know their surroundings. They should know where a certain thing is located and where a certain thing should be placed. Some children in early stage of childhood are interested to listen to the story told by the caregiver, and they are active in imagining the story at the same time. Early childhood period children are able to understand the stories.
Cognitive Milestone
            According to Piaget, children in early childhood period are in preoperational stage. The three most common errors in early childhood reasoning are egocentrism, confusion of appearance, and reality and precausal reasoning. Children in this stage are limited to centration thinking style in which they are unable to understand another person’s perspective also known as egocentrism (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Children in this stage are easily captured by the surface appearances, and are often confused about causal relations due to centration (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Piaget believed that young children are not yet capable of true mental operations, and they cannot engage in genuine cause-and-effect reasoning. He also believes that children think transductively which causes confusion regarding confuse cause and effect. Piaget referred to this thinking style as precausal thinking because it does not follow the procedures of either deductive or inductive reasoning (Piaget, 1930).
            Another approach on cognition which focuses on changes within specific areas of knowledge acquisition known as privileged domains (Chen & Siegler, 2000; Goswami, 2008). There are three domains which are physics, psychology, and Biology. Physics domain states that children harbor “everyday ideas” about how the physical world works. Psychology domain states that children are gaining more comprehensive ideas about how other people’s beliefs are related to how they behave in the world and this can be tested by false-belief task. Children will construct theories about mental life and activity, which are known as theory of mind (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Last domain is biology which explains the children understanding on distinction between animate and inanimate things (Lightfoot et al., 2013).
Methods
Procedure
            The observation was carried out in the green room at the Center for Child and Family Studies (CCFS), University of California, Davis. The observation was done for 30 minutes in the CCFS. Three most active children’s behaviors and cognitive abilities was analyzed. Observed one kid at a time, and peers who interacted with the observed kid. Each of the three children was observed for approximately 10 minutes. Distance approximately three meters was kept from the observed children to allow the children to feel more comfortable and not realize that they were being observed. Communication with the children was prevented by not making eye contact, and not starting or having a conversation with them. Answered with simple words and gestures to respond to their thoughts such as nodding head and saying one word such as “yes” when the observed children was trying to interact and start a conversation. Face interaction with the children was prevented. Followed the kid under observation with maintaining the distance, and picked another kid to be observed when the previous observed child was out of sight. Behaviors of interest regarding cognitive development were noted in notebook. Observation done while sitting on an unused chair and tried to be as unnoticeable as possible. Interrupting other children’s activities was prevented by moving away from them when their activities got blocked in the classroom. Notes of behaviors were taken as much as possible when observing a child. Left the room as unnoticeable as possible to let the children continue with their activities.
Participants
            The total number of preschool children is 18 in the green room; 9 males and 10 females supervized by 3 teachers. The age range of the children are 4 years; 6 months to 5 years; 5 months. Approximately 55% of the participants are females in this study.
Result
Behaviors Observed
            All of the children observed (William, Chang, and Linda) have the ability to name color, label shapes and sizes, and tell numbers properly. William was able to arrange the wood bricks to build a cube house. William knew how to match the shape of the rectangular cube wood brick to build a house for the doll bear to stay in it. William managed to put back the wood bricks at the correct place based on the shape similarity after he had finished building a cube house for the bear. He arranged the brick based on the similarity of the shapes. William was able to tell number by counting on the wood bricks that he had picked to build the shelter for the bear when putting the bricks back at the shelf. Linda on the other hand, was able to name the colors such as blue and green when she was trying to put the chips of chain together. Linda told her friend that she wanted to pick blue chip chain. When Linda tried to put chips of the chain together, she counted the number of chains that she had assembled together. Linda was able to put the chips back to its original place after she had done making a long colourful chain. Cheng did not show any ability to label colors, shapes, and sizes, but he was able to recognize one of the caregiver’s picture that he found in the folder. Cheng got so excited and showed his caregiver that he has found one of the caregiver’s picture in the binder. Cheng also was able to recognize objects in the pictures such as egg and dog.
