90% of Gaming Addiction Patients Not Addicted 333
phorm writes "BBC is carrying an article which states that 90% of visitors to Europe's 'video game addiction clinic' are not, in fact, addicted. The problem is a social one rather than a psychological issue. In other words, the patients have turned to heavy gaming because they felt they didn't fit in elsewhere, or that they fit in better 'in the game' than elsewhere in 'the real world.' This has been discussed before, with arguments ranging from gaming being a good way to socialize, the clinical definition of gaming addiction, and claims than males are wired for video-game addiction."
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people still listen to the media is beyond me. Every single year they come up with something that is either A) addicting and damaging to minds B) corrupting the family/children/society or C) is somehow harmful. Be it rock and roll, cell phones, video games, comic books, etc, the media always comes up with some "studies" to back them up while two months later showing studies that prove just the opposite is true, why haven't people realized that the media has cried wolf far too many times and just tune the crap out?
Because maybe the only real addiction we have is allowing self-appointed "experts" and authorities to do our thinking for us.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is a social one rather than a psychological issue. In other words, the patients have turned to $ADDICTION because they felt they didn't fit in elsewhere,
Fixed. A good support system is a cure for all but the most virulent psychoses, but there's a lot of money to be made on medicalizing things which are otherwise curable through a support system. Unfortunately, most addicts are given drugs and/or forced to attend $ADDICTION anonymous meetings which do more harm that good: If you were a drunk, would want to do be forced into a smoke-filled room crammed in with other folks who are just as pissed for being there as you are, probably fiending for drinks? Also, the "higher power" thing dosen't work for atheists.
Re:uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's no physical or psychological dependence, they're not addicted. Turning to games for social reasons doesn't constitute addiction.
Males? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'll say. I just got done having a three hour bitch fest yesterday with a friend of mine who's BF is 'addicted' to World of Warcraft. She doesn't have a lot of experience with boys (much more with girls -- no comments on this please!), and I've had to mother her a bit on why a boy can sink twenty or more hours a week into a video game and says it "helps me relax and challenges me", but afterwords can't come up with anything better to do than "go bowling" ("where"? "Umm... I'm sure there's one around somewhere"), or "go for a walk".
I tried my best to explain how men are so much more visually oriented than girls, but it's a hard concept to really explain. It's not that they're addicted to video games, it's just that the game provides more visual action than the real world so they're more strongly attracted to it. Girls read books, boys watch movies--Boys play video games, girls play board games, that kind of thing. They really are wired different and it's damn frustrating.
I often find myself wishing for video games that helped build social skills for these kind of boys -- the ones that are awkward and introverted in public, but if you can get them to open up they're nice teddy bears. I don't think they'd want to play it though, unless it involved blowing up or shooting something. :( Like The Sims -- awesome game, but the only people I know who play it are other girls! Am I hoping for too much here? Is there some way to use some visual medium to help boys crawl out of their shell?
Nerds not addicts (Score:5, Insightful)
So 90% were nerds, not addicts.
Define: addiction (Score:4, Insightful)
to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively. ie. addicted to gambling
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addicted [merriam-webster.com]
Most people devote a great deal of their time socializing and thus become comfortable socializing. It's part of normal human development. We are social creatures. I tend to think that addiction starts when it causes problems in your life.
The problem is few have studied the long term impact of not learning how to socialize with someone without a LCD screen and a Internet connection. I could potentially see problems arising because not learning how to socialize only makes someone feel even more alienated.
Can you see the potential downward spiral that could apply to this situation that is typically reserved for drug abuse?
Re:Demise of hobby clubs (Score:5, Insightful)
Another contributing factor is, I have to say, laziness. It is much easier to stay at home, connect the Xbox to the net and play a game, then it was even 5 years ago to organize for all your mates to come around to play Perfect Dark multiplayer in the same room.
People often ignore the benefits of the social interaction, and this causes problems long term, as its hard to switch 'back' once you have isolated yourself even a little from your community.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Males? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Demise of hobby clubs (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be claiming that the disappearance of these clubs is causing kids to be gamers. I think it's exactly the opposite: Video games are causing kids not to be interested in those clubs, so they disappear due to lack of interest.
I -love- math and science, but if you give me the choice between hanging out with a bunch of kids that are interested in math or playing video games, the choice is obvious.
