|
Gaming Addiction is something that today is often in the media, often spoken about in hushed tones amongst parents, and often posted about on the internet. But let me ask something few seem to consider: what is addiction, and does it even apply to gaming?
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Zwei_zigaretten.jpg)
Pictured Above: World of Warcraft's 5th Expansion - World of Warcraft: Battle of the... Oh, F- it, just smoke this.
According to Wikipedia, “Addiction is the continued use of a mood altering substance or behaviour despite adverse dependency consequences”. The reason I’ve brought out the definition is this last clause: “despite adverse dependency consequences”.
Preface: Why should I care about this?
There are a number of reasons this is important, some related to gaming, some not.
Related to gaming, if video games are considered to be an "addictive" substance, it can be regulated far more so than the current environment. We've seen video games brought in front of the U.S. Congress several times in recent years for heightened censorship laws - and the demand for such legislation will only increase if video gaming is widely accepted as an "addiction". There is also social stigma to consider, as well as the acceptance of the "eSports" so many on this site tout.
Unrelated to gaming is lessons on moderation.My stance in writing this is not that children should not exercise, that kids should be allowed to play as many video games as they want or that there is nothing wrong with a young adult who spends 72 hours straight playing WoW. My point is that video games don't fit the "addiction" model. In addiction, you have something like a drug which is typically thought of as inherently bad for a person which compels people to continuously take it. The fault in the above situations lies not with the video games, but with the individuals involved. Children need to be taught the values of moderation, not just in their gaming habits, and not just to avoid a label like "addict", but because moderation is part of a healthy lifestyle in all things. That goes for hobbies, relationships, gaming, watching television, eating, and practically every other aspect of life. When we assess the blame on the video games (i.e. that video games are addictive, therefore our children are inherently not to blame for their behavior), we deny our children this lesson not about gaming, but about life in general. This is one of the reasons this distinction is so important.
Statement 1: With the present stigma on addiction, I’d argue that when we say “adverse dependency consequences” we should remove social consequences from eligibility when considering whether something is an addiction or not.
![[image loading]](http://primetimeidiots.com/photos/some-weird-guy.jpg)
Above: This young man is clearly and awkwardly addicted to being himself. Unfortunately, there is only one cure...
First, the inclusion of social consequences creates a strange Catch-22 situation, where any product can be addictive if there are social consequences involved in using the product, but the use of the product is going to have social consequences because it is known to be addictive.
But additionally, the inclusion of social consequences only makes as much sense as society's reaction to the product in question. For example:
Let’s say you’re a guy who likes vegetables – A LOT. Okay, so that’s weird. You eat them every day. Sometimes twice a day. There might even be social consequences to your vegetable-eating habits. Maybe you married someone who hates green beans (your favorite vegetable) or you have kids who can’t stand that there are always peas in the house. Maybe you live in a society of meat and dairy farmers where the social norm is that everyone is supposed to eat only as much meat and cheese as is possible. Maybe living in this carnivorous society with a love of green beans is even so stressful that sometimes he even snaps at people when the topic of culinary matters comes up. Is this an addiction? I’d say no. Vegetables are good for you. You might have people around you who think in ways that create social obstacles (that you deal with well sometimes and poorly other times), but this doesn’t change the fact that your behavior, in a vacuum, is perfectly healthy.
Okay, so that was a bit contrived. So how about this? I am a mathematician. I think, in nearly every circumstance, as analytically and logically as my limitations as a human individual will allow. Does this make me addicted to logic? Think about it for a second. I have difficulty connecting to others in social situations who do not think like this. People often find my analysis to be too pointed, and therefore assume that my intent is to anger them. It should be easy for anyone to listen to illogical statements with a smile and nod – shouldn’t it? Yet I can’t seem to do it – something just tells me that doing so is wrong, even when it is with people I like or people I want to like me. Am I addicted? Again, I think not. Of course we all have actions which can maximize external social benefits (which we sometimes don’t do for internal reasons) – that doesn’t mean there’s something sinister like the “addiction” boogie-man at play. Sometimes, people behave in ways that make sense to themselves and not others – that’s the sign of an independent mind at work, and not the sign of a lack of discipline or control over an addictive substance.
