EPTIf you kill someone over a video game, you are addicted.
No, just a sociopath.
How do you define an addictive gamer? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
If you kill someone over a video game, you are addicted. No, just a sociopath. | ||
|
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
| ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On February 23 2011 09:18 NEOtheONE wrote: Um, I'm a counselor, does that count? And please refer to my post above. Ok, then. On February 23 2011 08:54 NEOtheONE wrote: After reading through many articles on the matter of Internet and Video Game "addiction," I conclude that the term addiction is unwarranted. However, compulsion may indeed be warranted. Compulsion implies something similar to addiction, but it does not go as far as to label people as addicts. People are compelled to continue in such activities despite consequences to other aspects of life. In order for someone to meet the level of compulsion, there must be interference with the individual's daily life. This can be seen in lowered work or school performance, decreased time spent sleeping, thinking about the game repeatedly when unable to play, etc. The key concept when it comes to any psychological diagnosis is the concept of impairment. This impairment is seen in one or more of seven areas of life: family, spiritual, interpersonal, physically, self, vocational/educational/leisure, and cognitively. Alright, so first you say compulsion is one level below addiction. That seems reasonable. Then, you say compulsion consists of interference with the individual's daily life. That's what I addressed when I said that describing the symptoms doesn't get the level of precision to be able to get a diagnosis. Those symptoms are common for 100% of addicts (compelled?) but don't describe it really. That's like saying an illness of the internal organs is defined by feeling sick (I'm slightly exaggerating). It's not the point. I'd agree with the state of science that you quoted that there isn't a definition yet; I also don't see one. What I meant with "we need psychiatrists" is that the solution imo can't be found in describing behavior but in a change in the neurobiological process of the persons concerned. Drugs have such an effect, compulsion should have one too (that might be harder to see because it's 1. not physical in the classical sense and 2. not as strong as a drug addiction, as you pointed out). And yea, neurobiologists should be doing fine there too. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On February 23 2011 09:24 101toss wrote: Well then thread this is pointless, seeing as what constitutes "addiction" is entirely subjective. Coming to the solution that there is no solution is quite a success imo. | ||
|
NIJ
1012 Posts
On February 23 2011 09:26 Kenpachi wrote: Thats like saying youre addicted to work Any athletes can fit numerous criteria listed here. Which is why I think addiction is subjective as well. If you add 'as long as you get paid/make career, you're not addicted' to your definition of addiction, you can get around that.. but that makes addiction a useless phrase if that's the only clear difference between addicted vs pro athletes. | ||
|
OverKiLL.
United States199 Posts
| ||
|
whiteguycash
United States476 Posts
| ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On February 23 2011 09:36 whiteguycash wrote: addiction and social science are Pseudo-science, As far as I know. It is wholly dependent on the observer's bias. which does not make for good science in the least. It is all dependent on personal beliefs. I wouldn't go so far as to call them pseudo-science. But I agree: As long as noone defines it, everyone's gonna set their own standards. | ||
|
Cowpieguy
United States97 Posts
The problem is to find the limits, where addiction starts and where it ends, giving examples and individual cases doesn't help. (from Spekulatius, in response to my post I think)Spekulatius I'm saying that this discussion is difficult because I don't think there are clear limits, places where a gaming addiction starts and ends. There are some things that are clearly a problem, like killing someone over a video game, as a previous post mentioned. But I think if you want to know if someone has a gaming addiction, you have to look at that specific individual and his or her life. You can't just apply a formula and say that he is or isn't addicted because he does or doesn't fit within certain boundaries that you have already constructed. I think you took my comment out of context and misconstrued it a little bit. When I was talking about individuals, I was saying that there could be a lot of things going on in a person's life that contribute to what looks like a gaming addiction. Thus, it's hard to generalize about gaming addictions because different things come into play in each person's life. So, you have to look at an individual and what is behind his or her gaming habits to see if they have a gaming addiction rather than applying a set of rules or limits. | ||
|
Turbis
Sweden2 Posts
| ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
| ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
Real Life Example: There was a party in my town, and I knew a guy who didn't go because he wanted to play Civ 5. He wasn't playing with/talking to anyone. He was playing the game alone, by himself. IMO, that's sacrificing real life for a video game (and it's not like he's pro or anything, he gained nothing tangible), and therefore addiction. Not example: Some guy doesn't hang out at his friend's hosue because he's playing Halo with some of his other friends. That's not what I'm saying. This guy is being social with his friends, it's just that he's doing THROUGH Halo. He could, and probably would, be social if he didn't have Halo. It's just the method that he chose. | ||
|
couches
618 Posts
People call the wow nerd who's progressing at end game in a top guild(or any gaming equivalent) addicted because it's the easiest way to describe those habits. In the big picture it's the same as how somebody hooked on hard drugs lets their life waste away only to care about their high. A serious gamer neglects everything to play their game(s) of choice. It doesn't matter if gaming doesn't have any physically addictive properties in it. From an outsider point of view it's doing the same thing addictive drugs would. Causing the person to alienate themselves from family/friends for the sake of their vice with nothing to show for the time wasted. That is why I think people who game in all their free time are looked down on. Sure there are other hobbies that can lead to seclusion and isolation. Like maybe a musician who spends a month in a studio making music. He may have neglected his social life too. But he has accomplished something and has something worthwhile to show for it. Same for a writer who isolates themselves to write a book. With gaming you have nothing tangible to show for yourself or your time spent gaming. And no, e-achievements or game items are not tangible. I even call myself an ex-wow addict even though I know there's nothing physically addictive about it at all. It's just the easiest way to describe how I was. My character and guild was probably top 1% in the us pre-wrath. It doesn't even matter I have nothing to show for it. At least I learned that if I apply that kind of dedication and effort to anything else in life I'll be awesome at it too and actually get worthwhile returns for my time spent. Which has been the case since then. I do not think ill of gaming, never will. I only feel bad for people who cannot moderate their time in said games because I know that time invested into games has no returns for the majority of people playing. That leads into one reason why I think e-sports should be taken seriously. It would give serious gamers something realistic to strive for. Something awesome to show for their efforts and time invested. Starcraft is doing that, even though it's still got a ways to go. | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1600 Posts