In addition, I can get all the info I need from the internet. I no longer have to deal with people or libraries or anything. Kids have the exact same access that I do, so it's not surprising that the smart ones choose to get their information fast and accurate, instead of wasting time. (Yes, information on the net is still far more accurate than talking to schoolkids about it.)
Re:Males? (Score:1, Insightful)
20 hours a week is probably how much time my in-laws spend watching TV. 3 hours a day... I do think it's excessive but I think the rest of America would probably disagree with me.
The real question is: does he pay his bills? Does he take showers? Does he show up late for work? Does he spend his time at work buying magic items or some such thing instead of working?
What my therapist told me about addiction: addicts are people who don't "show up" for life. They are "somewhere else" while life passes them by. If this describes your friend's BF then he has a problem, whether or not it is officially "addiction".
Re:uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
For starters, do you honestly believe that poor blacks are diagnosed MORE often with psychological conditions than affluent whites? Really? You really believe that someone trying to be both racist and politically correct at the same time is going to give these people an excuse for their behavior rather than simply throwing them in jail?
Second, when your getting high takes the place of working I'm pretty sure you ARE an addict, by definition. Your "hobby" is interfering with your life. This would be true of people playing video games as well, and you'll note that the article never stated that video game addiction is not real or that nobody who came into their clinic was, in their estimation, legitimately addicted to video games. Just that the majority of them weren't. (That's also not to say that they were what psychologists would consider to be mentally well; but being unwell and being addicted are not necessarily one in the same.)
More importantly, addiction is (among other things) an inability to stop your behavior. If that druggie really can stop doing drugs tomorrow, he's not addicted--same with a video game addict. The distinction the article seems to be drawing is that being unable to stop a behavior and not having another choice available due to other psychological issues aren't the same. These people fill their lives with video games because they have no other social interactions to fill them with. It's bad, maybe worse than addiction--but I would agree that it is not, in itself, actually addiction.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell are you talking about?
Yes, a good support system is VERY important for just about every psychological disorder or problem, but it is not a cure-all and and it not guarantee.
If you admit that our psychology derives from brain (and body) workings and that internal states and behaviors are affected by chemical changes, then it stands to reason that many psychological problems may be due to, say, certain brain circuitry being more prone to fire and/or some abnormality or otherwise undesirable neurotransmitter activity.
Too many people assume, "make them think positive thoughts, the problem will fix itself" and don't realize that the negative thoughts are a product of biological function and may be due to the chemical or neural activity.
Drugs are usually not meant to be taken alone without treatment. They're supposed to be given along with therapy, often some form of cognitive-behavioral therapy. They're also given to help improve the quality of life in the short term during therapy.
As for $ADDICTION Anonymous meetings, it is a well-known fact that recovery pretty much requires that the person actually be motivated to recover. Additionally, people being treated for addictions, usually in rehab, are usually told to avoid anything addicting; people in rehab often cannot even eat chocolate or drink coffee. AA is not the only addiction support group people can join; if a judge sentences someone to AA specifically he's an idiot.
I suspect you're thinking of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode here. While they do make some good arguments, I don't think their point was more to the arbitrary nature of the 12-step programs and not the actual support groups themselves. Silly things like recognizing a higher power and other stuff, that's nonsense, but providing motivations for recovery, goalposts that they can look forward to--basically rewards--does help work.
But, even past all this, sometimes drugs really are necessary. No single treatment is ever a true guarantee.
Re:Demise of hobby clubs (Score:1, Insightful)
One reason...It use to be that these people could join a club and usually a "geeky" one: A Chess club, a remote control aircraft club, a rocketry club, a science club, an electronics club. These kinds of organisations are disappearing and the activities are being labelled as dangerous or complete social death to get involved in, leaving a void which is being filled with idle gaming.
Yeah, because all the traditional, pre-internet outlets of 'geekiness' used to command so much more respect than spending all your time gaming. These activities always were 'social death'.
I have a theory that the reason gaming gets a disproportionate amount of media attention for supposed 'violence' is because of its accessibility not to minors, but to those seen as nerds. There is a need to see the socially 'weak' retain their introverted role of passive victim. Games go against this by providing an outlet for the frustration visited upon them by the rest of society (however vicarious the aggression of a video game is), but the natural social laws wired into the human mind (at least among the non-introverted majority) do not allow this.