In Pi, Sean Gullette, clearly a logic addict, demonstrates most mathmaticians' response to being asked to teach Calculus to undergraduates.
Alternatively, we could say “yes, any adherence to a behavior despite negative social consequences is also an addiction”. That’s actually fine (even though it kind of makes the word a pointless one) – if we were able to remove the stigma from the word. Addiction which can be caused by “a lot of people think you’re weird” is very different than addiction which can be caused by “a drug which causes people to hallucinate, and causes many to have suicidal thoughts”, and therefore using the word to describe a behavior which supposedly "fits" it is inherently disingenuous. And really in the case of video games, it borders on slander.
Statement 2: Certain “opportunity cost” consequences to behavior should also be avoided.
It is surprising how many parents site video games as a reason kids don’t get more exercise or don’t get more of their homework done. The truth of the matter is – yes, exercise and homework are two things which need to be in the life of kids and adults alike – but before there were video games, there was TV. Before there was TV, there were other forms of play. Kids (and really, most adults) have always striven to avoid work and exercise when they are able to do so. To list decreased exercise and poor performance in school as negative consequences which are due to a video game addiction, then, is disingenuous. It may be true in individual cases, if someone likes homework or dislikes other sedentary play behavior – but in general people avoid work and exercise, and this trend does not drop off with the removal of video games.
I used to think that if I didn’t have a game to play, I’d write a book. About a month after I quit WoW a couple years back, I realized that I still hadn’t started my book. I thought it was that my time was too invested in gaming, but the truth of the matter was that I just had motivation issues with that particular task. These issues, I feel for most people who game, are the reasons other more healthy activities are sometimes ignored.
Statement 3: Video games have not shown themselves within society as contributing to creating a more violent populace, as was feared with kids growing up in the 90's. Therefore, increased propensity towards violence is not a valid adverse consequence.
Anyone who dislikes video games will tell you the same thing: studies have shown an association between violent video games and an increase in aggressive behavior - and they're right, a number of studies have shown this association (http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx). But studies can produce flawed results, can be biased (for one example: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/dgentile/SRCD Video Game Addiction.pdf - please notice something crucial, the indications of increased aggression did not differentiate between genders), and have limitations.
Violence, eh! So, that's it, right? That's the negative effect we're looking for - and its addiction, right?
Not so fast. More recently (as video games have become the norm) these studies have turned from being more general ("is this likely to hurt kids?") to being more specific ("why is this likely to hurt kids?") - and you'll never guess what they found: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx
Call Of Duty might contribute to aggression in children who were already especially aggressive, but as a society as a whole, there is little to no evidence they have done us wrong.
![[image loading]](http://www.camera.org/images_user/boy%20with%20gun%202.jpg)
This boy may one day gun someone down in a Kwik Trip and it'll all be Donkey Kong's fault.
As it turns out, a gaming habit isn't likely to turn a straight-A student into a mindless killing machine. Over the past 10 years, video game sales are through the roof (not to mention games have become increasingly violent). Meanwhile, youth crime rates have been declining noticeably (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/gpr-14-2-68.pdf - see the bottom of page 8, and note that the data provided is from children.gov). Notice also from this same study, an interesting note: "For instance, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2009; Cook, 2000) in support of media violence effects research has claimed that 3,500 studies have been conducted on media violence with only 18 finding null effects."
But maybe we don't need studies, or statistics, or APA consensus. I mean, after all, if there were wild animals running loose in our schools, we wouldn't wait for studies and statistics to come out saying that this is probably inappropriate - we'd call animal control. Maybe this is like another type of wild animal that we just don't have an animal control for yet.
Now we're talking. No stats or studies - just plain reasoning. Lots of people are afraid of how playing violent games will affect their children, not because they're sure it'll make their sweet innocent Johnny into a mass murderer - they're afraid because they don't know what impact it'll have. But here's the thing - most kids (whether we want them to or not) are aware that violence exists. That's why even if you take away the video games, they'll still be playing with toy guns, water balloon grenades and watching or reading violent fiction. Kids have been doing this for as long as these things have existed. Always in the past, we've been fine with (and even sometimes encouraging) this behavior. Apparently, we have drawn the line at depicting the violence which our kids are already playing out.
Here's the thing though. Kids don't learn from play the same way they learn in school. In school, a child learns by doing. He learns to spell and then he just starts spelling - because that's what you do once you know how to spell. But with play its completely different.
![[image loading]](http://almostcoherent.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hunting.png)
Here, Timmy learns that he can shoot as many of his classmates as he wants, but he can only drag 100 pounds worth of their bodies back to the wagon.
"There is no such thing as violent play. Violence and aggression are intended to hurt somebody. Play is not intended to hurt somebody. Play, rougher in its themes and rougher physically, is a feature of boyhood in every society on Earth.
...
For example, how often are a convicted murderer's actions explained by too many games of "cops and robbers" on the playground?" -Michael Thompson, co-author of "Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys" (http://www.livescience.com/8514-battling-boys-educators-grapple-violent-play.html)
In other words, when a child plays violently or aggressively, they're not learning in that same way - they're not learning in order to do mindlessly. As the quote suggests, real violence is intended to hurt someone. Practicing violence, then, if it were intended to *do* violence - would focus on the real ability to cause another person pain. It doesn't. There's a reason that in real stories of war, there is attention given to how difficult it is to be a soldier - to kill other people. It's because in all our cops and robbers, in every Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles show, and in every game of Grand Theft Auto - we never learn how to cope with embodying the pain we fear for ourselves to other people. And if it's not something you learn in boot camp, it certainly isn't going to be something you learn by ripping the head off of a pixelated person.
Of course, its also worthwhile to note that not every game is as violent as some of the more notorious ones (take starcraft as an example).
Statement 4: Or perhaps we're the negative consequences are the people who play video games until they die.
If this is the case, (as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction) this only affects a handful of known cases. You are far more likely to die or seriously be injured playing a sport or driving to the supermarket than you are to die playing a video game.
Statement 5: With these out of the way, gaming addiction inherently offers no negative consequences.
... that I know of. If you can think of another one, feel free to correct me here.
To offer another view, recent articles within the APA are suggesting there may actually be several benefits to playing video games. (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx)
A Note on Television
The negative effects of television have often been glossed over in past years, but its worth pointing out that every negative effect which can be demonstrated for video games can also be demonstrated for watching television. You exercise less, you miss opportunities to socialize, and you have a heightened exposure to violence. Further, just about everyone in the US these days watches television, at least a little. Why aren't there news stories labelling this an addiction and riding TV for all its negative affects? (Hint: where do you watch the news?)
![[image loading]](http://www.techaddiction.ca/files/computer-game-addiction.jpg)
Above: A youth sensibly engaging in America's favorite pasttime - watching some TV, streamed onto his computer.
Below: A gaming addict shooting himself up with a dose of Diablo III so he can get his 'fix' before going off to shoot up a school.
Conclusion
I've played a lot of video games in my life, and I know a lot of people who have spent a lot of their lives playing video games, too. For me and for many, video games have not been something you play grudgingly and because you feel you "have to". Rather, video games have been a means of enriching the quality of life.
I've used video games to keep contact with old friends, and to make new ones, too. I've used video games in place of a good movie on a night when I wanted to be entertained but didn't want to go out. I've used video games as a vehicle for ambitions, and I've used it as both a source of (and solution to) anger management. I have known people who play video games as a family activity. I have known others who spend a large portion of their time playing and chatting with people they've never known IRL.
Are video games addictive? Are video games dangerous? I won't deny that the image of a boy of 13 years old spending his entire weekend in a computer chair is troubling to people who haven't lived it. I won't deny that the amount of time we see people devoting to these games raises an eyebrow. But at the end of the day, when someone like me who has spent a lot of his time gaming and isn't afraid to admit it looks back, he sees shared experiences and time with friends, he sees tantalizing stories worthy of a spot on HBO (and some which were laughably bad), he sees interactions - even if only with pixels - which were so entertaining that no time at a bar, no place on the sofa in front of the television, and no seat in the movie theatre could compare. This is the difference. When someone addicted to smoking looks back on their times with cigarettes, all they've really gained are a bunch of temporary chemically induced "feelgoods" and lung cancer.
People aren't addicted to video games, they're drawn in by the experiences they've provided. That experience, just like in movies, in novels, and in any other form of media is a genuine experience that I think people ought not be shamed or labelled as 'addicts' for having - despite the discomfort some might have with the level of involvement something as impersonal as a computer has in our experiences. This is not the same world it was 50 years ago, but to those discomforted by it, neither is it a thing completely dissimilar to what we as a culture have known in the past. Video games - when they haven't been used interchangeably with addictive substances - are part of that experience, at least for now. I personally hope it stays that way.
 
|
5/5.
I remember being subjected to this sort of nonsense by my hyper-religious parents.
A great example would be them taking away my Pokemon cartridge when I was a kid, because I got in a fight.
The fight had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that kids like starting shit with the skinny four-eyed homeschooled kid, it was because Pokemon encouraged violent impulses.
|
Excellent read. Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to smoke some mariojuana.
|
On August 30 2012 10:32 marttorn wrote:
mariojuana.
+ Show Spoiler +
in all seriousness though, my parents were similar, Jinglehell. Anything they could attribute to them damn video games they would :p
Great blog, well written as well 
|
Even with drugs you could say that someone who has high motivation or strong willpower is more likely to kick a drug habit, or a gambling habit. To say that it's not an addiction if it is about the character of the person affected... doesn't make it less of an addiction, in my opinion.
I don't think that games are ever the root cause of an addiction, but they are still the "substance or behaviour" which the root cause manifests itself. And in that, I fully support the idea that games are not to blame; but I say there is such a thing as game addiction; but it's not the games we should be focusing on.
Your argument kind of ends with the conclusion that no-one can ever be addicted to anything based on the definitions you've used. When we game, it releases chemicals in our brain; chemicals which can become physically and emotionally dependent on. I don't accept that game addiction doesn't exist; addiction to a LOT of things exists.
Also, I cracked up when you said:
Let’s say you’re a guy who likes vegetables – A LOT. Okay, so that’s weird. You eat them every day. Sometimes twice a day.
Call the police! Two helpings of vegetables in one day! I've had two already today and I'm bound to have more tonight with dinner... oh no...
|
I would say both have brought an untold amount of goodness in the world. (Speaking of Mario and Marijuana)
|
On August 30 2012 10:54 DRTnOOber wrote:Even with drugs you could say that someone who has high motivation or strong willpower is more likely to kick a drug habit, or a gambling habit. To say that it's not an addiction if it is about the character of the person affected... doesn't make it less of an addiction, in my opinion. I don't think that games are ever the root cause of an addiction, but they are still the "substance or behaviour" which the root cause manifests itself. And in that, I fully support the idea that games are not to blame; but I say there is such a thing as game addiction; but it's not the games we should be focusing on. Your argument kind of ends with the conclusion that no-one can ever be addicted to anything based on the definitions you've used. When we game, it releases chemicals in our brain; chemicals which can become physically and emotionally dependent on. I don't accept that game addiction doesn't exist; addiction to a LOT of things exists. Also, I cracked up when you said: Show nested quote +Let’s say you’re a guy who likes vegetables – A LOT. Okay, so that’s weird. You eat them every day. Sometimes twice a day. Call the police! Two helpings of vegetables in one day! I've had two already today and I'm bound to have more tonight with dinner... oh no...
