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

So ...

[b0r1s]

Where do I sign up for 'disability' payments?

Re:So ...

[iGN97]

You can only do that if you consistently blame getting fragged on the lag.

Re:So ...

[theonetruekeebler]

The same place you signed up to get the porn industry to pay for carpel tunnel surgery.

That last one got me an office with a door. That stays shut. And nobody barges in without knocking.

Re:So ...

[Wellspring]

Where do I sign up for 'disability' payments?

LOLWTF?!?

Actually, I'd file this under "ha ha only serious". The thing is, if a chronic, life-disrupting level of game-playing is occurring, despite earnest effort on the player's part to stop, how is that not an addiction?

And if it's an addiction (and is officially and clinically recognized as such) then of course you qualify for disability, treatment, and etc etc. Now, most workplace addiction policies call out addiction as substance abuse. But insurance covering psychological conditions are an area I'm not certain of. Of course, that also means that if it's covered, then I'm covering you're gaming problem (or vice versa, since I've been hitting the warcrack a bit too much lately).

So while your point is funny, behind it is a nest of thorny social, economic and legal questions surrounding treatment for behavioral disorders. I'm not certain what the right answer is, but it's an interesting problem.

Re:So ...

[Hogwash McFly]

The disability office is just up the stairs on your right. You'll see a sign in red and green that says 'Disability Allowance' next to a door with some buttons by it. Push the button marked 4 and when you hear a noise telling you to enter, open the door and enter. The door is very heavy so you will need to push with both hands. You'll need to pass our metal detector and remove all metallic objects before you walk through it or you'll set it off and the door ahead won't unlock. Behind that door, there'll be another set of stairs that lead to a room with a bright, flickering light. Go through the room and you'll see a row of boxes at head height. Find the box with your name on it, speak the code word 'She sells sea shells on the sea shore' into the microphone to verify your identity, and you'll find your cheque inside.

Have a good day, welfare recipient.

Re:So ...

[Mika24]

LMAO I'll be in line right behind you

Yeah I know...

[kramthegram]

That's why I get my fix on the internet... delete my cache and no one is the wiser! Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A bitches!

Re:Yeah I know...

[somersault]

hey, you leave British Airways alone you meanie. Anyway, a lot of things in life would follow the same pattern of addiction.. could probably say the same thing about books or TV *shrug* actually I think I'm addicted to food.. I tend to not be able to get through the day without eating :(

You know the worst part?

[mrchaotica]

What makes it tougher is that gamers cannot simply abstain from using computers - they are now an integral part of our lives. In that sense, it has to be approached in the same way as an eating disorder, she suggests.

From what I've heard, fighting a normal addiction is hard enough, but when you're forced to be in contact with the thing you're addicted to, it's much, much worse.

That certainly makes me be more careful about this than I otherwise would have been!

Re:You know the worst part?

[kramthegram]

Yeah, I wonder if that can get me out of submitting trouble tickets? "Sorry Boss, but you're being an enabler right now... and that's just no good for me and my addiction."

Re:You know the worst part?

[mrchaotica]

The only trouble is that opens you up to the counter-argument, "well, if you're addicted to computers, why don't you get a job digging ditches instead?"

Re:You know the worst part?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just have to recognize what part of the computer you're addicted to. I was addicted to Counter-Strike. So I recognized that, and instead got read slashdot all the time. Which I'm not addicted to at all. Not at all.

Re:You know the worst part?

[Scarblac]

I've actually tried to get medical help with internet addiction, and the first thing they said is that I'd have to avoid all contact with it.

Considering that I'm a web programmer, M.Sc. in CS, get all my entertainment on the net, get most of my education and news on the net... That's just not on. So they couldn't help me.

Re:You know the worst part?

[d.valued]

Excuse me for a moment.

I would like to yell obscenities at people who are addicted to video games.

If you're on a Wintel box, easiest first step to take is UNINSTALL SOLITAIRE.

Best step to take is to go Linux, since the Mondo Big Games are not as available. (Besides, GNU Chess is better for you ;)

Hell, I used to be a hardcore Civ addict, up until 2am trying to get my people to not die.

And I used to be a real net addict, up all hours with a 14.4 modem.

People can just get over the addictive junk and get back to stuff that's marginally productive.

(Now, if only I can get some f***ing credit for the bandcasting idea...)

Re:You know the worst part?

[Simonetta]

I'll bet that this article was written by impressively credentialed people who have never played a video game for hours or have ever gotten high, but are experts on addiction.

  Force them to surrender 5 credit hours on their Master's degree every time that they write something stupid.

Re:You know the worst part?

[drinkypoo]

People can just get over the addictive junk and get back to stuff that's marginally productive.

I'll believe that when you stop coming to slashdot.

Not the same

[andrewman327]

Maybe the mechanism of addiction is similar, but there is no physical dependancy, as there is with many drugs.

Re:Not the same

[ThndrShk2k]

This just in: Studies show that being addicted to something is like being addicted to something else!
~More at 11.

Learning is recognised as an important underlying mechanism of addiction. In becoming addicted, people start to associate cues that are normally neutral with the object of their craving. To a crack addict, for instance, a building in which they have used the drug is more than just a place they have been - it becomes a trigger for craving and can, on its own, reignite a need to use the drug again after months of abstinence.
Although, failing to mention that any repitive action/experience, or even a first would trigger memories. A normal human reaction to anything.

Re:Not the same

[Lemmy Caution]

The physical habituation aspect of drug addiction is actually a fairly minor aspect of it. But there's a "middle layer" between the "purely" physical (e.g., the decline in endorphine or dopomine production for 'physically' addictive drugs that leads to withdrawal symptoms) and the "just" cognitive (you keep doing something you like for relatively 'rational' reasons) - the displacement of normal goals (by one definition or another) with those rewards created by the object of addiction, whether it is a substance or a behaviour, is the most intractable type of addiction, and the one that tends to come back the most.

90% of people who become addicted to opiates do not seek them out after they go through withdrawal and detox - their addiction is just physical.

Ultimately, remember, it is all physical, even the act of you reading these words is an electrochemical process that probably even involves the endocrine system.

Does NOT.. In Fact...

[Sfing_ter]

It DOES NOT. In Fact, I can stop playing Quake any time I choose. And when I choose to I will. Just not right now. I have a couple more frags to get... NO Really... anytime I want...

Re:Does NOT.. In Fact...

[destuxor]

I can stop playing Quake anytime I want. In fact, I do, every three minutes, to refresh Slashdot.org ;)

Re:Does NOT.. In Fact...

[PTK502]

Just one more level i promise.... 10min go by , yeah yeah just one more level please im almost there .... And to think Eversmack decided to add a Pizza Deliver code in... just type /pizza and bam a window comes up for pizza hut delivery... now just leave the CC# and your front door open ... then just one more level to go..... please just one more level....

It's a behavioral problem

[ReformedExCon]

In the same way that you can train a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, you can train people to react in certain ways to various stimuli. That's not drugs, that's Pavlov.

Gamers (and, dare I say it, many web surfers) have trained themselves to forego real work and real life in favor of a game. In fact, games are especially conducive to this kind of training. The reward/punishment system is more or less random which increases the players' propensity to keep at it in hopes of success.

Rats who are fed every time they press a button will only press the button when they are hungry. However rats that are fed sometimes and not fed other times when they press a button will press the button all day long.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[Nirvelli]

Are you calling me a rat because I push the /. button all day?

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I still think it's more similar to addiction than Pavlov, because gamers still seek games. Pavlov may play a role in it also of course. The rat theory also fits the actual game play, but you can't really compare how it fits in real life, because in real life we do need food, but we don't need games.

And of course, the underlying science of Pavlov relies on drugs. This is the reason why pharmacutical and rec drugs can be so addictive; they play right on the systems that can cause addiction.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[jabens]

It is not called Pavlov. It's called conditioning. The salivation is called a conditioned reflex. This is not the same as pressing a lever to get food or a jolt in the amygdala.
It is true that there are few viable alternatives to food, hence the natural obsession. There are some little-known alternatives to gaming, though. Education is one that springs to mind.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[mrogers]

And of course, the underlying science of Pavlov relies on drugs.

Only if you count the brain's natural chemicals as drugs, in which case everything relies on drugs and your statement is kind of meaningless.

Pavlov relies on the fact that when your brain makes a good prediction it rewards itself, and when it makes a bad prediction it witholds the expected reward. Of course we don't "need" games in the same way we need food, but we can learn to need them, and that's what addicts have done: their brains have adapted to a constant stream of reward signals from correctly predicting the structure of the game, and when those rewards are witheld they suffer like the little shivering junkies they are. :o)

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Yes, and games are a constant source of reward. You seem to be getting confused with game play rewards and real life rewards. The real life rewards in most cases of the game play is meaningless. People don't just play games for points or levels, they find can be games thrilling and interesting, and oftern take their mind off other things.

I'm not saying that these kinds of addictions are as powerfull as most drug addictions, or even that they have the same chemical effect. But in terms of addiction, they are the same. The addiction you seem to be refering to, is actually more physical dependancy.

Perhaps this will clear things up.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[SatanicPuppy]

Eh. I've spent probably close to a month playing World of Warcraft since it came out (I can nail for a fact 26 days)...So 1/12th of my time over the last year. That qualifies as addiction by any standard. It's certainly more time than I spent eating.

In that time, I also got a job, got a raise, bought a house, lost 20 pounds, and kept my sideline freelancing business going.

I'm not seeing the problem. I was all geared up to play 5 hours of WoW last night, and I got a call at the last minute for some emergency network engineering, and I zipped off, made $380, and still got an hour and a half of WoW.

There are always habits that people don't deal with well. But don't lump all people together. If it doesn't impact your life negatively, who cares? I like my addiction. It's a hell of a lot better than watching TV.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[nine-times]

The reward/punishment system is more or less random which increases the players' propensity to keep at it in hopes of success.

What reward? I haven't gotten any food pellets for pressing buttons lately. Anyway, success/failure in games is far less random than success/failure in real life.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[3dfxgamer]

Just don't tell my wife she was right!

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[ranton]

He was referring to the way that certain equipment is given to players in most role playing / MMO games. The "drops" are random, sure you get something every time but you never know what it is. If you knew that you would get a certain sword every time you killed a certain NPC, then you wouldnt sit there all day with friends waiting for him to spawn again. You would just kill him once and be done with it. It is that randomness that helps cause the addiction that the parent poster was referring to.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[cprincipe]

I was all geared up to play 5 hours of WoW last night, and I got a call at the last minute for some emergency network engineering, and I zipped off, made $380, and still got an hour and a half of WoW.

That's not an addiction, then.

If you were an addict, you would have passed up the opportunity to make $380 in order to play WoW.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[scheming daemons]

I agree.

I'm "addicted" to Second Life. I get on at 10pm every night and quit at 1am to go to bed. My wife goes to bed at 9pm, since she works earlier than me, so this has no impact on our social life together. The kids are in bed by 9:30pm.

So basically... I am "getting my fix" during the time when most men my age would be watching Sportcenter, or HBO. While the rest of the house is asleep.

While it certainly meets the technical meaning of "addiction"... I NEED my fix every night.... It is not the same as drug addiction. It is costing me $9.95 a month, and it harms no one.

Pfooey to this "study".

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[vertinox]

Gamers (and, dare I say it, many web surfers) have trained themselves to forego real work and real life in favor of a game.

And what will real work and real life acheive in the end? Hrm???

A happy relaxed life doing nothing much will still end up the same as a sad bitter overworked life.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[meggito]

Your rat analogy is bad... Games have a VERY clear sense of rewards/punishments. In fact, it is much clearly what the goal of a game is than the goal of real life. It is this clear sense of purpose that drives many to play games. If the punishment/reward is not consistant then people will go to another game out of frustration. Rats will hit a button all day to try to get food if it works only some of the time. People playing a video game where they only get a frag count increase sometimes when they kill another player they will either a) not by this flawed game in the first place or b) switch to another game.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[SatanicPuppy]

The thing is, the only thing that makes an addiction an addiction is the inability to function. It has nothing to do with time or money spent, it is all about how much it impacts your life.

They're very free with the term, when the reality is much less clear cut.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[alnjmshntr]

Your situation is not addiction. You are merely using gaming to fill in the blank periods of your life, just like a recreational drug user does, not an addict.

One definition of addiction: Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[Moofie]

When the poster said "Pavlov", you knew what he meant, right?

Communication works in mysterious ways, huh?

Re:It's a behavioral problem

[Macgrrl]

Yes, I would point out that for most WoW players I know it has displaced another displacement activity - such as watching TV or browsing the web, rather than RL activities like working, going to school, sleeping or doing the housework.