If all video games were non-violent and never had been, they might still have be popular among 'nerds' but they would also by association be 'social death' as the OP describes.
Re:Diablo & WoW... AkA Slot Machines (Score:2, Insightful)
I definitely agree that there is a parallel with slots/gambling/whatever. I think it's something that more people need to acknowledge. Games are great way to entertain/challenge yourself, but there is a point where they need to be turned off. Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't play games or that these people are necessarily addicts, but the internet should not replace all social interaction.
We need to keep in mind that a good number of these people have turned to games as a way to escape from a feeling of helplessness or social awkwardness. They become powerful in their online world and it's difficult to leave that, especially when you don't know how to approach the 'real' world. I know this is true for at least some 'addicts' because that's exactly what my issue was/is. It took me a long time to figure it out for myself.
What would be ideal is for someone to reach out to the 'addicts' and show them that they are interesting people in their own right and encourage them to come outside. I don't know how feasible that is as a large-scale solution, but I know that having a friend drag me out to go bowling or something would be much more effective than trying to lock me in a room with other 'defective' people. I'd actually welcome the chance to get out of the house, even if it were difficult.
Re:tangent (Score:2, Insightful)
Like most human behaviors, it's a useful trait 90% of the time. 10% of time when it gets out of hand, you can consider it an illness requiring remedy.
This is why tagging the term addiction on any problem for an individual brings up all kinds of issues. Genuine addiction is very neurological/chemical, other examples may be inaccurately labeled addiction but the fault is actually behavioral. The lay person's understanding of the clinical definition is clearly different.
Ok so, kids who spend alot of time playing 'WoW' because they don't fit in socially, whats the problem? They'll probably learn some social skills in the game, whereas if they remain marooned in real life they will just become socially isolated as a lot of these kids do.
If some young person was doing some useful task, with the same pattern of compulsive behavior, would it still be called addiction by the concerned parent observing?
Further, isn't it really actually rather funny how any reasonable analysis (anything other than knee-jerk finger pointing) of issues for young people boils right down to social problems and deficient parenting?
Scratch that, what the hell am I saying: if we didn't have bullying in schools and a social structure that marginalizes eccentrics and intellectuals we wouldn't be able to breed the sub population of scientists and engineers that make the world a better place to live.
And tell me anywhere that's worth fitting in ? (Score:5, Insightful)
working 7 to 19.00 every day, in a thankless job that demands way more than it pays ?
or, they should have fit in sleazy bar corners, wasting their life away with sluts (male or female) ?
or, they should become career bitches (male or female) and waste their life away in that manner ?
or they should have fit in with a family. but then again, they have to create a family first, and creating a family has SO much overhead and effort in these days that you can maybe compare it to swimming across english channel.
or, they should have fit in with the immense crowds that are sedating their brain through football spectatorship, or in front of dumb tv shows each night ?
or maybe they could have fit in with their peers, who are entertaining themselves with the MODERN entertainment form that is called gaming ? you know, fitting in WITH YOUR PEERS, as countless generations in the history of mankind has done ?
well. they are just doing that. i think a lot of people, but especially 'experts' need to shut their traps about it, and get to accept this as a normal stage of human civilization.
Try something for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In highschool I started an informal survey after getting tired of being "addicted to computers".
"SOooo like all you do all day is like sit on computers and shit."
"What do you usually do when you get home from school?"
"I don't know I usually watch TV."
That summarized about 99% of all conversations I had. Some people usually read books. Some people usually just talked on the phone. But across the board almost every single person only had one or at most two hobbies (usually an extra-curricular sports team).
Because most people don't play video games the average game plays exponentially more games than they're used to observing and as a reslt the conclude that person is crazy addicted. In reality almost nobody does anything productive in their leisure hours and most of their time is taken up by one or two activities.
Computers are also tricky because while an external observer may simply note someone staring at a screen for 6 hours. You may have watched a TV Show. Read the news paper. Played video games. Talked to your friends. Read Slashdot. Read up on science news. Posted a blog on something you read. Worked on an art project and read a short story.
The variety of what I read and do on a computer vastly dwarfs what most people do in a day when broken down into activities instead of locations "Sat on couch reading and typing on keyboard."