1. So you think addiction should be a word we use for anything that we do? Let's say I'm a teen who has nothing to do on a weekend. So I go to the mall or watch TV. Am I risking addiction to those now? If not, why am I risking addiction if I play video games?
2. Go through my argument again. I challenge you to take the more accepted addictions and apply my logic to them - given that hard drugs, smoking, alcoholism all have severe health risks associated with them, where did I say that these were not valid addictions? Where did I say that gambling wasn't a valid addiction? Where did I say that exercising to the point of severely injurious behavior wasn't an addiction? I said there wasn't a valid source of likely harm which results from gaming - that makes it different than those listed above.
|
What you don't realise is that there are 2 types of addiction. Physical and Mental. One is a true type of addiction the other is pseudo-categorised.
Physical addiction:
Your BODY craves for the drug. Such as Heroin, your body becomes physically addicted to the drug as your brain cannot produce dopamine and serotonin to keep you happy. Gaming and Weed DO NOT fall into this category. Gaming stimulates your brain into producing serotonin and endorphins to make you feel happy. Heroin on the other hand injects your brain with that stuff. I tell you, it is fucking hard to break a physical addiction
Mental addiction:
You keep thinking that you need a certain 'fix'. See the difference? You want to roll a joint and relax, or have a beer, play some WoW. Give yourself a 3 month break and you won't be thinking about it again.
Although the issue with being in a prolonged state of heightened dopamine/serotonin levels is your mind becomes content at whatever your doing, therefore you don't go out and socialise as often, become secluded as such. Your mind starts to realise that the only way to be happy is to keep doing what your doing. That is where mental addiction comes in to play.
|
2. Go through my argument again. I challenge you to take the more accepted addictions and apply my logic to them - given that hard drugs, smoking, alcoholism all have severe health risks associated with them, where did I say that these were not valid addictions? Where did I say that gambling wasn't a valid addiction? Where did I say that exercising to the point of severely injurious behavior wasn't an addiction? I said there wasn't a valid source of likely harm which results from gaming - that makes it different than those listed above.
What I want to know is what is the key difference between, for example, game addiction (if such a thing exists) and gambling addiction? Is it the impact? If very heavy duty gaming caused:
* Eye problems; staring at a screen at close proximity causing eye strain.
* Headaches.
* Back problems from stting in an "office style" (usually) chair for hours on end.
... would that make it an addiction?
I also have some concerns about statement 1, about social consequences. Ignoring what "society" thinks of it completely, and focusing on friends and family. I would argue that IF a person is playing a lot of video games, at the expense of the relationships they have with their friends and family, then it would justify that behaviour as an addiction. In fact, I've been in this situation myself. Once again, I am not saying the video games are the root cause; but they are the manisfestation of my addiction. No?
|
I like your take on the issue man, also the laughs.
The "isn't" in the second to last paragraph should be changed to "is". Not trying to be an ass just trying to help while seeming like an ass! ;-)
|
On August 30 2012 12:20 Zariel wrote:
Mental addiction:
You keep thinking that you need a certain 'fix'. See the difference? You want to roll a joint and relax, or have a beer, play some WoW. Give yourself a 3 month break and you won't be thinking about it again.
Although the issue with being in a prolonged state of heightened dopamine/serotonin levels is your mind becomes content at whatever your doing, therefore you don't go out and socialise as often, become secluded as such. Your mind starts to realise that the only way to be happy is to keep doing what your doing. That is where mental addiction comes in to play.
I see the difference. The difference is that one is provable, the other is based on whatever we feel like ought to be categorized as a 'fix'. I get chemicals released in my brain all the time - when someone cuts me off in traffic, when I do something wrong or right at work, or when I'm playing video games. The first two we say is part of normal cognitive experience. The third we say is a result of a mental addiction. If we can codify why these are different, I'm fine with it. If it's whatever people kinda think makes sense to someone - I take issue when it affects how society at large views my hobbies.
On August 30 2012 12:57 DRTnOOber wrote:Show nested quote +2. Go through my argument again. I challenge you to take the more accepted addictions and apply my logic to them - given that hard drugs, smoking, alcoholism all have severe health risks associated with them, where did I say that these were not valid addictions? Where did I say that gambling wasn't a valid addiction? Where did I say that exercising to the point of severely injurious behavior wasn't an addiction? I said there wasn't a valid source of likely harm which results from gaming - that makes it different than those listed above. What I want to know is what is the key difference between, for example, game addiction (if such a thing exists) and gambling addiction? Is it the impact? If very heavy duty gaming caused: * Eye problems; staring at a screen at close proximity causing eye strain.
* Headaches.
* Back problems from stting in an "office style" (usually) chair for hours on end.
... would that make it an addiction? I also have some concerns about statement 1, about social consequences. Ignoring what "society" thinks of it completely, and focusing on friends and family. I would argue that IF a person is playing a lot of video games, at the expense of the relationships they have with their friends and family, then it would justify that behaviour as an addiction. In fact, I've been in this situation myself. Once again, I am not saying the video games are the root cause; but they are the manisfestation of my addiction. No?
It's the "adverse dependency consequences". If you gamble a ton, you're going to lose all your money (if you're good, it might take a bit longer). No offense, but it's really hard to take you seriously if you honestly don't see the difference between losing things like your house or your car or going deeper into debt than most people already are - and having a worse perscription for your glasses/contacts.
The problems you've listed are symptomatic of sitting at a computer desk. You can play video games other ways - there are console games, standing desks, and other custom setups if these issues become problematic.
Sometimes people do play video games at the expense of their relationships - but then sometimes people watch TV at the expense of their relationships, sometimes people develop other relationships at the expense of their relationships, and sometimes people do other things like workout, or other solitary activities. What we need to ask ourselves is 'why were you doing that?' Maybe the answer is 'because you didn't think it through'. Maybe it was because you had needs you felt you couldn't get fulfilled through interaction with others. Maybe you never really learned the value of moderation. It could be a number of things - and the answer is likely key to pinpointing a different way through life that involves video games but doesn't endanger your relationships. See what I'm getting at? What you were doing isn't an addictive behavior because it isn't going to go away when you get rid of gaming. It's just going to manifest itself differently. For many young men, it might be part of their quest for manhood, their quest for independence, or their quest for challenge in life. Taking away the video games doesn't solve the problem - calling video games an addiction, therefore, is just enabling people who should be looking at their behavior and asking "why" a convenient excuse for not understanding themselves. It wasn't me, it was the addiction. But now what do they do on their quest for manhood, independence or challenge? They find new ways to express it (and let me tell you, you can do worse things for yourself towards these ends than playing mario kart).
Does that make sense?
|
It seems you built your entire argument based around attacking the wording of Wikipedia's definition of addiction instead of seriously considering what addiction actually is. You also seem to be using the same defense against gaming addiction that can be applied to other addictions. You say that it's the person who gets addicted to gaming, not gaming itself that's wrong. But doesn't that apply to a lot of these other things? It's the person who gets addicted to alcohol, alcohol in moderation is an excellent social lubricant. Take away alcohol and these young men can easily get addicted to something else. Say, gaming.