| ||
|
Louuster
Canada2869 Posts
You should send her Day9 daily #100 to help her understand how gaming can be a passion without being an addiction, which is the difference you were trying to make that wasnt completely understood from what I see. After seing Sean cry while talking about Tasteless supporting him at WCG, theres now way you can still equate passion of video games with antisocial. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On February 23 2011 09:52 Cowpieguy wrote: (from Spekulatius, in response to my post I think) Spekulatius I'm saying that this discussion is difficult because I don't think there are clear limits, places where a gaming addiction starts and ends. There are some things that are clearly a problem, like killing someone over a video game, as a previous post mentioned. But I think if you want to know if someone has a gaming addiction, you have to look at that specific individual and his or her life. You can't just apply a formula and say that he is or isn't addicted because he does or doesn't fit within certain boundaries that you have already constructed. I think you took my comment out of context and misconstrued it a little bit. When I was talking about individuals, I was saying that there could be a lot of things going on in a person's life that contribute to what looks like a gaming addiction. Thus, it's hard to generalize about gaming addictions because different things come into play in each person's life. So, you have to look at an individual and what is behind his or her gaming habits to see if they have a gaming addiction rather than applying a set of rules or limits. I don't think we greatly disagree on anything both of us said. It's true, generalizing a diagnosis is extremely difficult when every person is different, has different mechanisms to deal with motivation and self-control, has different social lives. The reason the diagnosis of lung cancer is easy because everyone has a lung and so the diagnosis is based on the same standards. This reasoning does not apply to the less physical, more psychological problem of addiction/compulsion. I completely agree with you there. I still think that if we want a clear answer, we can't measure every person on its own, because then we can come to different conclusions in most cases (addiction yes/no). Maybe there is no clear answer, but the OP was "How do you define an addiction". If we wanna try to answer this, saying "well, there are no parameters, we gotta take all the circumstances in account", we basically say that there is no actual definition, only hints. Maybe it is like this and maybe you're right there, but my scientific mind just would not agree  | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
people just lack self-control. spoiled teenagers-> addictive adults i m o | ||
|
samboi
England69 Posts
IF YOU CAN MAINTAIN A NORMAL LIFE ASWELL AS BEING A GAMER, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU PLAY ITS ONLY A HOBBY, If gaming gets in the way of ur friends, relationship or schoolwork then its an addiction. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On February 23 2011 08:17 Manifesto7 wrote: I dont think an game addict is different than other addicts. If gaming is something that negatively impacts other important aspects of your life, and creates an imbalance, then it is a problem. Continuing behaviour that contributes to this negative impact makes you an addict. Huh, it's not often that I find myself having to disagree with you - but on this one I think you are quite wrong. I work at the university teaching and researching law...and from time to time I research the whole night and only go home to get some sleep. I hardly ever go on vacation and basicly do this 5-6 days a week. Does this "negatively impact other important aspects of my life and create an imbalance"? Hell yes it does. I could think of a million other things I could be doing instead, going out more often on top of it. You could say that due to the nature of researching, my "social life" also only consists of talking with my colleagues during coffee-breaks. There's not much teamwork/etc. going on, mainly reading, writing and much thinking. Still I'd consider it a bit ludicrous to be called a "law-addict". I work 40-60 hours a week depending on the stuff that's going on and also my personal interests. That's definitely comparable to the job many people are doing. So, what's the major difference between someone who "works long hours" and a "so called" (gaming) addict? Simply the fact that gaming isn't something that's socially accepted! If you sit 12 hours a day in front of the computer writing journal-papers you earn respect. If you sit 12 hours a day in front of the computer playing games you earn disdain. Even if you'd despise people who basicly do nothing else besides gaming, that wouldn't make them an "addict" by definition. Most easily seen when we consider pro-gaming. These people play the whole day because it's their frickin job. Nobody in his right mind would call something like that an "addiction". Nevertheless I don't want to negate that the problem of "addictive" gaming does exist. But in my opinion there are way, way fewer people "addicted" than society seems to believe. An addiction is something "physical", meaning where you suffer when can't satisfy your needs. Many people like to drink, even often, and are nowhere near "addicted" to alcohol. Why? Because it's no physical problem for them to stop. Maybe they get pissed off, but that's about it. With gaming it's the same. Many of us would hate it if we weren't able to play anymore, say because the government would prohibit gaming altogether. But we wouldn't physicly suffer. We would probably get drunk several days in a row and then get on with it. An addict wouldn't be able to do this, an addict would need help from a professional or otherwise he'd have a breakdown. That's the same with a real alcohol-addict who may collapse when forced to suddenly abandon alcohol altogether without any transitioning-phase. | ||
| ||