I get just as addicted by good books as video games but if someone gets hooked on a book its a positive thing. "Oh my Jeny was up till 3 am she was so engrossed in Twilight." Meanwhile "That Jimmy is rotting his brain playing video games he played for 2 hours yeserday and I tried to get him to put it down and do something else but would have just played till 2AM can you believe it if I hadn't pulled the power cable."
It's a double standard perpetrated by the majority in order to shame the minority into conformity. Which usually entails sitting on the couch and watching TV till you go to bed.
Re:I'm addicted to Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Males? (Score:3, Insightful)
girlspeak translation: Get off the damn computer and pay attention to me when I'm around. It's damn rude to have someone over and then leave them to entertain themselves so you can go play a video game. Homework or a few minutes of e-mail, not a big deal... Wasting four hours on a video game because you need to "relax"... It gives a clear message: I'm not wanted. And when it's my boyfriend doing that, then it's elevate to not only aren't I wanted, but that I'm less attractive than a hunk of circuits and plastic. So yeah, most girls are going to be rightly pissed about that!
See the thing is, unless she _actually_ gets pissed at him instead of saying "I wish you spend less time on wow", he won't know. You can't expect every guy to completely understand every word that she says, it just doesn't work that way. She needs to explain it to him in more frank terms, not wishy-washy words
Re:Males? (Score:5, Insightful)
girlspeak translation: ...
Thank you.
I'm intrigued by your ideas, and wish to purchase your latest edition of your femaleish-maleish dictionary ;)
I'm hoping you tell or have told you boyfriend what you just told us here on slashdot.
And to all the girls, here's how guys communicate: we (almost) always interpret what is said in the most straightforward, say-what-you-mean nothing-between-the-lines way. When I say I have a headache, it's because my head hurts (dammit), not because I sad I didn't get the promotion.
Successful communication requires one or more parties to move out of their comfort zone. It's probably for the best if both do: guys need to read between the lines a bit more, and girls need to tell the guys when and how to read between the lines.
But speaking as a guy, understanding girls isn't made easier by the fact that "I have a headache" sometimes means "my head hurts; end of news bulletin" and sometimes means "I refuse to have sex with you due to something you did within the last month that I won't tell you about" and sometimes "my head hurts really badly; please give me an aspirin and a really big hug."
If you talk to guys the guy way, and tell them flat out what you want, they'll either agree straight away [who doesn't want to hug and comfort their hurting girlfriend?], or at least the two of you will know that you both know that there's an issue to be addressed and what it is. In the latter case, you at least have an easier time talking about solutions than if only one party knows what the problem is.
Re:Males? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes I think that is indeed the plain truth, and people fool themselves into thinking that they either automatically deserve to be wanted by their designated *friend, or more importantly that they should desire to be wanted. The reality is that most people hook up with boyfriends or girlfriends for two reasons.
1) Sex
But, the plain fact of the matter is that after a few months, the novelty of sex will wear off. Now, this can be replaced by a long term emotional bond formed over the past few months of intimate contact, but only if that bond was formed. If it wasn't, then there really is no reason for people to stay together except for our other important reason.
2) Social pressures.
Many people in dead end relationships stay there for one primary reason. It is more painful and socially unacceptable for them to have no partner than it is to have a poor partner. The pressure, internal and external, for an adult of "marriageable" age to at least be dating is real and present. I have seen people remain in miserable relationships that are well past their sell by date, and the only reason is that they have, in the colloquial, "settled". The (minor) risk of ending up alone for ever or even for a short period of time is regarded as too frightening to justify leaving a gangrenous union.
The single best lampooning of this behavior can be seen in the South Park episode where Satan is paralyzed with indecision [wikipedia.org] because he cannot decide which boyfriend to settle on. His dilemma is resolved by consulting God, who reveals that his dilemma was a false one because he never actually needed to settle for anyone at all. The Lord of Darkness rediscovered his happiness by simply leaving relationships that were never going to work out.
Returning to the original point, you are correct. Someone's boyfriend spending four hours a night on video game does mean that that they are not wanted, and the incorrect conclusion is to attempt to "salvage" a relationship that is almost certainly doomed anyway. As the saying goes, there are plenty of other fish in the sea and in any case, sometimes fish is not worth the the sacrifices to the rest of your diet!