Does that make the poeple who spend 3-5 hours a night watching TV addicted? What about poeple who go to the gym every day? I spend 8+ hours, five days a week @ work - am I addicted to cubes?

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!

[DigiShaman]

The question is just how much do they let that enjoyment interfere with their lives and possibly the lives of others?

I will just put it this way...

Government will never be the answer to any addiction problems, nor should it ever be.
I'm tired of these spineless people that want to label everything fun as a "danger" and pose solutions for "our own good". I tell you what, I will hear what you have to say, but TELL me what I fucking can and cannot do with my own life so long as it does not directly effect another person own persuit of happiness.

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.

Re:Duh!

[shreevatsa]

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?
Quite true, but in the case of games, addiction is very real. You only have to take the example of the Chinese guy who killed someone over some sword in a game.

Re:Duh!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Tell that to the guy who died at the internet cafe because he was playing some computer game non-stop for over 24 hours. There was even a story on it here, but I can't find it.

Sure, it's not exactly an epidemic, and not nearly as bad as most drug addictions, but there are quite a few people who really are addicted to games. And in terms of addiction, enjoyment doesn't nessesarily have anything to do with it, anyway.

Re:Duh!

[Vellmont]

Not that exactly. Addiction is more like a compulsive behaviour: irrationally motivated. It is a complex psychological issue.

Sounds like a lot of malarky to me. What's the difference between a compulsive behaviour and non-compulsive behaviour? What's "irrationally motivated"? The word addiction used to mean something that was physically addictive, like heroin or nicotine. Now it's taken on this "I want to do thing X a lot" meaning. I call bullshit on that definition.

Addiction automatically has this negative consequence associated with it, yet we don't associate things people like with addiction. Was Isaac Newton "addicted" to Science and Mathematics when he wrote the Principia Mathematica? (he supposedly did nothing but write and sleep for 18 months). I think the word obsessive should be used for gaming, but not addiction. Addiction implies this dangerous quality that can hook you.

Obviously people can become obsessed with things that aren't good for them. That doesn't mean the thing is addictive though. That's just a lot of psychological bullshit.

Re:Duh!

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Thats not an addiction, thats trying to prove something and making an ass out of yourself. As a "gaming addict" I can tell you that theres no way you'd play for 24 hours straight without actually intending to do so. The most is maybe 12 hours of a really good game, but eventually you get tired or just straight up bored. He was probably trying to impress his friends, or for that matter a cute gaming chick who honestly wouldnt have cared about it. This is no different from people street racing and getting in an accident and dying-- You set out to do something, it has unintended results, but weighs nothing onto the basis of the original act.

Re:Duh!

[cciRRus]

I'm surprised that you left out porn.

Re:Duh!

[sydneyfong]

It's not "funny". I believe the poster was serious.

Re:Duh!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

All drug addicts indent to get high. You honestly trying to tell me that a heroin addict acciently robs people and gets high?

BTW. Please post your scientific proof in regards to the time that people play a game, otherwise you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. And how do you know he was trying to impress his friends? Sounds highly speculative to me. Why go to such lengths simply to impress some friends?
As for street racing, you do know that people find driving fast so much of a thill because the brain isn't used to going that fast? This thrill, of course, releases chemicals, probably similar to the rush of using some drugs.

Here'd a link to the artical, BTW: S Korean dies after games session.

Re:Duh!

[mdielmann]

When it gets to the point where you forgo eating, or wear diapers so you don't have to take potty breaks, you've gone beyond the point of a casual (or even a serious) user and well into the realm of addiction. You might want to consider if you've passed that point when you don't do those things without the computer there, too. Sadly, I'm at work and they disapprove of my game of choice, because I could sure use a hit right now...

Re:Duh!

[mrtrumbe]

Congratulations! We obviously don't need psychologists anymore because you are clearly more qualified and knowledgable about the subject. Since YOU don't think psychological addictions are real, I guess they aren't. Problem solved!

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, though, people really seem to have huge misconceptions about psychology and its goals. When psychologists use terms like addiction, many unknowledgable people assume that they are just making excuses to obsolve "weak" people of their negative behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason terms like addiction are useful is because they give psychologists the ability to categorize, study and treat undesirable mental conditions. Lets take phsychological addiction as an example. First, it is important to note that phsychologists DO make a distinction between physical dependence and phsychological addiction. From wikipedia:

The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological addiction (or simply addiction).

Second, the term's definition is limited in scope so as to make identification of the problem, as well as research on and treatment of the issue, easier. Again, from wikipedia:

Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as "addiction".

With continued research of both behavior and chemical and nueral effects of stimuli, the definition could be refined even more and better tests could be developed to identify the problem.

Finally, to the issue of treatment, where I think most people have misconceptions of psychologists. Psychologists are not in business to absolve you of responsibility for your actions. They are not there to shift the blame from you to your mother (a common example people will bring up when discussing why psychology is crap). Rather their goal is to correct negative mental conditions and the behavior that results from those conditions. Sometimes, trying to identify the root of WHY a person thinks the way they do is an effective tool in correcting a mental condition. But it is important to understand that the identification of why a condition might exist is not the end goal of therapy. Rather, the end goal is to improve the patient's psychological condition. Realizing and processing the fact that your mother treated you like shit as a child, for instance, may be a starting point to understanding why you are having mental problems as an adult and improving on those problems. The point isn't to assign blame, but rather to improve the mental condition of the patient.

To your specific point...

If a person was so consumed with their work that it had a negative effect on their relationships with friends and family, or a negative effect on their mental or physical health, that could be considered an addiction. However, I should be careful to point out that a person could be working so much as a RESULT of poor relationships or existing mental health conditions. A trained psychologist would identify the patients specific problems and offer the best course of treatment (usually chosen based on the results of scientific studies). For example, research has shown that cognative therapy can be very effective in the treatment of anxiety disorders.

Psychology has come a long way since Freud (in fact, his methods are rarely used in treatment today). If you are ignorant of the field of psychology or the psychological meaning of words, I implore you to research the field and its goals and methodology before casting dispersions. Many people (most?) have an unfair negative impression of the field based on ignorance and a pop-science treatment of old and unused theories by the media.

Taft

Re:Duh!

[mrtrumbe]

I agree with you: government isn't the solution. Laws prohibiting behavior are not the solution.

No psychologist would tell you that TV, games, work, etc. are inherently dangerous and should be outlawed. However, the vast majority would admit that any of those things COULD be a problem with certain individuals. The purpose of studies like these, from a scientific perspective, is to gain further understanding of the causes of addiction and develop effective treatment methods.

My point is that it isn't science's fault that jackass politicians see a study like this and immediately think, "what laws could we put in place to protect the poor, innocent children?"

Taft

Re:Duh!

[bugbread]

Yes, and journalists also consider workaholism to be harmful as well. What's your point?

Re:Duh!

[grumbel]

### The word addiction used to mean something that was physically addictive, like heroin or nicotine.

As far as I understand it games *can* make you physically addicted, only difference is that the drugs to which you are addicted do not come from the outside, but are what your body produces normally, that stuff however gets out of balance due to the gaming addiction, so to keep those stuff in the balance you have to continue to play.

Re:Duh!

[nine-times]

Unfortunately I can't find a source, but I've read the guy who came up with the idea of "addiction" as a disease in the first place also thought being any race other than white was a "disease". Regardless of its beginnings, however, it's come to mean something like, "habits that I don't think are good." What's the difference between eating habitually (which we all do), and having an "eating addiction"? Am I addicted to computers, cheeseburgers, my girlfriend, going to my grandmother's for thanksgiving? It seems to depend on whether you think these activities are "healthy", and not on any specific particulars.

However, the meat of this article seems to be about addiction as a "coping mechanism". People, under stress, will exhibit compulsive habits. Being unsure what to do, they go with something they know.

Not quite the same thing, but: If I'm nervous and you sit me down at a table, empty except for a pen, I'll probably pick it up within a minute. If the pen isn't there, i'll find something else to distract myself.

So they're saying something kind of like that. You have certain comfortable habits, which we might call "coping mechanisms". When confronted with stress or angst, you fall into certain old patterns that are comfortable for you, and often they're comfortable because they're somewhat limiting of possibilities and you know what to expect. So when you're under stress, looking for a coping mechanism, and you see something that reminds you of an old comfortable habit, you desire it.

This need not be terribly unhealthy. Like a little kid's favorite blanket, we all have certain people, objects, and habits that make us feel more secure. A shirt, a notebook, a piece of furniture, your cell phone-- you have at least a few things of this sort.

Re:Duh!

[TheoMurpse]

It's such a "problem" that my University has, as part of its Computer Science degree curricula, a psychiatrist come and speak about addiction during class as a warning to keep CS students from becoming addicted.

I was pissed that my tuition dollars were paying for this.

Re:Duh!

[Quixadhal]

The point isn't to assign blame, but rather to improve the mental condition of the patient.

By this, you mean to cause the patient's state of mind to conform more closely to the accepted normal behavioural patterns of the masses, yes?

Consider this. Let's suppose someone is addicted to work. They have no close friends or family. They socialize with their co-workers, but feel compelled to work extra hours. They don't do much at home other than eat and sleep. Yet, they are HAPPY as a result.

Now, let's suppose someone else lives a more or less normal life. They work hard enough to do their job and not lose it. They watch 4-5 hours of TV every night. They go out with friends on the weekends, and eat dinner with the spouse and kids. They are not terribly happy with this life, but are not terribly unhappy either.

Which of these two individuals has a better, more fulfilling life for themselves? Which is more beneficial to their community? Which one supposedly has a "problem" that psychologists would feel compelled to treat?

Re:Duh!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

No, but you can get quite sideways.

Re:Duh!

[Shakes268]

You're obviously friends with Tom Cruise.

Re:Duh!

[mrtrumbe]

By this, you mean to cause the patient's state of mind to conform more closely to the accepted normal behavioural patterns of the masses, yes?

Not at all. Normal is not a term thrown around a lot in psychology (no matter what you hear on the news), primarily because the meaning of normal, in most contexts, is so difficult to pin down. Psychologists do use statistics and other benchmarks to help determine when treatment is necessary, but most often these are applied more to the perception of the individual than to somewhat arbitrary facts (such as the number of friends the individual has).

As for the hypothetical case you are describing--the individual is not harming relationships with existing friends or family and is not unhappy not having friends outside of the workplace--no harm to the individual or others is occurring. As such, his desire to work long hours is not considered an addiction in the clinical sense and no psychologist I know would treat him as such. Also--again assuming the hypothetical situation you described--given that his level of work does not approach the level of a compulsion, no psychologist I know would consider him in need of psychological treatment.

I see a fundamental lack of understanding in you comments about what psychology is. A psychologist does not feel "compelled" to treat anyone. A psychologist would only treat a) a person who came to them as a result of discontent with their mental state (loneliness, anxiety, depression, etc.) or b) a person who was considered, by the state, as a threat to himself or others.

Again, any ethical psychologist would not see your hypothetical case as a person in need of psychological treatment. They may feel the individual could benefit from psychological evaluation and treatment, but it is not their place (or right, professionally) to impose this on them.

My question to you is: where did you get such a negative impression of psychology?

Taft

Re:Duh!

[Arandir]

Most journalists consider honesty to be a dangerous addiction.

Re:Duh!

[PriceIke]

Find me one person who an "ethical psychologist" would not see as someone who could benefit from psychological evaluation and treatment.

That person is abnormal.

Everyone else is normal.

Re:Duh!

[Vellmont]

Congratulations! We obviously don't need psychologists anymore because you are clearly more qualified and knowledgable about the subject. Since YOU don't think psychological addictions are real, I guess they aren't. Problem solved!


Thanks for the personal attack. Did I hit a nerve on how un-scientific psychology is? My "negative impression" of psychology has nothing to do with Freud (I have no idea where you came up with that idea. Maybe you're "projecting") and everything to do with how it isn't science. I find it interesting that 90% of the time that I read about a "scientific" study by a psychologist it's done incredibly poorly. I find it unsurprising that psychology is sloppy in its use of terminology like "addiction". With such great traditions as defining homesexuality as a mental illness it's no surprise that psychology has such a bad reputation among the sciences. I'd be perfectly happy if psychology were redefined as philosophy and we could all give it the credit that it's due.

Re:Duh!

[rtechie]

A few comments:

Addiction is more like a compulsive behaviour: irrationally motivated. It is a complex psychological issue.

Define "rational". Can't do it can you? Maybe playing video games for hours on end is irrational, but maybe it isn't. I think professional sports and the stock market are pretty irrational. The whole concept of "psychological addiction" is crap. People like to do things that they like to do. A lot. "Complex psychological issue" my ass.

Tell that to the guy who died at the internet cafe because he was playing some computer game non-stop for over 24 hours.

It was 50 hours and the guy died of heart failure. 50 hours with no sleep (or "little sleep" as the article said) simply will not kill you. 50 hours of hard physical labor without sleep is unlikely to kill anyone who is reasonably physically fit. This guy had a weak heart, overworked himself, and died. That's it.

[Psychologists] goal is to correct negative mental conditions and the behavior that results from those conditions.

Which is exactly correct. Psychology is attempted behavior modification. The fundamental problem with psychology is that the defintion of "negative" they use is basically totally arbitrary. This is why being gay can be "negative" one day and not the next. Psychology is really nothing more than a tool to FORCE social conventions of the day on people, because you can lock them up or drug them for being "crazy". Nowadays parents like to lock up or drug unruly kids.

Now psycologists will argue that people go to them with "problems", and they are simply trying to find the "root causes" of those "problems" and "correct" them. More honest ones will say that they "know" what behavior patterns are "destructive" and are attempting to "correct" those destructive behavior patterns, basically telling patients how to live (admittedly, they did ASK).

What pisses me off is the notion that this is somehow "scientific" and in ANY WAY different from what priests, philosophers, and other "advice givers" have been doing for milennia.

Re:Duh!

[mrtrumbe]

It wasn't a personal attack so much as it was an attack against your self-righteous disrespect of a field where the majority of its practitioners use completely scientific methods (yes you read that last part right--go look it up on wikipedia, for instance). Keep in mind that you are reading about this study in a popular magazine that gives only a topical treatment to most items it covers. The fact that "90% of the time" you think psychological studies are crap proves nothing. You could be reading about the studies from crap sources or you may have a poor understanding of the field of psychology and how it fits into traditional scientific methods (as I believe, given your statements about psychology and how they jibe with the reality of the field).

A big point I made in my post was that the clinical definition of an addiction is NOT sloppy or loosely defined. Why did you ignore this?

Much of my post was dedicated to showing psychology in a realistic light in contrast to misconceptions most people have about it. I understand you didn't mention Freud, but you would be surprised how many people I encounter who are ignorant of modern psychological methods and theories and have a view of psychology that conforms to the Freud's theories. I think it is important to set the record straight and state that such theories are, by and large, considered invalid today.

In the interest of full disclosure, it should be said that psychology is a somewhat fractured field. There are factions within the field that take less than scientific approaches to their work or throw their weight behind untested and unorthodox theories. However, isn't this the same in any field? There are "legitimate scientists" (IOW, they have a degree) who put their weight behind theories such as intelligent design. The question isn't what do ALL members of a given field think about a given theory, but rather what the mainstream members of a field think. In psychology, as in most other fields, consensus is quite important. Any psychologist associated with a hospital or psychology school would recognize this and conduct their research or treatment accordingly. You may argue that psychology needs better standards to ensure only scientifically proven methods are applied during therapy (I would argue that myself--I'd like to see more strict licensing standards for therapists), but the lack thereof hardly invalidates the field as a whole.

Taft

Re:Duh!

[Vellmont]

It wasn't a personal attack so much as it was an attack against your self-righteous disrespect of a field where the majority of its practitioners use completely scientific methods

Nice attempt at a dodge, but I know a personal attack when I see one.

The fact that "90% of the time" you think psychological studies are crap proves nothing. You could be reading about the studies from crap sources or you may have a poor understanding of the field of psychology and how it fits into traditional scientific methods (as I believe, given your statements about psychology and how they jibe with the reality of the field).

Nope, wrong again. I've either heard this directly from the researcher at a conference who conducted the study, or read the actual paper. "misunderstanding the field of psychology" has nothing to do with whether a study is scientific or not. It either is or it isn't and has nothing to with with understanding psychology and everything to do with understanding how science is done and how we aquire knowledge.

A big point I made in my post was that the clinical definition of an addiction is NOT sloppy or loosely defined. Why did you ignore this?

Because the chosen word doesn't reflect the meaning of the word. You can re-define dog as cat, but that doesn't mean people won't be confused when you speak. The definition is a bad one. "TV is addictive" implies that there's some property of the TV that's causing people to be "addicted" to it, not a property of the person that's obsessed with TV.

There are factions within the field that take less than scientific approaches to their work or throw their weight behind untested and unorthodox theories. However, isn't this the same in any field?

Umm. no? The examples that come to mind are the psedo-scientists that occasionally appear on Slashdot. Some nut who studies making zero point energy devices or Intelligent Design theory isn't educated in the field they're studying, but is just a kook with minimal knowledge of the field. Those people aren't in the field of physics or evolutionary biology. I assume you're talking about psychologists with advanced degrees in psychology.

This just in:

[oGMo]

"Journalists show hallmarks of sensationalistic idiots."

Re:This just in:

[Citizen of Earth]

"Journalists show hallmarks of sensationalistic idiots."

Please, there is no need to disparage sensationalistic idiots in that way!

Before the flame wars break out

[RsG]

What the article basically says is that hardcore gamers can become fixated on games, and will respond to games as positive stimuli. A gaming "addict", according to TFA, will react with "longing" to still screens of a game they want to play. This is news?

What this basically boils down to is that games, like every other pleasureable activity in the world, can become psychologically addictive. This isn't exactly new information. And it isn't worth getting worked up over, though doubtlessly gamers will be offended by the comparison to junkies, and concerned parents types, or asshats that cater to them *cough, Jackass Thompson, cough*, will make this out to be some fucking national crisis.

Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[mrchaotica]

The reason people get addicted to substances is that their body adapts so that only that substance can trigger the release of dopamine (i.e. the chemical that makes you feel happy). The point of TFA is that psychological triggers (e.g. gaming) can cause the same adaptation. In this way, gaming addiction is no less "physical" than drug addiction.

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[radicalskeptic]

Yes but I think we can agree that people who don't play WoW for a two days don't suffer from "irritability, headaches, anxiety, cognitive disturbances and sleep disruption", as smokers do.

Or maybe I'm mistaken. Are there any WoW addicts here who had physical withdrawal symptoms after two days of not playing?

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[visgoth]

I was seriously... distracted... by Diablo2. I'd get rather restless about an hour before quitting time at work and would feel a sense of relief once I was at home, bashing pixels. I pretty much quit the game cold turkey, I one day just found myself deeply bored with the prospect of doing yet another baal run. Never touched the game since, and had no real need to. I did try WoW for a few months, but found it deeply boring as well. I guess I don't get the "high" or whatever off this type of game anymore.

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[nelsonal]

Don't play the slots then. The addictive tendancies in that play on the human drive to continue doing things that give a random result (especially with a wide deviation in the results--80% crap or nothing, 10% ok stuff 8% good stuff, .9% great stuff, 0.09% unbelievable stuff, 0.009% truely amazing stuff, etc to 0.0000001% zod runes.

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[theStorminMormon]

My brother has an extermely addictive personality. I would definitely say he has withdrawal symptoms if he doesn't get his fix. You do not want to be around him when he doesn't get his WoW fix. I'm not exagerating. That's one of the reasons I've never played the game.

-stormin

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[elasticwings]

They should have a +1 sad mod for stuff like this.

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[pete_norm]

For 2 years, i was a real MUD addict. Playing 10 to 16 hours a day every day. Playing at work everytime my boss wasn't around, playing late at night, cancelling everything else so i could MUD. The game was controlling most aspects of my life. When you start dreaming in text form, you know you really MUD too much.
I can attest that i was experiencing all the symptoms you named in your post when i couldn't get close to a computer for a day or two. It was to the point that i could not sit behind a computer without firing ZMUD. The moments i was not playing, i was thinking of what i would do when i would log on again.
Finally got rid of the addiction when i lost my job and had to find a new one. The shock of it mostly removed my addiction. Now i still play, but i can control myself since i know what being addicted can bring to you...

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[Crizp]

I know some people who have been playing WoW constantly for the last six months; before that it was Galaxies for a year or something. We never see them anymore, they're usually locked up in an apartment playing. Asking them to join us for beers in the weekend is futile, I would think they have withdrawal symptoms, but maybe they can answer themselves? I know you read Slashdot, Mr. Replicant. Stand up for your constant gaming, you've got the chance now. Or else we, your friends, might have to set up an intervention :)

Myself, I've had Net addiction. A long period of not having a connection took care of that, and made me regain my taste for meeting other people IRL, spending the summers outside, going to town. Now that I've got DSL again, I'm a lot more careful, making sure to not sit by the computer at all hours. But the withdrawal symptoms brought on by suddenly losing your 'net feed - gaah!

They were not as strong as nicotine withdrawal symptoms (I've had those, believe me), but they worked in the same way. With cigarettes, it's the psysical nicotine dependency. With the net, and games, and cannabis, and sex; it's the dopamine. If you do too much of _anything_ that brings inordinate amounts of pleasure to your brain, you can get addicted to it.

But I'm no psychologist, nor a doctor of any other kind. I just have personal experience, so my assertions are wide open for correction, which I welcome.

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[shawb]

I'd say with video games and other similar addictions (gambling, sex, etc) there is really very little to no withdrawal in breaking the addiction. But they still have to deal with breaking the habit, which is generally the hardest part of an addiction to deal with. Withdrawal may be hell for a few days, but the habit is there for life.

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[theStorminMormon]

I was just saying that there is a withdrawal-type phenomena associated with some people stopping video games. Didn't mean to infer that it was on the same level as withdrawal symptoms from drugs. I think the two are similar in many ways, but not really in magnitude. I also think the distinction between a physical and a psychological addiction is a blurry one.

-stormin

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[budartagnan]

I went through the exact same thing in high school, playing a disgusting little game called Gemstone III. I ended up dropping my grades from straight A's to B's, alienated most of my real friends, gained 50 pounds, and spent 90% of my waking hours in a dark bedroom slashing away at text and hanging out with my "friends." Finally, one day I just decided it was a stupid idea, sold off my character, went on a diet, went out into the real world, and became a person again. Don't even try to tell me MMORPGs aren't addictive - I know they are. It screwed up my life as bad as drugs while I was on it, but without the long term effects. I still regret missing out on the fun in high school though.

Re:Dopamine _is_ the physical dependancy.

[snuf23]

"I'll grant you, heroin addicts tend to become more irritable more quickly, but that is a matter of a degree."

Usually only if they don't have their next fix on hand and are unsure of how they are going to find it or fund it.
The pressure of the addiction is severe and as the addict enters the "need" state they quickly become fixated on finding the next hit. It's an infernal feeling and the psychological effects hit way before the physical withdrawal starts to kick in.

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.

Re:Logical pitfall?

[Gyan]

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.

1)Unless you're a soulist, the mind is a product &reflection of the physical.

2)'The 'metabolic' aspect is specific to physical dependence. Psychological dependence is a function of psyches and social structures. A select number of heroin addicts in Britain who recieve heroin legally from the NHS lead functional lives, whereas those who maintain their addictions on the street are not so integrated or stable.

3)There's a single brain, which mediates all experiences. Dopamine encodes valence for any input (drugs, games, food). There are no neatly divorced subdivisions in the brain to deal with psychological addiction to drugs and psychological addiction to video games. The visible difference in their intensity occurs because drugs flood the brain and induce wholesale potent changes in neuroactivity, whereas video games work via the usual sensory channels. With regular conditioning, it's not surprising to see very similar expectation-triggered dopamine surges with both activities.

Re:Logical pitfall?

[Vintermann]

It's a common misconception that drug addiction is mainly metabolic. It isn't. Sure, it's painful to quit cocaine, but people do a lot of unpleasant things if they want to (like getting tattoos). The purely neurobiological theories of addiction do a poor job of describing the actual world. For instance, people who have recieved morphine as a painkiller very rarely become drug addicts, although withdrawal is quite painful. It's in drug culture contexts that addiction occurs.

It's not coffee/gaming/chocolate which have drug-like properties, it's the other way around.

It's a long story, and I could go on for a while about this. We could blame Al-anon, who convinced the world that propensity for addiction was a disease, a kind of presonal character fault, instead of a social problem that society should face together. I refer y'all to "The psychology of getting high" by Hans Olav Fekjær, which he has publicised in its entirety on the net (google it).

Re:Logical pitfall?

[StrongBow67]

They don't call it "Ever-Crack" for nothing

How about...

[Lead Butthead]

How about fixing the problem they're running away from (through temporary diversion like illicit drugs or (gasp) game playing?) Of course, knowing our congress critters (for that matter, most government officials on the planet) they do just outlaw "it" and declare the problem fixed.

Partially True

[Ozymand E. Us]

From my own experience, I believe this study to be true, but only for certain games. For instance, I've played and beaten DooM, and walked away. I've beaten D2X, but I still continue to play it. What's the difference? The open-endedness.
A "beatable" game, like DooM, is largely unaddictive. Once you've trashed it on Nightmare Mode, that's it, game over, endostory. Sure, there are timetrial and such, but they're the exceptiont hat proves the rule.
However a game like Diablo II, one that you can't truly beat, is addictive. Sure, you could kill Baal on Hell and call it a day, but who does that? Everybody keeps playing, building their characters up more and more and more, until you have a level 93 Hammerdin with all the trimmings- and like addicts, my brother and I kept playing.
(I should note here that I don't consider gaming with friends that you can see addictive behavior. What makes it less socially acceptible than dropping 10 bucks on a movie?)
I do have one issue with the study. Who's to say that the gamers had less ocular reaction because they were conditioned to having a sudden surprise from gaming itself? I hardly blink anymore when a baddie comes flying out from nowhere.

Re:Partially True

[Bishop]

As another poster pointed out it is the random reward system in Diablo 2 and similar games that keep you playing. After you have played Doom once you pretty much know what to expect behind every door. In D2 even after you have beaten the game and maxed out your character there is still the chance of a random unique or set item drop. D2 was also genius with its semi random dungeons and terrain.

Two buddies and I maxed several characters in D2 and the expansion pack. We held 2, 3 or more online sessions of several hours durring the week, and often longer sessions on the weekend (especially in winter). Then one day we burnt out on the game. In the middle of an evening session with mid level characters we stopped in town for a quick item sell and refit. We chatted for a bit, and never played the game again. Those were good times.

Re:Partially True

[yuriismaster]

Heh.. D2 Seriously, it go so bad, that I had to uninstall D2, lock it away from myself above the laundry, give away my online accounts (all 8 mule accounts too), and go totally cold turkey. I had dreams.. nightmares even, but I eventually got over it. Twas a shame to give up what I had amassed, but I realized it wasnt worth anywhere near as much once 1.10 came out, so it made things easier to swallow. I never know exactly what became of those cds after I moved out.

Re:Partially True

[KiloByte]

Eh? Doom beatable?

In single player mode, perhaps, and even then only if you are a "consumer" (ie, you only play what you can purhase, instead of creating your own add-ons, map builders and map themselves). But if you add in deathmatch, you'll get open-endness that far exceeds Diablo 2.
And I'm speaking from own experience - ~3000 hours wasted for Doom.

Still, that's nothing compared with MUDding. 4500 hours on mortal (player) chars and 3000h of coding here. Beat the openness of _that_.

In the long term, Diablo provides you with nothing more than random drops from a preset list. The thrill there can last for several months, but it's not really an addiction you can keep for years.

But hey... note that the average member of the society spends 8-10 hours a day mindlessly watching TV. Collecting uniques and set items is some form of activity, it surely beats staring at the TV set or standing in a gate and guzzling beer.

Re:Partially True

[wolssiloa]

Who's to say that the gamers had less ocular reaction because they were conditioned to having a sudden surprise from gaming itself? I hardly blink anymore when a baddie comes flying out from nowhere.

Exactly! You just answered your own question. The gamers are so in their element, it doesn't surprise them, and they are totally relaxed in their game-playing mode.

Re:Partially True

[patonw]

so sad my druid got autodeleted after not logging in for 90 days :*(

Re:Partially True

[Surt]

Describing the D2 item drops as coming from a preset list is somewhat disingenous or inaccurate. The non-unique items have randomly generated properties. Technically you could make a list of them, but since the random seed is 64 bit, that would be one hell of a list.

Diablo II also provides you with 7 character classes, with at least 3 major variants for each, giving you at least 21 interesting paths to play (realistically the number is much higher, as various cross combinations come into play). Playing each to level 90 will eat up plenty of your time.

Having worked over 3000h on both Diablo II and a MUD, I will vote for Diablo II having the better addictive design, particularly in the context of delivering that addiction to a large number of players.

Re:Partially True

[PriceIke]

Yeah, and I hear there's a singleplayer way to play Halo. Is there really? Who'd have thought .. I've been quite happy wasting my hours and hours playing CTF.

In related news...

[Elitist_Phoenix]

... so does Slashdot!

Re:In related news...

[ZephyrXero]

You ain't joking there..... If you've ever refreshed Slashdot after reading it less than 5 minutes ago, you've got a problem ;)

Re:Big Effing Deal

[radicalskeptic]

Well I know you were probably joking, but really after reading the article, they're talking about different mechanisms in the brain.

The article talks about how stimuli related to an addictive game/substance can trigger strong desires and reactions in addicted people. However, if you show my mother (a devout Catholic and Sunday school teacher) a cross, she doesn't get the urge to suddenly go to chuch and pray.

On the other hand, if I watch a Japanese Guilty Gear match, I really do feel restless and end up firing up my Xbox for some sweet, sweet release.

Now if you'll excuse me I gotta go play some Guilty Gear :/

It's a good thing...

[bobdotorg]

... that my only addiction is to Duke Nuke'em Forever.

World of Warcraft FTW

[SenorMooCow]

I would have posted sooner but I was busy playing WoW. :)

sheesh

[Joe the Lesser]

This is really an insult to all those who suffer from real addiction problems.

Oh no! I skipped class to play games!
Heh, that's minor stuff. Real addiction problems typically end in someone dying.

Re:sheesh

[Neko-kun]

Uhm... What about this guy?

Re:sheesh

[PhilHibbs]

Just because some addictions are expensive and frequently lead to such social problems, that doesn't mean that you have to suffer those problems in order to qualify as being addicted to something. Lots of people are addicted to nicotine or alcohol, but I am not insulting or denigrating crack-heads by making that factual statement.

Re:sheesh

[tezbobobo]

Sure does, like the bastards who tell me where and whether I should smoke. It usually sends me into a ranting rage. IT...REALLY...PISSES...ME...OFF...!

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?

[bm_luethke]

You know, I live in Knoxville Tn - not the tech capital of the world. In fact, an area that you would think would be full of luddites that lap this type of study up.

However, the vast majority of people I know (most of which are technology ignorant and are about as "country" as you can get) think the same thing. Video games, whatever said, are better than TV. At least you have to think or need hand eye co-ordination. Yes, there are groups that don't think so - while they get a lot of press they are a pretty small minority. It's been surprising to me no matter how often it happens (Gun Club, Archery Club, my parents workers and clients in construction, etc) - the common perception is that they are luddites (though to some extent they are, but more a fear for thier jobs than anything else). In fact, we were discussing this a few days ago due to a local issue, of the 20 or so at the gun club *none* felt that games were bad - definatly better than vegging out on the TV and better than many of the activities kids have available to them.

I can't speak for other parts of the country, but if east Tennessee thinks this I have hard time thinking that it's fairly but common. If it's not, then it's up to the reader to either not believe me or rethink thier views on where they live. Personally I think this article is sensationalism journalism: "Your kids are gonna die!!!!!" and few buy it very far.

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:What about TV?

[FruFox]

Wow. That is a really excellent point and cuts right to the quick. You totally deserve your 5. :) And I spend around 6 hours a day in front of the Great Glass Boob myself! I'd say I am addicted.

I think it would be interesting to study TV withdrawal. I bet they'd find people go through a lot of the same things as any withdrawal from a non-physically-dependant drug. I think honestly, sometimes what it put down as "withdrawal symptoms" are symptoms of something much simpler and more mundane, "disruption of routine". If you're used to doing one thing with a lot of your time, whether it's a drug, video games, Tv, or a hobby like knitting or yoga, if that is suddenly cut off, you will be at loose ends. You won't know what to do with yourself. It's nothing sinister. All creatures dislike disruption in their routine and exprerience a lot of stress from it. That's why something wonderful, like getting a promotion or winning the lottery, can be as stressful as something negative happening.

But just like people worry about pot (which enver killed ANYBODY) and ignore the millions dead every year from alchohol because alchohol is seen as 'normal', people ignore their heavy dependance on TV and focus on the poor beknighted harmless video games.

Now if you're excuse me, I'm going to go mug people, destroy private property, beat up cops, and vandalize.

But only in a video game. (The Warriors for Xbox, if you must know).

Oh, and if video games are addictive, strap your PSP to your arm and tell everybody you're on the patch. :)

Re:What about TV?

[Pete (big-pete)]

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.

Heh - you made me go and check my stats on a certain bbs that I use... :)

Created : Mon Nov 6 00:06 '95
Last On : Thu Nov 17 11:03 '05
Total On : 37 wks 5 days
Longest On : 22 hour 18 min
Times On : 5485
Comments : 12842

That's not such a high percentage of my life (7.221% since account creation), but it's still a hell of a lot of time!

-- Pete.

Re:What about TV?

[Sir Holo]

A whole lot of people spend around 4 to 5h in front of a TV every day...

Yes, yes, yes! The researchers used a "startle reflex" to rate addiction - gamers viewing a DOOM screenie would be harder to startle. By that metric, TV is as bad or worse.

Ever have trouble getting someone's attention while they were "glued to the tube?"

Ever have someone become irritated once you were able to startle them from the stupor?

But that's not new, is i.... Ooh! Time for the Friends rerun...

Re:What about TV?

[EastCoastSurfer]

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.

You have a point. Very few TV addicts watch for 12 hours straight. I wonder if that is a function of what time shows come on though? I have friends who have to be home by certain times nearly every night of the week to watch certain shows. If the networks suddenly shifted these shows to later points in the night they would simply stay up. Looking at that TV ratings shows 20M people in some cases watching the same show every week. It would appear that they have adjusted their life around watching a show.

Would seem to me that both (game playing/TV) are some form of addiction.

Re:What about TV?

[Cro Magnon]

Ever have trouble getting someone's attention while they were "glued to the tube?"

Ever have someone become irritated once you were able to startle them from the stupor?

That's not limited to TV or games. I've reacted that way when someone interrupted me when I had my nose in a good book.

Re:What about TV?

[TheoMurpse]

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.

That's intensely fucked up. On the other hand, I've had dreams the past few nights that I've been doing Real Analysis. I should argue with my professor that his homeworks are not conducive to a healthy lifestyle.

Re:What about TV?

[snuf23]

"I stopped playing WOW when the dreams started. Vivid, intense dreams that began to interfere with my perception of reality"

I hate the damn dreams - they always have better graphics and more interesting plots then the actual game.
It's worth noting that "questing in your sleep" is only one type dream attached to a gaming obsession. The first time I ever experienced it was when Tetris came out. Instead of the usual hypnagogic blobbies before falling asleep, I would hallucinate the damn blocks dropping. Then these hallucinations started to cross over into waking life. I would see the Tetris shapes all around in any boxy shaped object. The nuttiness went away after cut back my Tetris gaming.
I also had issues with Civilization (the first one) where on the weekends I would play straight for 8-12 hours. Then in my sleep I would be expanding my empire. Roads, roads build more roads!
With MMOs I actually have had sort of the opposite thing happen. I really enjoy them, but I can't do the 5 plus hour dungeon thing. That long and I start to get irritable and pissed off. From what I understand about Everquest the WoW high end dungeons (Molten Core, Black Wing Lair) are not as time consuming. I don't know how people can stand it.

Re:What about TV?

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

You kind of missed the point. Television addicts probably would have trouble balancing their time because they are addicts. Few gamers would skip work (etc) either, but gaming addicts would. Addiction is defined by it's consequences.

Re:What about TV?

[Sigma 7]

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.

I would like to comment on that:
- The "game addicts" on the same level of "TV addicts" do not have the problem you described: they can still stop playing at any time (like I do, e.g. grab a newspaper a block away), they can still run a schedule (even if there is no structure), sleep properly, and interact socially.
- Even though I may have the symptoms shown above, I make it a habit to stop as soon as possible when the timer hits twelve - only rarely do I go beyond that.
- My schedule was unbalanced because I have had nothing to do during my period of unemployment. This changed right after getting a position, as I went to sleep at 12:00 (at the latest) and set the alarm to 7:00.
- Sleep deprivation was caused by uncomfortable sleep, not excess video games. I know this is a fact, since there is a 50% chance per blanket of a blanket appearing on the floor. In addition, I wake up at 5:00 and 8:00, both before and after the alarm. The result is that it feels like I had 4 hours of sleep in an uncomfortable position. (Probably the pillow, but it could be something else.)
- I shunned social interaction because the majority of people in my elementry/high school years were assholes.
- Since I rely on public transportation, I can't go out and explore as that would take well too much time. Even if I could explore, it is not likely that I would spot the well known supplier of cheap computer components known as "OEM Express" (other stores have since caught up to their semi-low prices.)
- It may have been worse when I was younger as it cut into time that I should have spent studying or doing homework. Of course, I never had a need to study. Homework was either trivial, tedious gruntwork that did not really advance my knowledge, or impossible for me to complete (as I did not have artistic abilities at the time).

The only ones that have these symptoms that are directly centered around games have a disabilitating addiction - which should not be compared to a casual addiction that these TV addicts have.

UO is the devil!

[Anyd]

I remember for a couple years in high school I'd be able to log in about 50 hours over the weekend playing UO (there are ~64 playable hours between when school gets out on friday and restarts on monday.) By the time I went off to college I really felt like I had some social catching-up to do. It really did have about the same influence on my life as a drug addiction would have. I cut off most social ties which didn't involve game-playing, my school work went to sh*t, and it caused all kinds of friction between my parents and I.
Luckly, once I went off to college I started bartending... and it's hard not to make friends or get dates when you get people drunk for a living!

Re:UO is the devil!

[madaxe42]

I'll second you on that. I found anarchy online (MMORPG) during the summer after my first year at uni. It cost me my girlfriend of 2 years, and also almost my degree.... I managed to kick the game habit when she dumped me (guess it gave me something else to worry about), however I did end up as an alcoholic and with a fierce coke habit. A year of that, and I was fine... Got my degree (2:1 in Physics, huzzah!), and now doing quite nicely tyvm.

I think it's very much something that people need to 'get out of their system' - I still drink, I still play AO from time to time (once every few weeks, at most), but I no longer feel the same compulsion that I used to to do either of the above.

Games, alcohol, drugs, whatever - none of them are the 'devil' - all you have to face is the devil inside yourself. Let it take over for a bit - it'll make you stronger when you kick it in the ass.

Re:UO is the devil!

[EastCoastSurfer]

A lot of people aren't strong enough to kick it out themselves though. I do agree that for the most part it is a devil inside yourself. Many people are addicted to things like games because they make them feel more alive (if that's the right word) than anything else in their life. Drugs, alcohol, games are all just escapes. While there is a chemical component to the addiction there is also a big psychological component that must be addressed.

I'm happy that you were able to address your own internal demons. I've come a long way with mine, but wonder daily if I'll ever get there. Luckily for me, my addictiveness is balanced by my ADD :)

Re:UO is the devil!

[snuf23]

"It really did have about the same influence on my life as a drug addiction would have."

No, no, drug addiction is much more social. You get to meet all kinds of interesting characters!

So?

[B3ryllium]

Any coping mechanism can easily become addictive (which, iirc, is exactly what the study says).

Nail biting.

Sex.

Reading slashdot at midnight listening to moxy fruvous and lou bega.

Dominoes.

Correcting people's grammar.

Shopping.

Auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Re:So?

[mcrbids]

Any coping mechanism can easily become addictive (which, iirc, is exactly what the study says).

Ok, one by one:

Nail biting. Check

Sex. Check

Reading slashdot at midnight listening to moxy fruvous and lou bega.
  Slashdot - check. Midnight - check. Lou Bega - check. (wow!)

Dominoes Nope. Not me. Even Dominoes pizza sucks.

Correcting people's grammar. Well, I've been known... the one that bugs me most is "him and me went to the store"... Ask my kids.

Shopping. Oh Jesus, dear God no. I hate shopping! Maybe I'm not such an addict.

Auto-erotic asphyxiation. That does it - no interest here. I'm going back to pot!

Re:So?

[mrogers]

Grammar nazi shoots burglar: "it was either he or I"

Re:Big Effing Deal

[aitikin]

...for example you die. Talk about negative side-affects.

Damn. I thought that was the meaning of life!

Addiction eh...

[arakon]

Well if you define addictions by what generates a positive response in the brain, just about anything that is fun can/will become an addiction. On the other hand I'd like to quote a line from Bob Sagat in the Movie half-baked.

"Have you ever sucked cock for pot!? You don't have an addiction."

^substitute games for pot. Serious addictions can cause a serious breakdown in self-image to the point where anything is acceptable to get the next fix. When I start seeing offers for people to give the ass-secks and other such non-social openly acceptable behavior then I'll deem "game" addiction as a serious threat to the youth of the world. But honestly I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

"Hey man I'll give you head for an hour with your Xbox360...."

Re:Addiction eh...

[TheoMurpse]

give the ass-secks

You, my friend, are addicted to 4chan. I suggest you stop using before it destroys your life, yes rly.

Re:Addiction eh...

[arakon]

what's 4chan. seriously never heard of it. ass-secks is just some bad vernacular I picked up on a forum somewhere, think it was NeoGeo.com flame room.

Re:Addiction eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you ever sucked cock for pot!? You don't have an addiction."

Yes I have.

Re:Addiction eh...

[TheoMurpse]

http://www.4chan.org/

You're supposed to capitalize proper nouns.

[michaeltoe]

Sorry, I can't control it.

Re:You're supposed to capitalize proper nouns.

[B3ryllium]

Oh, you're referring to Moxy Fruvous and Lou Bega? My bad. Did I miss any other ones?

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.

My imagination maybe

[patonw]

but does it seem like everything is like a drug nowadays, at least according to researchers?

Quick, someone compare "researchers" to drug addicts!

Re:My imagination maybe

[visgoth]

Hmm... "researchers" are totally dependant on funding, so they lower themselves to stating things like "gaming is addictive"?

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Private Taco]

Something doesn't have to be "real" to generate a self reinforcing chemical change in the brain. Meditation would be an example. Stress can kill even if the object that generates the stress is imagined.

Poor designed study

[Frangible]

Addictive drugs are typically so because they spike dopamine levels in the shell of the nucelus accumbens. This study does not show this is the case for video games, so to compare the mechanisms is rather ridiculous and is a conclusion they have no data to base upon.

The psychopathology of compulsive gambling has been studied in great depth and differs significantly from a drug addiction. I really don't see any basis for this group's outlandish claims. What they are describing is hedonism, not an addiction in the same context of drugs. Just because they may share symptoms does not equate them biologically.

Re:Poor designed study

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

And you somehow think that gambling isn't based on large spikes of dopamine? What exactly do you think happens when someone makes a huge about of money in a few seconds? A big, phat-ass dopamine rush is what happens.

Sure, drug addiction is usually sigfinicantly different to other addictions, but this is probably more do with the ammount of chemicals, and the way it's release etc, rather than an actual difference between the underlying mechanisms of addiction.

Craving and dopamine spikes aren't restricted to the relms of drug addiction, you know.

Re:Poor designed study

[Frangible]

There is no evidence whatsoever that gambling or gaming raises dopamine in the shell of the nucelus accumbens. It likely raises DA levels in the prefrontal cortex which is associated with task completion, however, DA in the NA are not and produce euphoria and psychomotor behavior. I could not find a single anecdote or study showing this to be true, so please provide a cite for your assertations.

Re:Poor designed study

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

OK, but please find me hard evidence that raising dopamine in the shell of the nucelus accumbens is nessesary for addiction to occur. And when I say addiction, I do include psychological addiction, and not just addictions that include chemical dependancy.

Re:Poor designed study

[Frangible]

Dependancy has nothing to do with the nucelus accumbens whatsoever, and varies by drug, such as greater adenosine sensitivity in the case of caffeine, or less GABA receptor sensitivity in the case of Ambien dependancy. It is entirely a method of psychological addiction only. I cannot conclusively state that it is the only path to psychological addiction, but every drug that is known to be psychologically addictive raises DA there and gambling/gaming do not. Thus, stating an equivalence between gaming and drugs in terms of addiction has no supporting data.

This overview may be useful to you: http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/DrugAbuse/theor ydrugaddiction.htm

Re:Poor designed study

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

That page talks about drug addiction, and doesn't even mention psychological addictions as a serperate type of addiction. If you really can't find anything, perhaps you could try searching google?

Re:Poor designed study

[Frangible]

Actually, all it talks about is psychological addiction, and the underlying neurobiology. Appearently it was a bit too advanced and in depth, though.

This Just In!

[ruiner5000]

Slashdot Post Fanatics Show Hallmarks of Drug Addiction!

Some signs to watch out for...

[cffrost]

- Concerned familiy members confront you with stacks of empty jewel cases and electronics store receipts.

- Making promises to yourself you can't keep ("Just one last round...").

- Tendency to play alone; preference for single-player games over socially-accepted multi-player.

- Begging the cashier at Best Buy to front you a new title ("C'mon man I'll have the $49.95 by Friday, I swear!").

Good wee hours of the morn' topic

[RisingSon]

Outstanding topic for discussion at 1:37 am CST. Yes, we are addicted. I'm nearing 30 and I've been addicted to a lot of things. Video games are near the top of the list.

Like most things that are sinfully delicous (pr0n, booze, pot) - video games provide so much satisfaction, even though its totally synthetic. Would I get a "high" reading a Tolstoy novel? Yes. Would I get a high getting wasted and watching Robot Chicken? Yes. One takes dicipline and the other is cheap, but they both work.

Can someone become addicted to any of these things? Absolutely. Anything that is enticing enough to detract from the dicipline of the daily grind can become an addiction (/. anyone?)

The article talks about "drug memories" - how about my keyboard? Man, it feels so familiar. My PS2 controller? Oh, yeah, totally an extension of my hand.

A point about video games specifically - does anyone know a casual+ gamer that hasn't gone on an 8 hour binge? I recently introduced my 30-something neighbor to video games (GT4 + logitech wheel). Sure enough, he did an 8pm-4am addict session after only two days and he'd never played video games before.

If you show me a screenshot of Super Mario Bros or Starcraft...hell yeah, I'm going to want to play that game.

One last comment - has anyone seen the Marco Brambilla exhibit called Half-Life? Its a room with three screens - the front is a 2x2 display of kids playing counter-strike and the sides are videos from the conter-striker game they're playing. Its done really well - watching their faces hit me like a rocket launcher. I had to sit down and watch it for 15 minutes or so. I almost totally broke down. All those empty souls just wanted a kill. I'm not against video game violence but you can't deny its impact on your inner being.

Marco Brambilla link #1

Marco Brambilla link #2

Re:Good wee hours of the morn' topic

[ClamIAm]

I'm nearing 30

Damn man, when I read this I thought you were a WoW player :P. That's how my roomate talks ALL THE TIME.

Re:Good wee hours of the morn' topic

[snuf23]

I prefer FPS Doug from Pure Pwnage. And yes I HAVE played with people like him. They may not be the norm, but they are certainly more interesting (and potentially fun or annoying) then the zombied out players.

Well yeah...

[Boomeringue]

The big difference is I can beat the big boss in GTA and work on a different neurological/intellectual pathway, but heroin or cocaine doesn't have the same liimitations...

Already happened?

[mcrbids]

Is it just me, or does this article make you feel like you're already overdosed on something?

Moz on Fedora, the lettering is just all goofed up and quite hard to read...

It's all about access

[AvantLegion]

I'm lucky. I've got an addiction too, but Hilary Duff won't let me anywhere near her.

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

[toeofdestiny]

I suggest that you watch the movie "Kundun", by Scorsese. Maybe you will not see that quote the same way you do now.

Re:No Joke

[ClamIAm]

"A witty saying proves nothing."

Re:No Joke

[AsiNisiMasa]

I didn't realize old adages were witty sayings now.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

It's not an "old adage". It's a quote from Karl Marx. Personally, I don't take everything the man said as a pearl of unquestionable wisdom.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

In general, you shouldn't question something that you don't understand. You're not married either, are you?

Look, I'm both deeply religious (and committed to an estabslished, organized religion) and married. I served the whole 2-year mission (paying most of the way myself - $10,000). And you're comments are just way out of line.

If you're very religious, then your church/instution owns your ass, and most likely for the duration of your life.

I suppose there are those who are so petrified of going to Hell or whatever that they follow their religion out of fear. And for those people, I think your comment may hold. But what you're failing to understand is that a religion is something you have to consciously stay faithful to. It's very demanding, yes, but this doesn't imply coercion. No one MADE me go on a mission, no one MAKES me go to church every Sunday, and no one MAKES me believe what I believe. It's my choice, day in and day out, to live according to the values that I hold true. It's my choice to sacrifice time and money to things that I think are worthwhile. And believe me, there are plenty of times when I'm unsatisfied with my religion as in institution and when I question it. Questioning is a part of healthy spirtual life. If you don't question - if you don't think for yourself - then you are a slave.

Marriage is similar. You marry someone you love (hopefully), but if you expect marriage to make your life better without constant effort, work, and patience then you're going to be just another whining divorcee. You can look at marriage as your ball and chain - but this just means you're turning yourself into a victim. Or you can man up and see marriage for what it is - a committed relationship that you entered of your own free will. It's not like marriage or religion happen to you (in general) they are relationships that you choose to enter into, that you need to continue to choose to be in day in and day out, and relationships that are easier to let die than to keep alive.

This is all very different from games, in my opinion, for one critical reason. If you get married solely for yourself and if you attend church solely for yourself (and some people do these thigns) than you've missed the whole point. But who plays video games for any reason other than their own personal entertainment? Same thing with drugs. I'm not equating the two, but I'm showing that they are both demonstrably different from relationships where the whole point is to elevate the other part, or the relationship itself, above the self.

It's that elevation of God and commitment to Him and His Church (if you're Christian, like I am) that seperates religious activity at a fundamental level from something you do for kicks and jollies. The same can be said of other religion. If you're of the Islamic faith (Islam = submission) then you're no slave. Submitting because you want to, because it is your earnest desire to serve God, does not take away your freedom or make you an addict - it is just how you choose to use that unalienable freedom.

Maybe you should actually do a little bit of study of religion before you make such ignorant and sweeping prouncements. The verse repeated at least three times in the New Testament "whomsoever shall save his life shall lose it, whomsoever shall lose his life for my name's sake" is not just a cool-sounding phrase. It's a description of how, in voluntarily giving of your self to a greater cause - you can find something greater than what you find in a life dedicated to gratifying your own desires.

You don't have to believe in God to beleive that sentiment, and you don't have to believe that sentiment to respect it. I'm not saying that all religions, or all religious people in any denomination/creed, have this belief of freedom. But when you consider other religions, you should always consider them at their best - at what the believers aspire to be. No one lives up to all their own ideals, that doens't mean that no one is trying.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[jrob323]

Since you're apparently someone who DOES take the writings of Joseph Smith as pearls of unquestionable wisdom, that doesn't exactly impugn the legacy of Marx.

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.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

Don't be an ignoramus. In the first place, I wasn't trying to "impugn the legacy of Marx". I think the USSR, China, Cuba and most of world history for the past 50 years are doing a fine job of that. World history doesn't need my help.

In the second place, you're proving my point: the Marx quote is not commonly-accepted wisdom because most people aren't Marxists. Just as the words of Joseph Smith aren't commonly-accepted wisdom because most people aren't Mormon. I was just pointing out the obvious fact that we don't all think Marx got everything right. I was not trying to push my own beliefs on anyone else.

And yet, despite the obviousness of all I've written, you took the trouble to post. Were you really just defending the legacy of Marx? If you were and you're a Marxist, then I can respect that - and we can have an argument about whether my first paragraph was justified.

But from my experience dealing with people who have an irrational hatred of Joseph Smith and/or Mormonism and/or Christianity in general and/or God in general and/or organized religion in general I'm guessing one of those factors was a stronger motivation for your post than a sincere desire to protect the legacy of our dear departed comrade.

In that case I'd like to point out that while I would take it as a matter of course that a Marxist has probably studied Marx and has his or her own defensible reasons for listening to him, you seem to assume that I don't have a similarly reasonable position in following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Since I'm willing to bet you know very little about what Joseph Smith actually said or stood for, I'd say that means that in this instance one of us is prejudiced, and the other is not.

But if you really were just standing up for Marx, then I'm the one that's out of line.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[Alex P Keaton in da]

An unattributed quote is a +5 insightful? Why not attribute that quote? And then write about what a success communist governments have been. Seriously- why is slashdot so anti-religion/God?
And why are offtopic posts that the Mod agrees with a +5? That is no way to have discourse. Isn't this supposed to be about gaming addicts? Sheeesh.....

Re:No Joke

[manno]

I'm not atheist, but I also haven't been to church in a long time... like a decade or so, and I'm just 27 years old. I'm not a big fan of it if you couldn't tell. Just last night I had to go online to look up "The Lords Prayer" to argue a point... I lost. But I totally agree with the parent's statement, I'm against prayer in public school, putting the Ten Commandments on state property(though I don't object to them being placed in a "public" space), pro choice. Despite all that I'm still going to send my child to religious classes(not school). Despite all my problems with the church, and the doubts I have about my own faith, I owe a lot to my Roman Catholic upbringing. That being said my biggest gripe with organized religions, particularly that of the Christian/Catholic variety, are the people that got to church go through the motions, and treat people in a (as my dad would put it) unchristian manner. That always pissed me off, the lessons

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

"Judge not lest ye be judged yourself"

"Render unto Cesar the things that are Caesar; and to God, the things that are God's"

"Forgive us our tresspases as we forgive those that tresspass against us"

These were the foundation of my faith and the cornerstone of almost every relationship I have personal, professional, and otherwise. I'm from NY raised by New England "Blue Staters" that vote it seems to me that where a community focuses on religiously seems to dictate their political views. In NY it was the love/help thy neighbor, I'm in Miami now, and the focus seems to be a lot more

"Thou shall not, or go to hell!"

It's weird down here, jail is the answer to our "problems"... the word "problems" seems to be interchangeable with lower class/immigrants/minorities. Greed and fear seem to prevail, what's the harm in letting Cuban refugee's in? Actually compared to Hetians they have it easy... Darker skinned people scare WASP's... it's part of the definition of being a WASP. The good news is that we have highly intelligent people running the show here. It makes total sense to me that we should lower taxes on those with the most(myself included), to cut programs that help those who need the most help. Public schools suck down here, and it's not going to change because everyone "protects their own". I was a huge fan of public schooling when I lived in New England, I'll be damned before I send my kid to one of the "baby-momma" factories they call a school down here. I also refuse to ask for a tax credit just because I'm paying for my kid to go to private school. A ways north of here is the home of TBN the "Trinity Broadcast Network"... how does that song go?

"Would Jesus wear a Rolex on his television show?"

This place needs a spiritual revival... big time. I see a lot more "Sunday Christians" down here. The type that would take money from someone who truly needs it, just to line their pockets just "cause they can", have the nerve to tell you about it, and then ask.

"What church you go to?"

It never seemed that way in NY... maybe because going to church is more of "the thing to do" down here, and up in NY most people that went to church did so out of honest belief. I had a faith once, but I didn't want to be associated with a lot of the people that call themselves faithful. I don't know man I'm just ranting this subject always gets me riled up.

Long and the short of it is I agreed with you.

-manno

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

I simply can't believe that this is an honest question and so I'm not going to take it as such. There's no coercion to ANY aspect of my faith - that was the whole point of the line you quoted. There's no way you could post that.

So you post is just a coward's low-blow and you know it. You know what some of my deeply-held beliefs and convictions are, and it's easy to snipe at them without seeming to reveal anything of your own to possible public scorn. My fault for posting them publicly, you say? Well I don't regret it. That the sacred beliefs or practices of another religion are an object of ridicule to you demonstrates more about your own lack of maturity than anything about the religion your attempting to denigrate.

Any religion can be mocked by those who aren't willing to try and actually understand it. Catholics are cannibals for believing the bread and wine literally turn to the body and blood of Christ. Muslims are sex-fiends for all wanting to blow themselves up to get 70 virigins. Ha ha ha ha. What a riot.

The fact is that if you're an atheist, a Zorastrian, a Muslim, or subscribe to any of the numerous, diverse, and deep cultural approaches to religion than we can respect one another and disagree constructively.

Or we can be reduced to your level.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[MvD_Moscow]

Why would you consider such hatred irrational? Its not like I hate religion, "just because." It's what relgiion does to people and how you attempt to limit our liberties and impose you views upon people who don't care about your fairy tales. You don't like abortion? Don't practise it! DOn't tell other people how to live, relgion has proven itself as a failure when it comes to ethics. You guys probably killed more people then Hitler.

Re:No Joke

[Politburo]

The verse repeated at least three times in the New Testament "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." is not just a cool-sounding phrase.

But unless you believe in it, it is just a cool sounding phrase.

It's a description of how, in voluntarily giving of your self to a greater cause - you can find something greater than what you find in a life dedicated to gratifying your own desires.

Your quote says "lose his life for my sake". That, in just about any reading, means dying. It's talking about martyrdom, from my perspective. Not making sacrifices to the church like going on missions, not helping others, but dying. Dead. So you die for Jesus, and you can "find something greater". So once again, it only progresses beyond a cool sounding phrase if you believe in it.

And, to me, you also pretty much changed the meaning of the quote in your description. It's not that "you can find something greater than what you find in a life dedicated to gratifying your own desires," it's that you can find something greater than what you find in a life where you don't die for Jesus.

There are a lot of great ideas in most any religion, but they're always shrouded in devotions to other concepts, rather than just "doing good".

Re:No Joke

[Hrothgar The Great]

This is a great post, seriously. I had a very similar discussion with a close friend of mine, sitting out by a camp fire one night after drinking too many beers. I asked him why God would care whether or not people believed, and why he would reward their faith in some manner - isn't the fact that he created all of this its own reward for both himself and those he created?

He obviously disagreed, but, having been raised Catholic for twenty years, I have some insight into Christianity, and I guess I simply do not understand what the point of creation is. I know I shouldn't presume to understand God or whatever, but I always imagine someone sitting there, exercising their passion, day after day watching your project grow toward completion. The act of creating it is a joy in and of itself - does GOD need the fulfillment of having his project look up at him and KNOW that he is responsible? God needing validation? I don't see it.

Re:No Joke

[Slime-dogg]

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.

Nice troll. I happen to be highly religious, but only attend church on occasion. I am not married to the institution, however, I have been given faith, and I remain faithful. I also am not married to the "enlightenment," or whatever the hell that is. Christianity, for instance, is not about enlightnment at all. The core beliefs are ones of humility, faith, honor, and eventually salvation... salvation is nothing that you can earn, it is something that has been given.

I'm sure it is really easy to make some broad speculation, but it is really hard to make a broad speculation like the above without revealing yourself as just plain ignorant.

Re:No Joke

[Thangodin]

I understand what the point of religion is supposed to be. And like you, I used to argue that the benefit of religion far outweighed its costs and drawbacks. The people who did horrible things in the name of God just didn't get it. Religion really wasn't to blame, was it?

But arguing about interpretation means that the outcome of the belief system is by no means assured. You therefore need to pay attention to what purpose that belief system served when it was in ascendance. How do Christians, or indeed, any fervent group of religious believers, behave when they're running the show, without secular authorities to police them? The answer, throughout most of history, is: not very well. The Bible itself was edited and compiled at the Council of Nicea, where the Catholic Church was born. There were very definite political motivations in the shaping of it. The intentions of the original editors are not what you assume them to be, as a modern reader informed by the sensibilities of the enlightenment. Going into what those motivations were would take more time than I have, but suffice it to say that you would be horrified by what they hid in the pages of that book.

The idea of serving something greater than yourself is by no means unique to the religious. There were atheists working with Mother Theresa in India. Most completely secular people that I know of feel a sense of duty towards the rest of humanity and to our common future. Given that human beings might be the only conscious agents in the universe, our duty to humanity may well be a duty to the universe itself, a duty to nurture and extend the only spark of self-awareness that we know of. By comparison, the urge to go out and proselytize seems trite--a mere attempt at tribal expansion. In other words, it appears to be self-serving.

The weekly cycle of a religious gathering every seven days is suspiciously reminiscent of the high provided by a new age encounter group, like Anthony Robbins or EST. The high last 3 days, after which it fades, leaving you craving more after about 7 days. This leads one to suspect that early priests were like shamans, leading the tribe in an ecstatic ritual. But this cycle of high and low indicates that this behaviour is rooted in the same reward system that is responsible for addiction. The reward system in our brains isn't even wired to the part that is responsible for happiness.

Most of the people I know who are deeply religious pursue their faith in this way. There is the same neediness, the sense that they are filling a hole with something that just doesn't fit. Most of them are now on anti-depressants. And that is the main criteria for an addiction--something you feel compelled to do even though it doesn't work and doesn't make you happy.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

Why would you consider such hatred irrational?

Good question.

You guys probably killed more people then Hitler.

Good answer.

Look, I don't mean to be flippant. Or at least, I don't mean to only be flippant. I'm not saying that everyone who hates religion in general is irrational to do so. But anyone who thinks that it is obvious that religion is evil/stupid/whatever should think about this: If people have been arguing a topic for literally millenia with geniuses on both sides of the issue without ever reaching a consensus, and then someone comes along and goes, "duh, it's obvious" then that individual is either smarter than everyone else who's ever discussed it, or completely missing something.

