3 ms·

People with lots of clothing and shoes and other things absolutely might be criticised for their behaviour, and may be called hoarders. (I have direct personal

by mft_ 7y ago

People with lots of clothing and shoes and other things absolutely might be criticised for their behaviour, and may be called hoarders. (I have direct personal experience of such people.) There is definitely a mindset —at its most extreme, a pathology— associated with hoarding behaviour. Digital hoarding may mostly avoid the negative life consequences of hoarding —as you say, you can store a lot of data in a relatively small physical space— but this doesn’t change the nature of the psychology behind the behaviour. (Although I’d wonder how many digital hoarders really have a small neat modern NAS as you imply, versus a room full of old racks?) Interestingly, the rationalisation given in the headline (“betterment of mankind”) isn’t so very far away (although maybe more grandiose) than the rationalisations that physical hoarders offer to justify their behaviour, around the perceived intrinsic value of their belongings.

pessimizer 7y ago
> this doesn’t change the nature of the psychology behind the behaviour. The "psychology" behind the behavior isn't the problem with hoarders, it's the actual hoarding. The reason we try to change hoarders' thinking is because of the physical consequences of their hoarding - we define this as illness because of its distressful results, if it had no consequences it wouldn't be illness. edit: I think you're accidentally using circular logic to rationalize a bit of magical thinking (person who obsessively collects garbage is ill, therefore person who obsessively collects anything is ill.) It's not the obsession that's the problem, it's the garbage and the distress.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  I know that some of the members of the organized data-hoarder community are spending huge amounts of money on disks month after month, and it really bothers their spouses. So, even if there is no physical mess being created in their homes, their obsession is still affecting their lives and other people around them.
- mft_ 7y ago
  You raise some interesting points. A few thoughts. Generally, psychological conditions can be considered on a spectrum, an analogue scale (i.e. from you have none of this trait or condition, to you display huge amounts). You're absolutely right that the point at which Hoarding Disorder becomes diagnosable (currently, per DSM-5) is determined by the real-world effects on someone's life becoming severe and displaying a number of features. [0] However, I'd argue that for this subject, considering only the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria is too simplistic: a) There are plenty of people whose hoarding behaviour falls short of the formal diagnostic criteria, but which do still cause some level of problem for them in their life, or for other people who are in their life. (For example, you could have someone whose home conditions don't meet the diagnostic criteria, but who no longer receive visits from family or friends because of the state of their house.) b) The diagnostic criteria to a large extent represent a traditional, common-sense, real-world societal view - i.e. it's fine to collect things, until it starts to make you unwell, and unsafe in your physical environment. c) The diagnostic criteria are updated seldom, and slowly. [1] As such, it's not infeasible that DSM-5 might lag behind (potential, arguable) alternate forms of hoarding disorder - such as digital hoarding. Consider someone who spends huge amounts of money on storage media and electricity, to the detriment of their financial well-being and maybe close relationships. Or someone who spends so much of their time downloading and categorising their digital belongings, that they miss sleep and make themselves unwell, or avoid social engagement and have detrimental effects on close relationships. These cases might not be diagnosable within DSM-5, but I'd argue that they would still be representative of psychopathology... and may in time (in DSM-7? :) ) be diagnosable in their own right. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t29/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t29/ [1] https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

by mft_ 7y ago

pessimizer 7y ago

> this doesn’t change the nature of the psychology behind the behaviour. The "psychology" behind the behavior isn't the problem with hoarders, it's the actual hoarding. The reason we try to change hoarders' thinking is because of the physical consequences of their hoarding - we define this as illness because of its distressful results, if it had no consequences it wouldn't be illness. edit: I think you're accidentally using circular logic to rationalize a bit of magical thinking (person who obsessively collects garbage is ill, therefore person who obsessively collects anything is ill.) It's not the obsession that's the problem, it's the garbage and the distress.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
I know that some of the members of the organized data-hoarder community are spending huge amounts of money on disks month after month, and it really bothers their spouses. So, even if there is no physical mess being created in their homes, their obsession is still affecting their lives and other people around them.
mft_ 7y ago
You raise some interesting points. A few thoughts. Generally, psychological conditions can be considered on a spectrum, an analogue scale (i.e. from you have none of this trait or condition, to you display huge amounts). You're absolutely right that the point at which Hoarding Disorder becomes diagnosable (currently, per DSM-5) is determined by the real-world effects on someone's life becoming severe and displaying a number of features. [0] However, I'd argue that for this subject, considering only the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria is too simplistic: a) There are plenty of people whose hoarding behaviour falls short of the formal diagnostic criteria, but which do still cause some level of problem for them in their life, or for other people who are in their life. (For example, you could have someone whose home conditions don't meet the diagnostic criteria, but who no longer receive visits from family or friends because of the state of their house.) b) The diagnostic criteria to a large extent represent a traditional, common-sense, real-world societal view - i.e. it's fine to collect things, until it starts to make you unwell, and unsafe in your physical environment. c) The diagnostic criteria are updated seldom, and slowly. [1] As such, it's not infeasible that DSM-5 might lag behind (potential, arguable) alternate forms of hoarding disorder - such as digital hoarding. Consider someone who spends huge amounts of money on storage media and electricity, to the detriment of their financial well-being and maybe close relationships. Or someone who spends so much of their time downloading and categorising their digital belongings, that they miss sleep and make themselves unwell, or avoid social engagement and have detrimental effects on close relationships. These cases might not be diagnosable within DSM-5, but I'd argue that they would still be representative of psychopathology... and may in time (in DSM-7? :) ) be diagnosable in their own right. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t29/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t29/ [1] https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm