Quote:Can someone truly be addicted to video games? The World Health Organization thinks so – but some mental health experts strongly disagree.
The World Health Organization on Monday classified "gaming disorder" as a diagnosable condition, giving mental health professionals a basis for setting up treatment and identifying risks for the addictive behavior. But it's a stance contested by some mental health professionals.
"There was a fairly widespread concern that this is a diagnosis that doesn’t really have a very solid research foundation," said Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist and media researcher at Stetson University in DeLand, Fla. Monday
Well, it's now official... to the confusion and anger of many people, especially for gamers that
do have sense of self-control but really, this only gives them a bad name, and that one would think there's something wrong with the person the minute he/she uses the gamepad. I remember at the beginning of the year, there were talks that gaming was to be classified as a disorder and the rage and disgust that caused is no different to what it is now.
What are your thoughts on this?
Gamers get a bad reputation anyway, so I don't see this alone causing much of an issue. And I do think in some cases, gaming addiction can be a real issue. The same as someone being addicted to drugs, or alcohol, or TV; the issue lies in how exactly it is diagnosed, and what is done to try to help it.
Gamers Anonymous, or similar meetings with other 'addicts'? Medication? Behavioural therapy?
Really though, I think the reaction so far is being blown out of proportion. I highly doubt people are going to hear "I play videogames" as "I'm fuckin' insane".
I don't think it's good -or even tasteful- to put "video-games" in the same level as stuff that's actually life-threatening/limiting/shorting as some of the other things embraced within the term "mental disorder".
Sure, you can see people presenting utterly bizarre behavior while playing video-games (and there's definitely an addiction to speak of) but what's to say that isn't something else at work and that just presented itself thru the means of escapism (where your mind is fully occupied and your guard the lowest)?
I think it's too easy to just blame the action of gaming without much else.
Alright, when can I sign up for my disability check? And they said I'd never make any money playing video games. Ha!
I can actually understand how this could be a legitimate diagnosis, because it would be along the lines of sex addiction or gambling addiction: a psychological need now hardwired that is clearly detrimental to the health of the person suffering. At the same time, however, calling it "Gaming Disorder" is NOT how they should go about it. Words. Have meaning. For a purpose. As far as anything else goes...well, I see my psychiatrist tomorrow; can't wait for the next set of drugs to treat this!
I agree with Maniakkid, especially with the cancer that is mobile gaming (and its bullshit moving to Console and PCs) and whales.
Those games are designed to exploit people with addictive personalities and to gain the most money possible.
But I am also taking the news with a grain of salt, because often in article about medicine and science the head lines and articles will be
"DOING X WILL GIVE YOU CANCER" or "DOING X WILL INCREASE YOUR RISK OF CANCER BY 50%" yet the articles fail to mention that the study said
"Doing x increases the rate of cancer from .0001% to .00015%, a 50% increase"
Also when will workaholics be classified as a disorder, they often tear apart their families, and fuck over every one else "You're not getting your raise/promotion Jim is here until 10pm every day!" Then when having new positions open they expect everyone to work like Jim and get paid shit. <_M
I'm not surprised by this because I recall this matter was a thread on the original site. As I said then, and as Maniak has pointed out, calling it a Gaming Disorder just feels incorrect and too broad of a brush struck. It would be better called Gaming Addiction (Disorder) or something. Imagine labelling sex addiction as sex disorder. It's too broad and at face value you wouldn't have a clue what it represents.
Recognising addiction to gaming or anything else that has a detriment to someone's life is fine. This just needs to have better terminology than it's been given.
Ah, great this has become official. Good in that the people who really needed the classification to be noticed and helped, but bad in the naming as Moony and Maniak have mentioned. Things will be taken too far towards people not under the condition intended, as in family members getting stressed when not realising it's not needed. Say denying or removal of all gaming belongings before a diagnosis/understanding of what the conditions are. Plus other things.
I wonder if now there'll be health warnings, even more so than what we've had before, or if it'll become a mandatory requirements for video games. I know there were booklets included in physical releases, information on consoles and some games already. I mean like in your face every time you start your game/console. I suppose I mean a different approach to the health warnings we already get.
(Jun 20th, 2018, 11:32 PM)Mr EliteL Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if now there'll be health warnings, even more so than what we've had before, or if it'll become a mandatory requirements for video games. I know there were booklets included in physical releases, information on consoles and some games already. I mean like in your face every time you start your game/console. I suppose I mean a different approach to the health warnings we already get.
Much like how Surgeon General Warnings or the more extreme Australian graphic displays on cartons of cigarettes worked /s.
All it did was numb the smokers to those warnings for the most part.
At lease (in the US) the only health warnings is for epilepsy, although I do think they are some what useless too, some one who suffers from epilepsy most likely knows that flashes of lights can trigger it and some one who doesn't know they have it...well wont know until it happens... And those that are too young to read/heed the warning should be supervised by a caregiver anyways...
The issue isn't whether or not the warnings work; but rather that they're there in the first place. By having these warnings in place, the developers have fulfilled their obligations of informing users of the potential risks. This means that if someone has an epileptic attack while playing a videogame, they're not able to sue because of it as they were warned previously that it was a potential risk. The same goes for basically everything else in the world, too. We live in an extremely sue-happy environment, so covering your back is one of the top concerns most companies have.
Simply put, common sense, isn't.
I have to put out a sign when I'm cleaning at work that tells people the floor is wet and potentially slippery, because if I don't, they could sue because they didn't know. This prevents myself and the company I work for from being punished due to someone else's stupidity, and it's the same thing with warnings on games, pictures on cigarette packs, etc. It's simple bureaucracy.
A mental disorder huh? Damn, I guess you can call me crazy then because I love them.