So what do you think is more likely? That you're smarter than every religious scholar and philosopher for the past 4,000+ years, or that there are actually very defensible positions on both sides of the fence - and you're just not succeeding in understanding any of the points that don't support your conclusion? You see the really smart people that are on your side (atheists and others opposed to organized religion) would be pretty embarrassed to have you on their team. That's a bad sign.

I'll outline just a couple examples of what I'm talking about. First of all, not all religions constrict liberties. A lot of the western ideals of liberty that gave birth to the American Revolution can be traced back hundreds of years to theologians and philosophers. Take Pelagius for one really early example. He was an early Catholic who taught free will. He was excommunicated by the Church - but that's a mark against the people who excommunicated him, not against religion in general. My own religion (Mormonism) has a similar theology. There are tons of quotes from the Book of Mormon about how "men are free", "ye are free", etc. Also the Bible: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." So if you want to say that religion limits freedom, you're going to have to do the research, incorporate the evidence that doesn't help, and show why, even taking all that into account, you're point of view is still right. Not saying you're wrong - just that you're irrational.

Another example: "you don't like abortion? don't practice it!" Response: "You don't like slavery, don't practice it!" Your views are not as bullet-proof as you think. Another instance where you would do well to actually understand the opposition before you assume you're right. Not saying you're wrong, just that you're irrational.

Final example: "You guys probably killed more people then Hitler" I'm a Mormon. My people missed all the big religious wars, we've only been around since 1830. If you're trying to lump me together with all religious people, or even all Christians, then you're just being irrational again. I might as well lump together all political parties because they're all, you know, political. Who cares if they disagree on almost nearly every aspect of politics? Or just group together everyone that believes in communism. Then I can walk up to a hippy and be like "You people probably killed more people than Hitler" and, since I get to include Stalin, I'd be right. Again - not saying you're wrong; just irrational.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

Your quote says "lose his life for my sake". That, in just about any reading, means dying.

Not really much for literary criticism, are you? Sure one conventional meaning is to die. But I really think that's also the most superficial and lazy approach you can take. There is a long tradition of believing in martyrdom as way to heaven - both in Islam and Christianity. I'm not denying that. But I think that the alternative reading is just as strong.

But unless you believe in it, it is just a cool sounding phrase.

No, what you wrote is a witty, cool sounding phrase. The quote itself is something more.

I've read many philosophical books where I don't believe what's written, but deeply admire the sentiment. One great example is Simone DeBeouvior's book on ethics. I disagreed with a lot of what she had to say (about atheism, especially). I didn't believe in what she wrote. But that in now way whatsoever reduced it to just a "cool-sounding phrase". It remained a deep, morally complex, and intellectually demanding philosophy. Just not one that I believed in.

In that same sense it is possible to have a great appreciation for some of the deeper teachings of various aspects of Christianity. Of course, you'll never get this appreciation if you're too busy reading things in the most superficial sense possible in an attempt to win an argument.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[bleckywelcky]

Depdending on how you define "institution", your argument is a bit off. If the institution encompasses the entire idea of the religion, then yes, being religious is about being married to the institution. But if you are simply talking about the "giant metal and glass dispenser of salvation", then being married to the institution is only true for people who are spiritually lost. In reality, the religion has absolutely nothing to do with the construct of the modern day "church" (ie that building over there and the society within it) and so much more to do with the fellowship that results from interactions within the church.

I do agree that these mega churches have gotten extremely ridiculous. They are causing people to lose sight of what their religion and faith are really about. However, they are simply one faction and do not represent the entire relgion. There are still many more congregations across the country that only have a couple hundred members. And their focus is about the people involved, not the physical church and the society within the church.

I think a great example of the true meaning of religion and church are these mountain churches that you see at national parks and ski areas. They have meetings at certains times, and you can take a hike along a trail or ride a lift chair up a little ways and you end up at a clearing with nothing but a few benches gathered around. There, people can sit and talk to each other. There's no physical construct, there's no society, anyone can stop in and see what's up. I think that is an accurate representation of the church and religion, not these mega churches.

Re:No Joke

[Khuffie]

And how is that limited to religion? Look at the United States; they regularly attempt to impose their views of how a government should be run, sometimes going as far as invading them or replacing their leaders. You don't like dictatorship or communism? Don't practise them! Don't tell other people how to live!

See how the same argument can go for things other than religion?

"You guys probably killed more people than Hitler?" Wait, and you're calling the parent irrational? Wow.

Re:No Joke

[jrob323]

Well, I think the fact that particular quote has been repeated so often by so many people (who weren't/aren't necessarily Marxists) indicates the sentiment may indeed be commonly accepted wisdom, and your attempt to shrug it off by alluding to the failure of dictatorial communism may have been unfair. Why would most people have to be Marxists for the quote to be reasonable? Maybe like me, they just think it was an astute observation, no matter who said it. As you pointed out, most people probably don't even KNOW who said it. I'm not a Marxist and I'm not a Mormon/Christian/Muslim/Wiccan.. I think that makes me reasonably unbiased. And hey.. I know no self respecting Mormon would ever try to push his beliefs on anyone else! :) And why do you think you know anything about my knowledge of the 'teachings' of Joseph Smith? Because I'm not a Mormon? What do you know about him, or his writings, that I don't know?

Re:No Joke

[StocDred]

There's no coercion to ANY aspect of my faith

Answer the question. In order to remain in the club, are you required to purchase and wear special underwear? Can you safely ignore the special underwear if you choose to, and still remain in good standing? And I don't mean that you opt not to wear the special underwear in secret, I mean that you are forthright in your decision not to wear the special underwear and everyone in the church knows it and is okay with it.

Because if your answer is "Yes, I must buy and wear special underwear," then that is coercion, bunky. Does the church rake in a small profit on all that special underwear sold?

And if your answer is "No," do you allow that in some churches, these things are not optional, and that coercion - however gentle - does occur? Maybe your church is more "progressive."

If your religion requires you to do anything so that you get all the benefits of club attendance, no matter how small, it is coercion to some degree. Does your church expect you to show up every worship-day? Do some parishioners cluck their tongues when it comes to light that Husband X never seems to show up? Are you absolutely required to send your sons on a two year mission? Are you expected to talk to non-church members about your church and ask them to "try us out, maybe we have the answer you're looking for"? You have to pay the dues or you don't get to call yourself a member, that's how all social clubs work, am I right?

Yes, you may be entirely happy with your religion and you fully accept the standards and practices. But don't pretend to yourself or others that it isn't coercion. Heck, the very promise of Heaven or Valhalla or Exclusive Afterlife Planets is the ultimate blackmail... follow our rules or you don't get to go to the special afterlife world.

Just because you don't feel coerced doesn't mean that you're not.

That the sacred beliefs or practices of another religion are an object of ridicule to you demonstrates more about your own lack of maturity than anything about the religion your attempting to denigrate.

Believe me, dude, you do not want to open up a discussion of the golden tablets, the third testament, or of Jesus appearing in the American West around here. You're deflecting the point, that being that the folks behind your belief system expect and require certain things of you. And if you don't do them, you risk your membership. And is that not, to some degree, coercion. That is what I asked you to comment on, not rant off into a diatribe about how I don't respect your sacred undies. I do not consider your comments constructive in this discussion.

Answer the question and maybe we can continue this dialogue. Although to be honest, I've already pretty much got you written off as yet another hyper-sensitive religious nutjob clinging to a ludicrous belief system in hopes of getting a private planet after you die.

Re:No Joke

[Natdog]

When Marx made that statement, he was refering to Religion as a tool used by the bourgeois to keep the proletarians blind to serious issues of the day. This is the *entire* quote:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

What does this have to do with gaming addiction?

Re:No Joke

[Chosen Reject]

You guys probably killed more people then Hitler.

People doing things in the name of religion have probably also killed more people than you have. What is your point? Your grasp of logic is seriously lacking. For the bulk of the last at least 6,000 years mankind has been religious, or at least professed to be so. Many of those religions are very different, some even going so far as to say they are the only worthy ones to be alive. But whether they were actually religious or using religion as a motivator, and whether they were doing what they honestly thought their god(s) wanted them to do or were making it up, is a moot point. That's the history of mankind and you are comparing it to a single person who, while he did have a lot of people killed, was still only around for less than 60 years.

And while we're at it, let's make it a broad attack. I am sure there is no one that is opposed to abortion who is also not religious. Certainly no person can make up their own mind on their own set of ethics and decide they disagree with abortion.

Amazingly enough, a lot of people want others to live in a certain way. For example, you wanting us to live in a free society are forcing a free society upon others. Maybe they don't want to live in that society. "How could you, you jerk," they might say. Or some who would be so extreme as to say "Why ban murder? The animal kingdom doesn't disallow it." Or as a less extreme example, look at all the rules for the businesses. Not everyone would agree, and yet we are being forced to live that way for what I would think are not religious based reasons.

And about fairy tales. Besides that being inflammatory and sensationalistic, talk to some philosophers sometime. Some philosophies through the ages argue that we exist only in our minds. They would say, in all seriousness, that you don't exist. I just made you up. /. doesn't exist and neither does this post. I am only making it up. If that is the case, and you don't like religious "fairy tales", then why did you make them up? Just cease to think of them and they will no longer exist. Some people believe this. You probably don't. They would say you believe in a fairy tale world of things that actually exist.

Oh, but logic doesn't suit your purpose here, which is to be sensational and inflammatory. By all means, continue to support the ignorance of the populace. Go watch the news. That's also sensational and inflammatory, reducuing complex ideas into sound bite drivel. You'd fit right in.

Re:No Joke

[Politburo]

Not really much for literary criticism, are you? Sure one conventional meaning is to die...But I think that the alternative reading is just as strong.

Why is the literal reading not proper, besides the reason that you don't agree with it? Why does it seem like everything in the Bible has double or triple meaning? Was the vocabulary that much smaller 2,000 years ago? Or even 400 years ago when the KJV was written?

This time, leave out the ad hominems. Thanks.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

"Don't piss into the wind" is commonly-accepted wisdom. You say it to state the obvious -something that practically everyone knows.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" is a commonly-accpeted wisdom in the same sense. Whether or not it's held by a majority is debatable (and the quote itself is debatble - I'm not dismissing it out of hand, just dismissing out of hand that it is common wisdom). I don't think you'd get a debate about whether or not "don't piss into the wind" is really good advise or not.

Please understand distinctions. I'm not saying whether or not the quote itself is reasonable. That's one issue. I'm stating that taking the quote for granted is not reasonable. That's a seperate issue.

Why do I know more about Joseph Smith than you? Well, there's a chance I don't. But chances are I do because I know more about Joseph Smith than most people. My father has written a couple of books (published by Oxford University press) about early Church history that include a lot about him. He's written numerous speeches, essays and articles. I do early proofreading on all this work. My grandfather also wrote books about early Mormon history before he passed away. On top of this, I've also done some study on my own. It's something that matters a lot to me, and I've done considerable reading on the topic. Most people don't actively study Joseph Smith. Therefore I know more than most people.

It's not like I'm claiming to be a genius or something. There's nothing special about my position - I've just read up on it. That's it. People tend to know about what they study. I'm an amatuer student of Mormon history. Runs in my family. If you are too, or if you are professional historian, than you know as much or more than me. But chances are you're not.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[MvD_Moscow]

Who said I liked the USA foreign policy? I don't want the USA to impose their version of democracy on other nations. On the contrary it makes me sick to see all this talk about democracy in Iraq, while at the same time the USA ignores the totalitarian regime in Turkmenistan because the local nutcase allows USA oil companies into the country. Just because, the USA's foreign policy is bad, doesn't mean its ok for religion to do the same.

"You guys probably killed more people than Hitler?" Wait, and you're calling the parent irrational? Wow.

Umm considering the amount of deaths due to religion (I am sure I don't have to list every damn case - crusades, inquisition, killing of non-believers), I wouldn't be surprised if religion killed more people than Hitler. Or is it ok to ignore the deaths of all these people just because God (TM) is involved? Utter hypocrisy if you ask me....

Re:No Joke

[Khuffie]

Well, you were the one condemning religion for those things, when the United States, not a religious institution, does the same. It's strange that you can't see the obvious fact that these things you are condemning and blaming religion for are not caused by religion, but caused by humans, regardless of their beliefs.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

I really should learn better than to respond to people who consider me "another hyper-sensitive religious nutjob clinging to a ludicrous belief system in hopes of getting a private planet after you die". But alas, I'm a slow learner in some aspects.