            The children were able to solve problem that they faced during playtime in the greenroom. For William, he needed to build a house by using wood bricks to provide house for the toy bear. He found it was not easy to build a house for the bear because he needed to be able to maintain the stability of the cube house. Then he found a solution by arranging many wood bricks of similar shape together, and increasing stability of the cube by increasing the surface area of the base of the house. However, William got assistance from the caregiver who watched him on how to build a house for the bear. The caregiver gave him hints and suggestions to build a house and to make the cube high enough for the bear to be in the house. On the other hand, Linda’s problem was that she needed to make a long chain by uniting the chain’s chips together. In order for the chips to be combined, Linda needed to put the chips together in a specific orientation. She was struggle at first in putting the chips together. She then got a little help from the caregiver who watched her. Linda followed the initial step that the caregiver showed her and she also compared her method with her peer that sat beside her, Sarah. Linda was able to make a long colourful chain at last. She also knew what a chain could do. Linda tried to lock her teacher’s hand by using the chain that she has made and acted as a police who keeps her eyes on the prisoner (caregiver). Moreover, Cheng’s problem was to diagnose his patients and determine the disease that his patient had. Cheng had a character as a doctor, and he used the stethoscope properly by putting the diaphragm of the stethoscope diaphragm on his friend’s chest. Cheng also tried to look at his friend’s ear to understand his friend’s sickness. Cheng put his hand at the chin of his patient to feel the temperature. Cheng concluded that his friend was having a fever. All three children were able to solve the problems that they are facing.
            Moreover, all the observed children (William, Linda, and Cheng) were able to navigate their surrounding and knew their way around the facility. For William, he knew where to get the wood bricks, and where to put the wood bricks back to their original position. Other than that, William also ran around the room and knew where to get certain things or toys. William knew where to get his boot, and where to find a dinosaur. Furthermore, Linda knew where to hide and run from the prisoner (the caregiver who was having a fantasy play with her) when the prisoner tried to escape from the chain and grab Linda. Linda kept running to her “safe place” on the second floor in the green room whenever the caregiver tried to catch her. Cheng knew where to find the file and put the file back on the table, the place where he found the binder, although he brought the binder far from its original location. Sometimes it seemed like the children needed to be reminded on how to behave. For instance, William destroyed the house he built by kicking it and shouted “killer!” at the bear. Then, the caregiver who watched him at that time reminded him that it was not proper to do that and asked William to stop doing that. William was also reminded by the caregiver when he teased his friends because he wore shoes quicker than his friend. The caregiver reminded him that he should not do that and asked William to apologize to his friend that he teased. It turned out that William took the advice of the caregiver and ask for an apology from his peer by saying “sorry” to his peer that he teased. Cheng was also needed to be reminded on how to behave when he threw the doctor’s toy tools on the floor after he had done diagnosing his friend. The caregiver asked him to pick the toys back up and put them in the proper basket so that the floor would not be messy and safe for other children to walk. Cheng picked the toys up and put them in the proper place. Later, Cheng walked alone to other place and with sadness on his face. For Linda, she got reminded to run carefully and slow down a little when taking up the stairs by the caregiver when she ran up the stairs. Hence, all the children observed needed reminders on how to behave and what to do and were able to navigate throughout the room.
