-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Are You A Binoholic ???? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gcole
- Start date
1. Do you lie about the number of binoculars you own?
2. Do you purchase binoculars secretly?
3. Do you always feel you need "just one more" pair of binoculars?
4. Is your binocular-consumption causing a strain on your finances?
5. Is your binocular-consumption affecting your relationships at home or at work?
6. Do your friends and family express concern at your binocular consumption?
7. Do you constantly tell yourself "I can give up buying binoculars whenever I want", and yet never actually do so?
If you can answer "Yes" to even one of the above questions, you are definitely a binoholic.
2. Do you purchase binoculars secretly?
3. Do you always feel you need "just one more" pair of binoculars?
4. Is your binocular-consumption causing a strain on your finances?
5. Is your binocular-consumption affecting your relationships at home or at work?
6. Do your friends and family express concern at your binocular consumption?
7. Do you constantly tell yourself "I can give up buying binoculars whenever I want", and yet never actually do so?
If you can answer "Yes" to even one of the above questions, you are definitely a binoholic.
I fear the worst, Gwen....3 and 7 are really, really serious.
It´s too late, and the only way to cure an addiction is to replace it with another one. I´d recommend Highland Malts or Halluginogenic Drugs, or possibly both.....
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
xmeecosmic
Guest
Is there any evidence that it is genetic or is it a learned trait?
It has to be behavioural. My da doesn´t know squat-diddly about binoculars. (He can bore on a range of other topics, though....
)
brocknroller
porromaniac
Binoholism (aka Binocuholism) is now under review by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to determine if the condition should be given medical disorder status (DSM-IV code), which would mean that insurance companies would be required to reimburse their clients for treatment for this disorder.
If binoholism receives a DSM-IV code, it will be included in the 2010 edition of the APA’s DSM-IV-TR (text revision) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The main issue now being debated by the review committee is how qualifiers will be determined. Qualifiers are used to determine mild, moderate, or severe forms of a disorder, which may require different lengths of treatment, different levels of medication, numbers of follow-up appointments, etc.
There are four camps of thought on this issue.
The first wants to simply qualify severity based on how many binoculars a person owns.
This criterion was criticized because many binoholics tend to buy and sell binoculars frequently in their never ending quest for the perfect binoculars.
So instead they want to base qualifiers on what percentage of income a person spends on binoculars per year (averaged over a period of three years, but not including the worst recession years).
The third camp takes a radically different approach and wants to base the qualifiers on how much time the patient spends looking through binoculars, reading advertisements and reviews for binoculars, reading and writing posts about binoculars on optics forums and how much of this is done during work hours.
Past history shows that the review committee will likely incorporate elements of all three proposals in its final decision.
If binoholism is determined to be a treatable medical disorder, it will be given a DSM-IV code and included in the 2010 DSM-IV-TR (text revision) of APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Another issue under review is if health problems related to the "disorder" should be included in the DSM-IV or treated as separate medical issues.
For example, binoholics have a high incidence of binoculitis, which is a condition developed from holding binoculars to one's face for too long; symptoms include red rings around eyes, acute cases involve tan lines.
Reference:
http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_display_cat.php?cat=anatomy&last=230
I emailed my former associate, Deanna Troi, a clinical psychologist, about this issue, and she agreed to inform me about APA’s decision the day it is publicly released.
Look for a follow-up report next year on this forum.
She also said that if binoholism is given a DSM-IV code, it is likely that Binoholics Anonymous and Spouses of Binoholics Anonymous groups will spring up across the country.
There will probably be Binoholic Treatment Centers where severe binoholics can trade in their alpha bins for second tier bins at dealer cost.
So for those of us afflicted with this disorder, there is new hope for treatment options.
If binoholism receives a DSM-IV code, it will be included in the 2010 edition of the APA’s DSM-IV-TR (text revision) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The main issue now being debated by the review committee is how qualifiers will be determined. Qualifiers are used to determine mild, moderate, or severe forms of a disorder, which may require different lengths of treatment, different levels of medication, numbers of follow-up appointments, etc.
There are four camps of thought on this issue.
The first wants to simply qualify severity based on how many binoculars a person owns.
This criterion was criticized because many binoholics tend to buy and sell binoculars frequently in their never ending quest for the perfect binoculars.
So instead they want to base qualifiers on what percentage of income a person spends on binoculars per year (averaged over a period of three years, but not including the worst recession years).
The third camp takes a radically different approach and wants to base the qualifiers on how much time the patient spends looking through binoculars, reading advertisements and reviews for binoculars, reading and writing posts about binoculars on optics forums and how much of this is done during work hours.
Past history shows that the review committee will likely incorporate elements of all three proposals in its final decision.
If binoholism is determined to be a treatable medical disorder, it will be given a DSM-IV code and included in the 2010 DSM-IV-TR (text revision) of APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Another issue under review is if health problems related to the "disorder" should be included in the DSM-IV or treated as separate medical issues.
For example, binoholics have a high incidence of binoculitis, which is a condition developed from holding binoculars to one's face for too long; symptoms include red rings around eyes, acute cases involve tan lines.
Reference:
http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_display_cat.php?cat=anatomy&last=230
I emailed my former associate, Deanna Troi, a clinical psychologist, about this issue, and she agreed to inform me about APA’s decision the day it is publicly released.
Look for a follow-up report next year on this forum.