Move on. Loneliness is temporary. But misery lasts 'till death does you part.
Re:And tell me anywhere that's worth fitting in ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And tell me anywhere that's worth fitting in ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mmm.
How is "pressing the buttons on a skinner box" different from... say, "flipping the skinner cards" [1] or "filling in the skinner puzzle" [2] or "adjusting the skinner carburettor"[3]? These are all socially acceptable activities that we have been engaging in for *ages*.
[1] Solitaire or other single-player card game :/
[2] Crossword puzzle
[3] Um... yeah. I suck at mocking you.
Future hobby club renaissance (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not surprised that hobby clubs are dying. As you say, face-to-face was the best way to acquire knowledge prior to the Internet Age. But now it seems like an extraordinary waste of time - invest three hours with people you barely know to maybe get the same information you can now find with two minutes on Google. If your goal is to learn about and discuss your hobby then the Internet truly blows away the hobby club.
But, as some of us realize, face-to-face meeting is still valuable for other reasons. You're more likely to learn something you didn't know that you wanted to know. You develop relationships that provide support outside of the narrow topic of formal interest. And humans are hyper-social creatures that thrive on the richness of face-to-face interaction.
The desire for face-to-face relationships has already led to the Internet being used as a source to find them: online dating, flash mobs, meetup groups. Maybe, with the Internet becoming more common than the telephone and a greater appreciation for what's lost without face-to-face interaction, there will be a rebirth of hobby clubs organized and supported with the efficiency of the Internet.
Re:I'm addicted to Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Incidentally if you can get a job as a Digital Researcher that is justification to surf porn on the job (Porn used bluray rather than HD - as a rule not a definition - and look what "won" the market).
Should the beancounters be on facebook? No. Should they be permitted on the Internet? Hell no.
Just because it's a shitty site doesn't mean it's a problem.
Just a thought.
Re:Males? (Score:3, Insightful)
girlspeak translation: Get off the damn computer and pay attention to me when I'm around. It's damn rude to have someone over and then leave them to entertain themselves so you can go play a video game. Homework or a few minutes of e-mail, not a big deal... Wasting four hours on a video game because you need to "relax"... It gives a clear message: I'm not wanted. And when it's my boyfriend doing that, then it's elevate to not only aren't I wanted, but that I'm less attractive than a hunk of circuits and plastic. So yeah, most girls are going to be rightly pissed about that!
So quit inviting yourself over when I want to come home from work and want to spend a couple hours relaxing. I'll start resenting you if you do that.
Despite popular belief, girls can be just as selfish as guys can be. You two need to strike a balance. (And, by that, I mean a REAL balance. Not a "do what the girl wants" balance.)
Re:uh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple answer is that there is a clinical and non-clinical definition of the word "addicted". If I observe a person playing WoW 12-16 hours a day, I might say that person is addicted to the game. From a non-clinical standpoint I am correct. They feel compelled to play the game all of the time, regardless of the reason for their choice (because all of their friends are there, because they feel like they fit in there, or because of some true, clinical, addiction) they are displaying what a laymen would call an addictive behavior. Physiologists have a clinical definition of the word which has a more specific definition, and requires someone to repeat the same behavior over and over because of a clinical or physiological bond to the behavior itself.
To use a more concrete, real world, example: imagine you have started smoking because all of your friend smoke, and you are up to a pack a day. Now imagine that you are, for some reason, immune to the physically addictive properties of tobacco. Now imagine that all of your friends abruptly stop smoking or you get new friends. Not being physically addicted, and only having picked up the habit because you wanted to fit in, you stop smoking as well. While you exhibited the behavior of an addict (smoking all the time) you were never really addicted to smoking, you smoked to fit in with your friends.
Essentially what this study is saying is that the majority of gaming "addicts" aren't actually "addicted" to games, they simply play them a lot of the same reason other people might go to bars a lot, or a crochet club a lot, or talk on HAM radios a lot. They feel like they fit in there and they've built a social circle (a guild in a MMORPG, a team on a server for an online shooter, or whatever) inside in the virtual world they inhabit. They obsess over gear and min/maxing stats for the same reason that my manager at work obsesses over his scuba equipment, or a car nut might obsess over ecking one more horsepower out of their engine. It gives them status in the mini-world of hobbyists that they choose to inhabit.