            William, Linda, and Cheng were able to make decisions by selecting the correct tools and find other methods to solve their problems. William chose the correct size of the wood bricks and placed the rectangular brick by placing the large surface on bottom. By doing this, he could increase the stability of a brick and at the same time increasing the stability of the cube house for the bear. Cheng were able to choose a correct toy medical tools for checking his friends, and tried to understand the friend’s disease. Cheng understood the usage and concept of the objects shown by using the materials in a proper way when diagnosing his friend such as stethoscope to hear heartbeats. Linda picked the chip of chain to create a chain. She managed to pick the chip and put them together with correct orientation to create a long colourful chain. She also did not pick the same color of chips constitutively during making the chain. She solved problem on making the chip more beautiful by choosing different colored chips. Other than that, they also were able to listen and understand story. William listened to his caregiver’s story of a scared lonely bear in the forest that was why William tried to build a house for the bear by using wood bricks. Linda also listened to the caregiver’s story but she seemed to misunderstand the story. The caregiver tried to ask Linda for help to let the caregiver go from the chain, but Linda thought that the caregiver was trying to catch do something to her so she ran away from the caregiver. Sarah, who had a parallel play with Linda when making chain, only looked at the fantasy play but she did not participate in the play because she seemed to not understand the story that Linda made. For Cheng, he did not engage in fantasy play neither with his friends nor the caregiver because he seemed to like playing alone. Hence, all the children were able to solve problems.
            All the observed children were able to display a fantasy play and they all liked it. Linda displayed fantasy play when she being a police officer who watched the prisoner. She also got scared and run excitedly when the prisoner, the caregiver, tried to reach her. This shows that she was really in a fantasy play because she could imagine the real situation of being a policewoman, chased by a prisoner. She really did engage with this fantasy play although one of her friend that played with her was not involved. Cheng also displayed fantasy play by being a doctor checking his patient and giving them instructions such as keeping their heads up to take their temperature, and stay still when he tried to listen to his patient’s heartbeats. All Cheng’s friends (patients) also engaged in the play. William showed fantasy play that he is in the jungle and fight with the bear by destroying the bear’s house made by him. Thus, all the children showed fantasy play.
Discussion
Individual Differences in Cognitive Development
            There are differences in cognitive development among the children under observation (William, Cheng, Linda). One of the differences observed was variety of motor skill development among the children. Some of the children were more advanced compared to others. For instance, William was able to wear red boots faster than his peer. William seemed to have a good motor coordination when he tried to wear the boots compared to his friend, who was stuck many times and needed help from the caregiver to wear the boot. William has better motor indicates that he has more myelinated brain parts which makes his movement smoother and coordinated (Lightfoot, Cole, & Cole, 2003). Moreover, Linda showed that she has a normal motor development by her ability to control her arms when putting the chips of chains together. Linda was able to coordinate her arms to achieve her goal without having any problem with involuntary movement. Linda was also able to run around the room, which indicates that she has a normal motor development. Cheng, on the other side, was able to pick medical kit toys up when he tried to diagnose his friend when engaging in a fantasy play as a doctor indicates that he has developed his reach and grip ability. As predicted by Lightfoot et al. that by the time they are 5, children have achieved a great deal of mastery over their bodies (2013).
            Furthermore, variety of intelligence was also shown among the children. William, for example, can choose correct shapes to build a cube house for a toy bear. William was able to choose the rectangular cube brick to build a house. He did not need help from the caregiver on what to pick to make a cube house, but he was not able to arrange the wood bricks at the beginning on building house for the bear. William had problem to initiate the activity. William still was not able to plan and predict future causation. This inability to think about causality is normal for William because it is one example of precausal thinking where young children neither use deductive nor inductive reasoning when thinking of causation (Lightfoot et al., 2013). William did not know if he build a tall house with small base, the house would fall due to lack of stability. The caregiver gave William hints and tips on how to start and arrange the bricks so that it was possible for him to build a house. William did not fully understand the concept of stability, which, based on Lightfoot et al., is one type of cognitive development in physics domain (2013). Developmentalists refer William’s inability to understand stability as naïve physics (Baillargeon, 2002) which is one type of privileged domains (Goswami, 2008). William also shouted “Killer!” at the bear and destroyed the house that he has made which indicate his development in psychology domain. William has developed what developmentalists refer to as theory of mind which states that the ability to think about other people or organisms’ mental states (Lightfoot et al., 2013). William knew the bear’s mental state which is bear has desires to eat. William’s early understanding of the relationship between mental states and behavior of others is referred to naïve psychology (Lightfoot et al., 2013).
            Cheng showed his intelligence when he tried to diagnose his friend during fantasy play as a doctor. He showed that he was able to understand the usage of the tools such that stethoscope is used to hear heartbeats, and that he placed the diaphragm on the chest. Based on information-processing approaches to cognitive development, Cheng showed that he has developed working memory where Cheng was able to combine incoming information from sensory register with memory of past experiences, changing the new information into new form (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Moreover, Linda was not able to put the chip of chains together when she just started the activity. Same as William, Linda was initially stuck at the activity, but she managed to put the chips together after her caregiver taught her, and after observing her parallel playmate during the activity. Linda’s problem in starting the activity was normal because she was exposed to a new experience. Once the caregiver showed Linda method to assemble the chips together, she managed to make a chain. Linda also looked how her parallel playmate, Xi, on how to put the chips of chain together to see other alternative. Meanwhile, Linda ran away from the caregiver because she did not want to get caught by the prisoner (caregiver) during fantasy play. Linda misunderstood the caregiver’s intention which was actually asking Linda for help to free the caregiver’s hand from the chains, but Linda failed to understand the caregiver’s intention, and misunderstood the story. Linda’s misunderstanding in the story was due to egocentrism where she tended to “center on herself” and was unable to take another person’s perspective (Lightfoot et al., 2013). The inability to take another person’s perspective is considered normal in early childhood stage, according to Piaget (1929), because children in early childhood period are dealing with centration.
            The caregiver dealed with children of different cognitive ability differently. For William, the caregiver who was with him gave William ideas on how to put the wood bricks. William initially erected the rectangular cube with small base but it fell. The caregiver asked him “why don’t you put the bricks like this?” William followed the advice from the caregiver without any consideration, and laid the rectangular bricks down so that it would have a larger base surface area. The caregiver gave attention to William because William needed ideas on how to start building a cube house for the toy bear. Linda on the other hand, was having a problem in putting the chips of chain together while her parallel playmate, Xi, did not have any problem starting the activity. The caregiver showed Linda how to put the chain at first and then Linda just followed the procedure that has been taught by the caregiver. The caregiver spent more time on guiding Linda compared to Xi because Linda needed a little more guidance in putting the chips of chain together. Cheng was not observed by the caregiver individually because he did not need any guidance from the caregiver on how to use the medical kits toy. The caregiver however took a look at a group of children that were in the same spot with Cheng for safety. None of the observed children (William, Linda, and Cheng) showed any abnormalities. All of them showed normal cognitive development for children in early childhood period such as egocentrism, precausal thinking, naïve psychology and naïve physics (Piaget, 1930; Lightfoot et al., 2013).
Importance of Individual Differences
            Understanding individual differences is very crucial for clinical purposes. Understanding individual differences among the children will help clinicians to determine what is normal and what is not normal compared to their peers. This understanding is important for clinicians so that they will get an idea of the spectrum of psychological disorder, and to detect for any abnormal behaviors among children. By having understanding of spectrum, many psychological disorders that are likely to occur among children such as autism can be diagnosed and treated for a higher chance to be cured. Without having ideas about children abilities and behavior on a certain stage of life, it is impossible and hard for the clinicians to detect and give treatment for the children with psychological disorder. For instance, autistic children were able to be detected and diagnosed by the clinicians in early stages of their life because of understanding on how normal developed children act. Developmentalists created many tests that can distinguish normally developed children and autistic children. One of the test that is helpful in detecting autistic children is false-belief task where autistic children will always have a poor performance in this test (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Without understanding of individual differences, tests to distinguish normally developed children and autistic children might not be created, and it is harder for clinicians to detect autism in early childhood. Thus, it is important to understand individual differences for clinicians to help and give treatment for early prevention of psychological disorder.
References
Bailargeon, R. (2002). The Acquisition of Physical Knowledge in Infancy: A Summary of Eight lessons. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell’s Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 47-83). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
Chen, Z., & Siegler, R.S (2000). Intellectual Development in Childhood. In R.J Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 92-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain. New York: Psychology Press.
Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain. New York: Psychology Press.
Lightfoot, C., Cole., M., & Cole S. (2013). The Development of Children (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Lightfoot, C., Cole., M., & Cole S. (2013). The Development of Children (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Piaget, J. (1929). The Child’s Conception of the World. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Piaget, J. (1930). The Child’s Conception of Physical Causality. New York: Harcourt Brace.


Monday, January 16, 2017

Should Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) Be In DSM-5?
Mohamad Farhan Huszaimi Bin M. Pajar
January 2017
            Internet is necessary for survival nowadays for almost everybody including children because the internet is used for businesses, communications, games, and politics. Hannah O.Price says in his "Phenomenology of Internet Addiction" article that, "Internet became essential to the daily lives of more than one billion people" (85), which indicates that nowadays almost everything is depending on the internet. For instance, if there are no internet connections at certain places in Los Angeles, people in those places will suffer because it is hard for them to do business and get crucial current updates such as warning about earthquakes or even terrorists' attack in Paris. People in those places might have problems to buy something online or to get an online education, if they are taking online classes either from other countries or local colleges. It is clearly shown that the internet is a really important tool nowadays for everybody. On the other side, internet use also might have some negative impacts such as internet addiction. Many people do not know the term Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) because IAD is actually a new type of psychiatric disorder under addiction category which is faced by many people especially in Korea and China (Price), consciously or unconsciously, after the great invention of internet around 1983 by Robert E. Kahn and Vint Cerf.
            The term Internet Addiction Disorder was first suggested by Ivan Goldberg in 1995 (Price, 86-87). IAD draws a descriptive picture of the disorder based on the DSM-4-R criteria for alcohol or drug dependence. Kimberly Young, a psychologist, used the term IAD in 1996 during a conference of the American Psychological Association in Toronto (Price, 86). Because IAD was first introduced in 1995, scientists, physicians, and psychologists are making further study of IAD and still debating until now whether IAD should be in DSM-5 or not. DSM-5 stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorder, fifth edition (Ko and Yen, 1411). DSM is used as a formal manual and guide for all psychiatrists, and psychologists around the world to diagnose psychiatric patients. DSM contains every type of psychological disorder, symptoms of the particular disorders, and specific treatments can be done for each disorder based on their level of severity. IAD currently is still considered as an informal mental disorder because there are many gaps of information and problems associated with determining IAD clearly. Some of the problems are scientists (psychologists, and psychiatrists) do not have a clear definition of IAD; scientists and therapists have problems to determine the severity of the disorder, and how it departs from normality; and the criteria should be determined based on the intensity and frequency of symptoms (Ko and Yen, 1411). However, problems with determining IAD do not mean that IAD cannot be detected and treated like Postman says "As a true-blue American who has imbibed the unshaken belief that where there is a problem, there must be a solution." (158). Although IAD sometimes sounds nonsensical and unrealistic because people think that it should not exist, it does not mean people should just ignore it. As Ko et al say, "Just because [it is] difficult to define Internet addiction [does not] mean it [is not] an ‘emerging epidemic'" (1411). Thus, there must be some solutions to solve IAD.
            First of all, scientists are still debating about Internet Addiction Disorder issues and look at IAD as a serious psychiatric problem. Some people think that IAD should not even exist because nowadays internet is a really important tool for survival and they, people who oppose classifying IAD as a psychiatric disorder, say that spending more time on surfing internet is just a new culture of people in the 21st century. On the other side, scientists are still discussing about whether IAD should be in DSM-5 or not because it has many bad effects on a person's mental health especially, physical and social life. Since IAD is really a problem for people in general, IAD should be in the DSM-5 because it leads a person to an unhealthy mental health, bad social lifestyle, and bad for the person's physical health.