She also said that if binoholism is given a DSM-IV code, it is likely that Binoholics Anonymous and Spouses of Binoholics Anonymous groups will spring up across the country.
There will probably be Binoholic Treatment Centers where severe binoholics can trade in their alpha bins for second tier bins at dealer cost.
So for those of us afflicted with this disorder, there is new hope for treatment options.
Last edited:
xmeecosmic
Guest
Then it sounds like it should be included in the next addition of the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Perhaps as a sub-category of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder or more than likely as a distinct new multi-phase non-corrected dielectric-shock proof Personaility Disorder.
(this is so much healthier than the recent thread insanity)
(this is so much healthier than the recent thread insanity)
Aha! I know what you people are at!!! You´re all working for the American Psychiatric Association, but not revealing your true affiliations!!! Well, you´ll never take me alive, copper! Top o´the world, Ma!
I really do think that a birder who buys a top bino every 15 years, who does not know of the acronyms CA or ER, who spends a lot more time in the threads higher up in this forum (literally) than us guys, is truly a more admirable birdwatcher than we are...
Last edited:
Yes, but they haven´t got a collection.... and mine is mine, all mine, d´you hear?!?!
lulubelle
Well-known member
Sancho,
I think you might be a big binoholic! I was reading through various posts yesterday and found this in the Nikon subforum. It made me laugh! So exactly how many times did you end up repurchasing each bin?!!! I think that there should be a #8 on your list - how many times have you owned/repurchased the same bin?!!!
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=150579&page=7
Check out post #155 from Sancho!
I think you might be a big binoholic! I was reading through various posts yesterday and found this in the Nikon subforum. It made me laugh! So exactly how many times did you end up repurchasing each bin?!!! I think that there should be a #8 on your list - how many times have you owned/repurchased the same bin?!!!
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=150579&page=7
Check out post #155 from Sancho!
rivergazer
Well-known member
I recently wanted to get a good flashlight, and did some research, discovering that there are "flashlightaholics", as well, all of whom seem to exhibit all seven of the known signs, and maybe a few more. They have the additional compulsion to tear them apart and "soup 'em up". Uh oh, maybe I shouldn't have said that ... I can already hear toolboxes opening.
Honestly, only once....never before and never again. Honest. No, Really, Honest......
I have thought about it, Rivergazer....I mused as to whether switching the eyepieces between Nikon EII 8x30 and 10x35 would produce a wonderful hybrid....luckily I don´t have the expertise. But there are more technically-gifted folk than me who do stuff like that! Once, though, I dunked a very expensive pair of binoculars in a bucket of water just to see if they were really waterproof. Long story. Luckily, they were......
falcondude
Well-known member
1. Do you lie about the number of binoculars you own? No
2. Do you purchase binoculars secretly? No
3. Do you always feel you need "just one more" pair of binoculars? Yes
4. Is your binocular-consumption causing a strain on your finances? No
5. Is your binocular-consumption affecting your relationships at home or at work? No
6. Do your friends and family express concern at your binocular consumption? Yes
7. Do you constantly tell yourself "I can give up buying binoculars whenever I want", and yet never actually do so? Yes
If you can answer "Yes" to even one of the above questions, you are definitely a binoholic.
I think we are all binoholic since we wanted more than one pair of binoculars by your self-diagnosis question #3
xmeecosmic
Guest
Wolf Beam, I think you may really be onto something.
All of you binoholics (also known as Alphawant/needabees), whether the condition is currently fully manifesting itself or if you are in some stage of recovery, if you have not already done so, take a non-magnified look at the BIRDS AND BIRDING FORUM and the thread entitled "Why Do You Bird?"
See how many of those well-adjusted and properly focussed individuals ever used the word BINOCULARS in discussing why birding is a passionate yet positive influence in their lives.
Perhaps then, in a non-Freudian, non-Rogerian, non-Piagetian ,or even non-Skinnerian sense, you may rediscover the joyous, non-materialistic roots of your birding past and, hopefully, birding future with nary a thought of over and over and over again "needing to" ascend the never to be truly fulfilled optic scales.
As for you Sancho, the self-binodiagnosed one, with a prescribed regimen of binotropic medications the "ghosting," "grey crescents," "glare," "flare." "stray lights," "veiling," and "edge distortions" may disappear. But even if they were real in the first place, you may come to realize that they aren't all that important afterall.
All of you binoholics (also known as Alphawant/needabees), whether the condition is currently fully manifesting itself or if you are in some stage of recovery, if you have not already done so, take a non-magnified look at the BIRDS AND BIRDING FORUM and the thread entitled "Why Do You Bird?"
See how many of those well-adjusted and properly focussed individuals ever used the word BINOCULARS in discussing why birding is a passionate yet positive influence in their lives.
Perhaps then, in a non-Freudian, non-Rogerian, non-Piagetian ,or even non-Skinnerian sense, you may rediscover the joyous, non-materialistic roots of your birding past and, hopefully, birding future with nary a thought of over and over and over again "needing to" ascend the never to be truly fulfilled optic scales.
As for you Sancho, the self-binodiagnosed one, with a prescribed regimen of binotropic medications the "ghosting," "grey crescents," "glare," "flare." "stray lights," "veiling," and "edge distortions" may disappear. But even if they were real in the first place, you may come to realize that they aren't all that important afterall.
