Games And Addiction - A Cynical View

Thanks to Forbes for their distinctly acerbic look at new scientific surveys that make claims linking videogames and addiction. The piece suggests: "Pick a popular consumer technology and there's probably some overpaid academic expert somewhere who's calling it addictive", and goes on to query definitions of addiction, suggesting: "...pretty much anyone who uses the Internet in the course of their work day... could meet some arbitrary early-1990s standard of [Net] addiction." The article concludes: "When was the last time you heard of a case of 'newspaper addiction?'"

Comments

opinion basically

[Joe the Lesser]

While the study may be empirical, it's the researcher's opinion on what defines addiction. Most define it as something harmful to the victim, thus they attempted to prove that games were harming people but reducing their social lives.

But where is the control variable? How do we know that these people would have better social lives if gaming does not exist?

I once went a week without playing video games. Instead, I watched T.V. all week! There is clearly something in my personality that makes me generally avoid leaving the house unless motivated.

I believe the issue is not with video games, but there is likely common behavioral trends within those who play them which makes video games an ideal way to deal with anxiety and boredom which is there regardless.

I admit, I don't like being blown off for everquest any more then the next guy, but you assume people wouldn't be blowing you off if they weren't playing games, which is yet to be determined.

Re:AC/Everquest

[Random832]

the definition given (according to earlier comments, i haven't RTFA) is it's an addiction if it hurts one's social life (one earlier comment said it's not clear that they'd have a social life without it)... i propose that not only do the games not hurt the gamers' social lives, but are indeed the source and only existence of it... this addiction thing seems like, in disguise, the "computers will isolate us from each other" alarmism, both dismissing the fact that people do communicate with each other through *gasp* the internet (or games, take your pick)

Addiction versus obsession and compulsion

[nanojath]

Although the overuse of the term "addicition" irritates me, it says something in the end about the hazy, if not outright illusory, line between the physical and the mental realm. The issue of substance dependency used to be relatively straightforward. If use caused tolerance, craving and physical withdrawal, it was addictive. Oddballs like marijuana muddy the water - for a relatively powerful intoxicant, it's addictive profile is low. Of course, the consideration of how low, and what that means, is completely obscured by the politics surrounding the war on drugs.

But what are we to make of all these so-called "addictive" behaviors? Obviously, as there is no mind without the body, there are physiological basis of these behaviors. But the mechanisms and such are much less obvious than with classically addictive drugs.

Personally I reserve addiction, in any but metaphorical terms, for drugs that cause physical dependence characterized by physical withdrawal on cessation. In terms of purely behavioral issues (where the brain itself alone is generating any chemical imbalances and resulting dependencies) I prefer to think in terms of obsession - the inability to cease or control thoughts about something - and compulsion - a dependency on carrying out certain behaviors. The extreme end of this, of course, is Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and I think OCD puts the issue into a nice perspective. Obviously nobody is out there saying, ooh, all this hand washing is dangerous, oh dear, better watch when you start saving all those receipts - even though there are people who obsess over filth and wash their hands to a degree that disrupts their lives, or people who cannot throw anything away and live in chaos, filth and clutter as a result. We understand that the behavior per se is not the issue: that this individual has a disorder that makes a normal behavior pathological. Playing games is normal behavior. Is a chess master "addicted" to the game? By some of the vague standards you read every single golfer I've ever met is addicted to golf (what is it about that game?)

What it comes down to is whether a particular behavior is harmful. That definition is impossible to pin down because it changes for every individual. It does not have the new addicition/scary new menace preying on our children pop-psycho cachet but it actually has some use. It's a pretty easy question to answer in the extreme cases. Can obsessive, compulsive game-playing be harmful? Of course it can. Is this different in some core, meaningful way from washing your hands or saving every little piece of trash that comes into your home or staying up half the night rechecking locks and windows and whether the stove is off? I don't see how. Is it different from drugs? Hell yes - drugs actually introduce a new substances into the brain that trigger and mediate chemical responses in the brain. As such, different standards, problems and treatment are indicated. Calling every compulsive behavior an "addiction" just makes the word vague to the point of uselessness.

As a teen you could argue I was addicted to hack science fiction and fantasy fiction. I thought about this stuff all the time, I devoured books, with little discernment for quality, several hours a day. So what? In the end, no harm done - in fact it probably helped me to earn a scholarship to college (they like the fifty cent words in those potboilers). I was in high school. If I read junk fiction the way I used to, it would certainly interfere with my life - though not as much as if I started hitting the beers every night at 6 the way my grandad did. Some people need help and other people just like to do certain things a whole lot. Is this so hard to understand? Or do we need to write another freaking "scholarly" article on the topic?

Overpaid academic?

[GuyMannDude]

Pick a popular consumer technology and there's probably some overpaid academic expert somewhere who's calling it addictive.

Does anyone else find it a bit bizarre that Forbes -- a magazine which is pretty much dedicated to celebrating the financial excesses of the business sector with their infamous lists -- is describing an academic as "overpaid"?

GMD