           
Internet Addiction Disorder should be in the DSM-5 because it causes a person to have mental disorders. Price says, "Cyber addiction shares some characteristics with the other forms of dependence [such as] less of control, inability to reduce addictive consumption [,] and feeling of intense pleasure" (87). People that have IAD are less likely to do healthy activities that can relax their mind such as exercising and talking with other people. Scientists are frequently relating IAD with attention-deficit or hyperactivity disorder, known as ADHD, (Yen et al, 187), which is a type of mental disorder under stress and depression category. ADHD is experienced by most people with IAD due to extremely high level of stress. People with ADHD will find it is hard for them to face any challenges in their life because of the uncontrollable stress level. Based on the research done by Yen et al, adult ADHD was associated with internet addiction (189). The result from studies by Yen et al clearly indicates that Internet addiction might cause a normal person to suffer from ADHD in the future if they are having internet addiction problem. At the same time, ADHD will also lead a person to a terrible academic and job performance. "Adolescents with internet addiction usually suffer from problems with their daily routines, school performance, family relationships, and mood." (Yen et al, 9). People with ADHD will find it is hard for them to focus on something such as school and jobs, because they will always think about internet and they will feel depressed if they do not have internet even though it is just for an hour. People with ADHD will pay little attention to the negative consequences of heavy internet use (Yen et al, 189). Some of the symptoms of IAD are excessive use of internet (often loss of the sense of time), feeling of craving when they stop surfing internet, feeling of stress and depression, tolerance (increased connection time even more), and relapse (an earlier addictive activity to recur) (Price, 86). The result of research made by Yen et al also indicates that people with Internet Addiction had a higher level of hostility, depression, phobic anxiety, and additional symptoms, and a higher level of anxiety (13). Yen et al also say, "Internet addiction or substance use in adolescents was associated with more severe psychiatric symptoms. The symptoms lead a person to be an aggressive person towards other people due to the depressed mood and ADHD. Price says, "Web suffers having mood disorder, anxiety, [and] depression" (88). Thus, internet addiction may cause psychiatric symptoms. These negative outcomes show that IAD should be in DSM-5.
            Other than that, IAD should also be in DSM-5 because there are lots of children are having IAD. Psychologists, and psychiatrists should prevent IAD from happening among children because IAD will lead to psychiatric problems among children and teenagers which will affect their bright future drastically. IAD is also a big problem facing by many undergraduate students like what Yen et al say, "Previous reports demonstrate that 8% to 13% of undergraduates are addicted to the Internet, which has impaired psychological well-being, peer and family interactions, and academic performance" (187). It is obviously shows that IAD leads to many negative effects in a person's mental health. Since IAD affects people's mental health negatively, IAD cannot be considered as an "evolved" culture in the 21st century, which the oppositions (people who disagree to put IAD in DSM-5 and think Internet addiction is not a serious problem), think. A mental disorder such as ADHD should not be considered as a culture for people in 21st century. It is true as what Postman says, "[Everybody] is Marxist, for we believe nothing if not history is moving us toward some preordained paradise and that technology is the force behind that movement" (158). In conclusion, because Internet addiction disorder leads to unhealthy mental health such as having ADHD, IAD should be a formal psychiatric disorder and be in the DSM-5 so that people with IAD will get diagnosed, treated, and could live happily in the future.
           
Then, Internet Addiction Disorder should be in DSM-5 because IAD causes a person to have social problems. People with IAD will usually have antisocial personalities such as be aggressive towards other people due to their unhealthy mental health. People with IAD will have a social problem because of the anxiety. As a research made by Yen et al found that logistic regression demonstrated that high social phobic anxiety is associated with internet addiction (14). People with social phobic anxiety will find it hard to go out and hang out with other people like what normal people do because they scared to socialize. One of the symptoms for social phobic anxiety is isolation from friends and family, ("Computer/ Internet Addiction Symptoms"). This insularity may prevent them from coping with their problems (Yen et al, 14). Lack of person to person contact might cause a trouble to the person when he or she is facing problems in real life. Some of the IAD people are even scared to meet with the other people due to the phobia, known as social phobia, and low self-esteem (Price, 88). People with IAD are lack of confident when talking to other people or when they are doing social activities such as playing soccer together and walk at a park with friend. For instance, a person with IAD scare to hang out and talk to someone because they think the person who they communicate with will harm them.