The bottom line is that of course you can be addicted to video games. You feel the urge play when you shouldn't be playing and you can't stop yourself from playing video games when you have access. There are people who have destroyed their lives because they can't stop playing video games when they should be doing something else productive. I myself have used video games like a drug during my childhood. It was my drug, in place of cocaine or alcohol or tobacco or what have you. I was addicted to it. I had a painful childhood and used gaming as the way to escape. The problem was, I was also playing games when I should be doing homework, or hanging out with friends, or making food, or whatever it was. This wasn't a temporary problem, I was addicted through middle school and high school, and much of college. My grades sucked, I lost friends and I didn't come close to achieving my academic potential.
Addiction is a combination of social pressures, a person's own will, the accessibility/attractiveness of an activity/substance, and the effects of excessive engagement in said activity/substance. You can't separate these things so cleanly.
EDIT: It would have been more accurate for you to argue that gaming addiction isn't nearly as bad as people say it is, though it is still possible under rarer (I don't have any evidence for this) circumstances compared to drugs and alcohol.
|
On August 30 2012 14:39 Newbistic wrote:
It seems you built your entire argument based around attacking the wording of Wikipedia's definition of addiction instead of seriously considering what addiction actually is. You also seem to be using the same defense against gaming addiction that can be applied to other addictions. You say that it's the person who gets addicted to gaming, not gaming itself that's wrong. But doesn't that apply to a lot of these other things? It's the person who gets addicted to alcohol, alcohol in moderation is an excellent social lubricant. Take away alcohol and these young men can easily get addicted to something else. Say, gaming.
The bottom line is that of course you can be addicted to video games. You feel the urge play when you shouldn't be playing and you can't stop yourself from playing video games when you have access. There are people who have destroyed their lives because they can't stop playing video games when they should be doing something else productive. I myself have used video games like a drug during my childhood. It was my drug, in place of cocaine or alcohol or tobacco or what have you. I was addicted to it. I had a painful childhood and used gaming as the way to escape. The problem was, I was also playing games when I should be doing homework, or hanging out with friends, or making food, or whatever it was. This wasn't a temporary problem, I was addicted through middle school and high school, and much of college. My grades sucked, I lost friends and I didn't come close to achieving my academic potential.
Addiction is a combination of social pressures, a person's own will, the accessibility/attractiveness of an activity/substance, and the effects of excessive engagement in said activity/substance. You can't separate these things so cleanly.
EDIT: It would have been more accurate for you to argue that gaming addiction isn't nearly as bad as people say it is, though it is still possible under rarer (I don't have any evidence for this) circumstances compared to drugs and alcohol.
I agree with this post. Just because you can have a healthy relationship with gaming, without addiction, and still have a full and balanced life; doesn't mean that playing it cannot be an addiction. I, for example, consider myself having a healthy relationship with alcohol. I probably drink once a month or so, and even then it's just a glass of wine. It doesn't negatively impact my life at all; although my wife has to put up with the extra flirting...
"addiction" is a kind of behaviour and it manifests itself through different channels, of which gaming, alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, lying, anything could be that channel.
BUT I'm going to concede that, in my honest opinion, "computer game addiction" isn't itself a big problem in the world. Whenever I hear of a young child or teenager who plays games at the expense of everything else, I pretty much always ask myself "what were the parents doing?". I think your definition and your argument are flawed, but your underlying meaning (the OP) is something agree with.
|
On August 30 2012 14:39 Newbistic wrote:
It seems you built your entire argument based around attacking the wording of Wikipedia's definition of addiction instead of seriously considering what addiction actually is. You also seem to be using the same defense against gaming addiction that can be applied to other addictions.
I did consider addiction very carefully before posting. I don't think my argument is specific to Wikipedia, as I doubt people would use the "addiction" word related to if I ate a lot of good food, or hung out a lot with friends offline, or watched TV a lot, I'd have to consider if I was addicted to these things. I don't see why it becomes that way with video games. It's possible I'm off base. Can you site an example of how my arguments can be applied to cigarettes, gambling or heroin addiction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/Witneyman/pi-drill1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hsjbv.jpg)
