Gaming Fanatics Show Hallmarks of Drug Addiction

Game_addict writes "There's a story over at New Scientist saying that a new study has found that game addiction has the same effects on people as drug addiction."

Comments

Duh!

[nmb3000]

Too much of anything seems to have the same effects as a drug addiction. So far we've seen Internet addictions, other Gaming addictions, News addictions, and more.

Perhaps it's related to the definition of the word "addiction"? When somebody enjoys doing something they obviously want to do it more often. The question is just how much do they let that enjoyment interfere with their lives and possibly the lives of others?

Re:Duh!

[patonw]

I think it's more that nonconformist habits are considered harmful to journalists... whatever they are. Excessive socializing can be addictive (not that any of us here are in danger here). Going to work every morning and getting your paycheck every other week is habit forming... I know many people who want to break the habit and just can't.

Re:Duh!

[SolitaryMan]

When somebody enjoys doing something they obviously want to do it more often.

Not that exactly. Addiction is more like a compulsive behaviour: irrationally motivated. It is a complex psychological issue. Game junkies do enjoy gaming, but definitely not THAT much.

Logical pitfall?

[soma_0806]

Seems like they made the mistake of assuming the converse here. Just because drug addicts are similar to game addicts does not mean game addicts are necessarily like drug addicts.

Drug addiction, being primarily metabolic, may have a more limited set of idenitifying characteristics. Game addiction, being primarily mental (or maybe even social) has more varying charactistics as psyches and social structures have a lot of built-in variance.

I'd have a much easier time buying the argument that drug addict behavior/characteristics fit in as a subset of the acceptable behaviors/characteristics of gaming culture.

AC

Re:Logical pitfall?

[246o1]

Drug addiction, being primarily metabolic, may have a more limited set of idenitifying characteristics. Game addiction, being primarily mental (or maybe even social) has more varying charactistics as psyches and social structures have a lot of built-in variance.

An interesting take on it, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. As drugs have very specific effects on the body, being generally concentrations of one or several potent substances, it is USEFUL, in terms of conveying information, to say that something as broad and varied as gaming can include these effects, and does, statistically. It is not very USEFUL to compare something to gaming this way, because it is a complex set of behaviors with very varied psychological and physiological consequences. For a more intuitive version of this argument consider saying that Liquids share properties with Milk versus Milk has the properties of Liquids. Liquids, being a very narrowly defined set of properties (==the effects of drugs), is useful for describing milk. Milk has many properties(==the effects of gaming), and the first ones that come to mind are not going to be the same for everyone. "Drugs are like gaming" would only convey information to the extent that people assume you mean "Gaming is like drugs." Granted, here i refer to the effects, not the people, which you might find objectionable.

What about TV?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

A whole lot of people spend around 4 to 5h in front of a TV every day of the week, mostly without interruption and that's considered normal. TV addiction is much more widespread than computer game addiction. Yet I haven't heard of a TV user anonymous. IMO most TV viewers have serious issues.

Re:What about TV?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

A whole lot of people spend around 4 to 5h in front of a TV every day of the week, mostly without interruption and that's considered normal. TV addiction is much more widespread than computer game addiction. Yet I haven't heard of a TV user anonymous. IMO most TV viewers have serious issues.

It's not really the same at all. Television "addicts" usually have no problem balancing their time - few TV watchers would skip work, stay up until 4am, or watch for 12 hours straight. Sure, there may be some extreme cases, but the vast majority of TV viewers do not show the typical signs of addiction.

Contrast that with game addicts - many play to the point of exhaustion, start leading extremely unbalanced schedules, become sleep deprived, shun social interaction.

MMOs seem to be particularly conducive to this kind of behavior. I stopped playing WOW when the dreams started. Vivid, intense dreams that began to interfere with my perception of reality. At one point, I had difficulty determining if I was asleep or awake.

This kind of hysteria, this kind of addiction - it's just like a drug. At some point, you're not enjoying the game - you are tired and bored, yet there is something that compells you to keep playing. That's addiction.

Game addiction, particularly with MMOs, is very similar in many ways to gambling addiction. There is the thrill of victory, the excitement of chance, and the constant "rewards".

One of my friends has 150 days of logged playtime. That's nearly 12 hours a day, every day, a full 66% of his awake time.

That's addiction.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Dimensio]

Therefor I don't think a person can be addicted to religion, how can you be addicted to something that is not real?

God-belief and adherence to dogma are quite real, regardless of the reality of the gods in question and regardless of the validity of the dogma.

No Joke

[Kagenin]

"Religion is the Opiate of the Masses."

Re:No Joke

[modecx]

That's the biggest crock of shit statement that I've ever heard. If you're very religious, then your church/instution owns your ass, and most likely for the duration of your life. And, of course, they expect you to pitch in with your time and money. Then, your thoughts should be occupied with the theology constantly, and how to progress further in it. Thats not too much different than how I lusted after some of the rarer unique items in Diablo2. I even had a dream about it, pathetic, yes, but regardless I'm sure I was hooked in a way.

You can go and look at some of the mega churches that are springing up around the US. They're a self-contained lifestyle, not entirely unlike those Arcologies units you could get in SimCity. Every aspect of many of these people's lives revolves around this giant metal and glass dispenser of salvation, but that's not so different than it has been in the past, is it? Rip one of these people out of their lifestyle, and they're going to suffer!

There is no such thing as a highly religious person that goes to church only once a week, and dosen't think about it between those periods. Such a person is a Homer Simpson, he goes mostly because EVERYONE else would think that much worse of him if he didn't. Especially Jebus. Of course, there are spiritual people who reject the institution, but not necessairly the enlightenment. Being religious is as much about being married to the institution as it is about following the faith, as I see it.

Re:No Joke

[vertinox]

I don't mean to troll, but...

Why would an all powerful all knowing god need lesser beings to believe in him and worship him? Does than not entail that he is not all powerful since he couldn't simply just rise above the simple emotions of boredom and lonliness?

By all logic, this would make god a sadist for bringing sentient creatures into being just for his plan or purpose. The majority of people that have lived have suffered untold pain and anguish (you know the billions of people who live in poverty and die in wars) and by most of Christianities definition will go to hell.

Or does this mean that he is not all powerful and does indeed need followers because without them there is a chance he may indeed loose the war?

So is god a sadist or is he not all powerful?

Secondly why is there no mention of hell in the old testament, just the discussion of separation from god. If god loved his chosen people so much why didn't he warn them of this years before Jesus arrived on the earth.

And if he was all powerful and wanted us to behave and follow him then why wasn't he less vague with the whole ordeal. An all knowing being would obviously know that humans aren't very good at inferring things. The only thing in the bible that god directly communicated with in writing was the 10 commandments and even then they are very open to language interpretation. Why couldn't he just have wrote the whole bible himself in stone somewhere with infinite amount of clauses and explanations.

Personally, I do believe in a God but not as a being that is human like and is all things good and evil, but more along the lines of a being that transcends these things and has nothing to with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism which totally misinterpreted what they believed to be god. Perhaps the only logical religion is Buddhism, but there are some things I disagree with that. At least they try to explain everything logically and tend to not be militant about their beliefs.

Sadly enough, I came to these views on my own and I didn't even study aetheism or live in anti-religeous environment. Mostly I just questioned what was given to me by those around me as I grew up and I still haven't had any logical answers other than someone quoting a vague bible passage which I ask if they could speak the hebrew or at least greek version of it so we can really determine the nature of the passage rather than a bad English translation.