            It is also hard for IAD people to share something they feel with another person because they feel awkward of sharing their feeling and talking to other people about anything related to humanity or life issues such as marriage. For example, if a guy with IAD fall in love with a girl, then the guy feels jealous when he saw that girl hugs someone else, that guy will having problem to understand and handle the feeling of envy and love. People with IAD might do something unwise such as murder their crush due to the feeling of jealous. Indeed, it is true people can socialize by using internet, but long exposure on internet will increase the chance for a person to get IAD. Price cites "Subjects using Internet for its social functions are more exposed to addiction" (89). The point here is that it is different if the person get social on internet and in real life (face-to-face interaction) because if the person social through the internet, they might playing games, or read some articles which will lead them to internet addiction. Once they are having internet addiction, it will be hard for them to communicate with other people again because of social phobia and low self-esteem.
            Furthermore, society might also be affected badly if most of the population in a particular country have IAD. Price writes, "the cyber addiction is a true society' problem whose frightening consequences led many countries to work out a prevention of the risks" (91). People are worried about IAD will cause negative outcomes to a country because the higher probability of people with IAD to face physical problems such as losing jobs, and low job quality; and social problems such as divorce. These physical and social problems will cause a huge trouble to a country's politics, economy, and social environment. For example, people with IAD will have a high probability of losing job because it is hard for them to maintain high job performance. Lose jobs and terrible job performance in any field, such as business field especially, due to IAD will lead to negative impacts on communities, and countries' economic. People with IAD also tend to do crime because their mental state is not normal and less humanity among IAD people. Besides, divorce will also cause many problems to the communities. Hence, because Internet Addiction Disorder leads to bad social effects on a person, community, and country, IAD should be prevented and people with IAD should be diagnosed in order to have a better surrounding community, which means that IAD should be in DSM-5.
           
Besides that, Internet Addiction Disorder should also be in DSM-5 because IAD leads a person to poor physical health due to most IAD people spend their time in front of computer instead of doing something benefits for their physical health such as eat healthy foods, and go to the gym. Nowadays, there are only certain countries, which are South Korea and China, considering IAD as a general health problem. South Korea considered addiction to Internet was a serious public health problem (Yen et al, 87). Some of the physical effects are backache, headaches, excessive weight gain or loss, disturbances in sleep, carpal tunnel syndrome, blurred or strained vision, ("Computer/ Internet Addiction Symptoms"). People with IAD might have backache because the long period of hunchbacked position during sitting in front of computer. Then IAD people usually have blurred or strained vision because of the long exposure to the screen of the computer. There are certain wavelengths that will corrode the eyes of computer users. Blurred vision might be the result of continuous eyes corrosion due to long exposure in front of computer, television or any smartphone screens. Severe headache is due to the lack of brain rest. Human's brains need to get rest after doing a consistent, and long activities such as surfing internet, if not, some part of the brain will start to damage and cause headache.
            Other than that, people who have Internet addiction disorder tend to have cardiovascular disorder such as asthma. Yen et al found that people with IAD tend to have cardiovascular disorder other than
depression and hostility (649). Clearly that IAD also causes a person to have an unhealthy physical circumstance. Yen et al say, "Problem behavior that adolescents are facing would result in similar health compromising outcomes." (10). Unfortunately, there are 20 to 24% children in South Korea need hospitalization (Yen et al, 87) because of their poor physical health which requires doctors attention. For instance, many of students in college or university have high lens power for their glasses due to the long exposure to computer, either due to study or play games. However, most frequent damages include sleep, and sight problems (Yen et al, 89). There was a case of IAD that causes death due to the lack of hygiene (Yen et al, 89). Many of these results were found in Asia and people in the United States might not think IAD will happen to them, but people should take lessons from the outcome of the result in researches. The other most frequent effect of Internet Addiction Disorder on physical health is excessive gain or loss weight. Excessive gain and loss weight might happen because people with IAD do not feel hungry when they are online or they are always hungry when they are online. Most people will eat unhealthy food such as chocolate bars, and fast foods. For instance, if a person is playing an online game with his friends, the person will probably just grab chocolate bars for the whole day instead of fish and chips because he or she wants to play games while eating. Thus, because Internet Addiction Disorder causes many negative effects on a person's physical health, IAD should be in DSM-5 so that these negative physical effects can be healed earlier before it is too late and might cause fatality.
            Internet Addiction Disorder should be considered as one of the psychiatric disorders and should be in DSM-5 because people with IAD have an unhealthy mental health, lots of social problems, and poor physical health. People, in general, should be concerned about Internet addiction issues because it may cause many negative outcomes to a person, community, and country. IAD is a serious disorder that should be diagnosed by trained psychologists and psychiatrists around the world. Besides that, parents should keep an eye on their children’s activity on Internet so that Internet addiction can be prevented. The NGO's company should also make up campaigns to reduce and stop Internet addiction in community for a brighter future. To prevent the disorder is way better than to heal the disorder. The negative outcomes of Internet addiction might not show after a few months, but it will show after a few years. Hopefully people; scientists, politicians, and general people; will take Internet addiction disorder seriously and try to prevent it from happening to have a better future for ourselves, our community, and our country.



Work Cited
"Computer/ Internet Addiction Symptoms". PsychGuides.com. Sovereign Health Group. Web. 24 October 2015. <http://www.psychguides.com/guides/computerinternet-addiction-symptoms-causes-and-effects/>
Ko, Chih-Hung, Chih-Hung Yen, Ju-Yu Yen, Cheng-Fang Yen, Sue-Huei Chen, Wei-Lun Chung, Cheng-Chung Chen. "The Association Between Internet Addiction And Psychiatric Disorder: A Review Of The Literature." European Psychiatry: The Journal Of The Association Of European Psychiatrists 27.1 (2012): 1-8. MEDLINE. Print.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves To Death. United States, 1985. Print.
Yen, Ju-Yu, Chih-Hung Ko, Yen Cheng-Fang, Chen Sue-Huei, Chung Wei-Lun, Chen, Cheng-Chung. "The Association Between Adult ADHD Symptoms And Internet Addiction Among College Students: The Gender Difference." Cyberpsychology & Behavior 12.2 (2009): 187-191. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Print.
Yen, Ju-Yu, Chih-Hung Yen, Cheng-Fang Yen, Sue-Huei Chen, Wei-Lun Chung, Cheng-Chung Chen. "Hostility In The Real World And Online: The Effect Of Internet Addiction, Depression, And Online Activity." Cyberpsychology, Behavior And Social Networking 14.11 (2011): 649-655. MEDLINE. Print.
Yen, Ju-Yu, Chih-Hung Yen, Cheng-Fang Yen, Sue-Huei Chen, Wei-Lun Chung, Cheng-Chung Chen. "Psychiatric Symptoms In Adolescents With Internet Addiction: Comparison With Substance Use." Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences 62.1 (2008): 9-16. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Print.
Price, Hannah O. "Phenomenology Of Internet Addiction". Internet Addiction. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2011. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Print.

Yen, Ju-Yu, Chih-Hung Yen, Cheng-Fang Yen, Sue-Huei Chen, Wei-Lun Chung, Cheng-Chung Chen. "The Criteria To Diagnose Internet Gaming Disorder From Causal Online Gamer." Addiction (Abingdon, England) 109.9 (2014): 1411-1412. MEDLINE. Print.