I guess we need to talk about the word coercion now. If you join the National Honor Society you promise not to cheat on tests. Do you consider that coercive? If you cheat - you can't be a member. According to your definition - they're coercive. According to your definition EVERY organization that has ANY RULES WHATSOEVER is coercive. Either follow the rules, or leave the club. "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Did you see him repressing me!?!"

If that's your definition, then fine. The National Honor Society is coercive and so is the Mormon church. Along with every other institution that has any rules regarding membership whatsoever. What a useful new definition of "coercion" you've discoverd, your highness.

But I don't find that to be a useful definition of coercion, because nobody is making me join the club in the first place. There's no penalty for not obeying, except not being in the club. (Not that they actually check this rule or anything). Or maybe you believe the Danites will come and get me in the night if I leave the Church and reveal the secret rituals we perform on virgins, goats, and chickens.

Are you saying that in order for a club to be non-coercive it has to allow members to be members no matter what they do? So if I want to be a member of a sky-diving club, but I've never sky-dived and have no intention of doing so, they must let me be a member anyway or they are coercive? Or if I want to join a breast-cancer survivor group, but I've never had breast cancer, they're coercing me by not letting me join? Coercing me to what, exactly? Get breast cancer? I hope you can see why your construal of "coercion" is far outside the mainstream and while it may have some technical claim to being "right" is really utterly useless and irrelevant in real life.

You act as though I should some how tremble in the face of impending scorn regarding "golden tablets, the third testament, or of Jesus appearing in the American West". Why? Because you think they are ridiculous claims? So what? Because others here probably think they are ridiculous? This should intimidate me why?

The fact is that the use of metal alloy tablets, including gold, to record important historic and genealogical information was unheard of in the time of Joseph Smith. Yet now we have ample evidence of this practice in ancient cultures: Try the "Plates outside the Latter-day Saint tradition" section of the wikipedia entry under "Golden Plates"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Plates#Plates_ outside_the_Latter_Day_Saint_tradition

Ooops, I'm supposed to be feelig embarassed and intimidated by your superior knowledge. I'm just a lowly, grovelling sheep, after all, not a big, independent free-thinker like yourself. I feel nervous just posting with you!

The third testemant is ridiculous? Why? Because you say so? The Bible itself references literally dozens of prophetic writings that we no longer have any record of. In addition we have dozens of new records recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls, not to mention the Nag-Hamadi texts. Do you want a list of other aprocyphal books that we DO have outside the Bible? I just googled "lost books bible" or something like that. Here's a list:

Pseudepigraphal Books
Epistle of Barnabas
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Book of Enoch
Gospel of Thomas (140-170 AD)
The Psalms of Solo

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

This time, leave out the ad hominems.

Oooh... now we're serious! We've started the meta-argument about who's using more logical fallacies in the argument proper!

Look it wasn't just an ad hominem attack. The fact is that if you had any knowledge of literary criticism whatsoever you'd never say antyhing like this:

Why does it seem like everything in the Bible has double or triple meaning? Was the vocabulary that much smaller 2,000 years ago?

The fact is that some parts of the Bible are OBVIOUSLY not intended to be literal. Take the story of Job. 7 sons killed. Then at the end he gets 14 back? Everything he loses, he gets 2 of back. You think we're supposed to read that on a literal level? Give me break, it's INTENDED to have deeper meaning.

Or take practically EVERYTHING Christ said in the New Testament. I mean, dude, have you READ it? Does the word "parable" mean anything to you?

None of this proves conclusively that the exact quote in question should be read my way or your way. But it does demonstrate two things.

1 - Non-literal meaning in the Bible is both crucial and intentional.
2 - You're not very familiar with the Bible.

This support is bolstered by things like 4000 yaers ago when the KJV was written. The KJV was translated, not written, and only about 400 or 500 years ago. They have no evidence for any of the New Testament stuff being within a couple of deacdes of the actual time of Christ, and even if it was that old it would be 2, not 4 thousand years old. The Bible wasn't even compiled until 400 or 500 years after Christ. The word itself means "books", and it just a collection of what the political powers in the Church wanted included at the time. It was never written as a unified book. It's just a collection of texts that they liked, they threw out and tried to burn the copies tha they didn't - and the voting was very contentious on what got left in.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, and I realize that the whole KJV 4000 year old thing was probably just a slip up and that you already know some - or most - of what I'm telling you now.

But dude, and I mean this sincerely, you're in a little over your head. I'm not a professional scholar. I'm an amateur. I read articles in professional theological and historical journals, but it's not like I've ever written one. So I'm no expert either. BUt really, there's just a basic level of awareness you need to have about the bible in order for this discussion between us to really be fruitful.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[leland242]

As an athiest, I'm fascinated by those who belive in any one of the more popular gods today. It is a complete mystery to me how someone (who is otherwise intelligent) walks around believing in (what I equate to) fairytales.

I was raised catholic - catholic school, church every week - hell, I was an alterboy!

When you embrace a world without god, sin, and a fear of hell, it is quite liberating. I don't believe there is a meaning to life other than to experience things and share in that experience with others. Sometimes that experience is virtual.

Playing video games isn't good or bad, it's just something to do. Saying that someone would be better off spending the time on a "hobby" is assuming that the hobby is somehow better than a game.

This is 2005. Most folks have a lot of freakin time on thier hands! I don't need to farm or hunt for my next meal. I go to work for 8 or 9 hours, come home, and blammo - free time for 5 or 6 hours!!!

Re:No Joke

[MvD_Moscow]

So what do you think is more likely? That you're smarter than every religious scholar and philosopher for the past 4,000+ years, or that there are actually very defensible positions on both sides of the fence - and you're just not succeeding in understanding any of the points that don't support your conclusion?

I don't know about being smarter, but I do know that its literally impossible to prove to a believer that god doesn't exist. This mostly stems from the fact that belief mostly uses faith as a way of knowing. How can you prove something, when someone says "it is so, because I believe it!" Seriously, if something has no relation to reality, how are we supposed to argue against it? For example, if god appeared in front of me and gave me a tour of heaven (hell, even if would be able to talk to god on shrooms), I would admit that he exists (though I wouldn't join him, I'd go tell hell and start a rebellion against anti-god and god). Is there any way that I can convince a believer like you that god is just a bunch of fairy tales? I don't think so. Lets say we uncovered all the gaps in the the fossil record, and ran a full-scale simulation of conditions in pre-biotic life and recorded the movement from chemicals-->organic. Lets add more proof for the infinite age of the universe (as much as it is possible to explain such proof), would that be enough for you to agree that god doesn't exist? Arguing with faith is impossible beacuse it doesn't really relate to reality. Furthermore, the 4K arguement sucks, for most of those 4K vast majority of people though homosexuality was wrong, that doesn't make it wrong. Plus, the dudes from most of those 4K years didn't have the knowledge we have.

but that's a mark against the people who excommunicated him, not against religion in general.

I wonder why is does this sort of thing happen so often with religion, I wonder if there is some sort of correlation - or is every time it's the people involved who are at fault. This happens way too often for it to be a simple coincidence.

So if you want to say that religion limits freedom, you're going to have to do the research,

Lets just forget about mormonism, did you that combined mainstream christians and muslims make up more that half of the world population? The fact that such a huge proportion of believers support religions that aim to limit our freedoms already portarys religion in a bad light. Regarding mormonism itself, I wouldn't call that very liberal. While mormonism isn't as bad as some other, I wouldn't go as far as saying that mormonism is associated with liberalism. I am sure a lot of peer pressure and manipulation goes in mormon dominated areas. Why do you bother people? They can decide for themselves what they want to believe. Would you allow your children to become atheists? And I don't see mormons campaigning for things like freedoms for homosexuals, the right to smoke pot and do shrooms. I'll give you credit that you guys sorted out your issues with polygamy and afro-americans, though you must remember that mormonism isn't really representative of religion as a whole. For instance, if most of the religious world would be budhist or taoist, I would have no issues with religion. What bother me is when religious nutcases start telling me how to live and what I can or can't do. That's not for them to decide. :)

"you don't like abortion? don't practice it!" Response: "You don't like slavery, don't practice it!"

Two different things, by no stretch of imagination could you consider slavery a civil liberty. Slavery is wrong, period. You cannot have a rational debate for slavery. It's a woman's decision if she wants to abort or not and stupid religious teachings should not limit that liberty. It's her body, if you don't believe in a soul, you are not doing anything bad by terminating a bunch of cells. you don't go saving every sperm cell, do you? This is such a bad comparison. Abortion is personal choice. Slavery is not as it involves

Re:No Joke

[snuf23]

You're right. I play WoW about as much as most of the people I work with watch TV. But I don't watch TV. So is this bad because I can't comment on the lunch room discussion about Lost or the OC or Desperate Housewives?
I also spend at least an hour a day reading. I carry a book with me whereever I go. I even read when I make poopies. Am I addicted to reading? Is this a bad thing?

Re:No Joke

[StocDred]

You still haven't answered my question as to whether your church requests you to wear special underwear.

Re:No Joke

[Schemat1c]

Seriously- why is slashdot so anti-religion/God?

Simple, because there are many intelligent people here who are able to see beyond the lie that is religion.

Re:No Joke

[Politburo]

Oooh... now we're serious! We've started the meta-argument about who's using more logical fallacies in the argument proper!

No, it was really just a fancy way of saying "stop being a dick".

I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, and I realize that the whole KJV 4000 year old thing was probably just a slip up

You are most certainly trying to be a jerk because I clearly said 400 years in my post. You added the extra zero in your mind, and translation is a form of writing.. unless there's a one-to-one translation book out there that I've somehow missed.

The fact is that some parts of the Bible are OBVIOUSLY not intended to be literal.

Right. I have no problem with that.. you kind of mis-construed my 'everything' comment, but that's completely understandable, as it was an exaggeration. Parables are 'double meaning' on a grand scale. The problems I have with double meaning are when you get down to individual words and phrases, like the issue in my original post. There's a point where 'non-literal' becomes 'inventing something that wasn't there'.

You conveniently ignored the main question of my post: Why is the literal reading of that phrase not proper, besides the reason that you don't agree with it?

Re:No Joke

[MvD_Moscow]

But whether they were actually religious or using religion as a motivator, and whether they were doing what they honestly thought their god(s) wanted them to do or were making it up, is a moot point.

Then why is so common for people to exploit religion? Doesn't that bother you? Haven't you considered that perhaps we don't need religion anymore? Think of it as a security hole, we need to patch it ASAP to not allow people to exploit it and harm other people. Of course, this works only if we agree that all the deaths due to religion had nothing to do with true belief and that some dudes where just using religion. Like you said, this is a very moot point. :)

I am sure there is no one that is opposed to abortion who is also not religious.

Please... one person doesn't characterize a whole movement. How come the vast majority of people who oppose abortion are religious? You can't say that there is no correlation....

For example, you wanting us to live in a free society are forcing a free society upon others.

I am not forcing anything on anyone. I just want religious nuts to stop interfering with people's civil liberties. I don't mind if say christian won't practice abortion. That's fine by me, they can do themselves whatever they like, what they shouldn't be doing is telling other people whats good or bad. That's not for them to decide. Killing limits someone's civil liberty, they might want to live. For those who don't, we have euthanasia. It's a simple as that, moral relativism. Do what you want as long as you don't hurt someone or limit their liberties and don't harm the fabric of our society (this includes the environment).

And about fairy tales. Besides that being inflammatory and sensationalistic

Prove that crap in the bible really happened. Especially the bit about creating the world in seven days. I am sorry if like calling things their proper names and I don't make exceptions for organizations in one way or another involved in mass murder and a whole range of discrimination. If you like the word fiction more, I could use that.

Some people believe this. You probably don't. They would say you believe in a fairy tale world of things that actually exist.

Thats fine by me, as long as they don't stick their noses where they don't belong. :) This is a very bad way to counter my arguments. Just because some people argue that nothing exists, doesn't mean that counters my argument. In order to have a proper argument we have to be on the same plane. See my point?

Oh, but logic doesn't suit your purpose here, which is to be sensational and inflammatory. By all means, continue to support the ignorance of the populace. Go watch the news. That's also sensational and inflammatory, reducing complex ideas into sound bite drivel. You'd fit right in.

Ad hominem Alert! What ignorance of the populace? What populace? Since when did Atheism go mainstream? As far as I know most people are still religious and if anything the media supports religion (not a very large market for atheists and they don't watch mainstream TV anyway).

Re:No Joke

[Art Tatum]

One of the central thrusts of the Protestant Reformation was a return to a spiritual church run by God himself, rather than a physical church run by an organization of men. So yes, there have been (and still are) churches that see themselves as an amalgam of people sharing in a spiritual reality, rather than a hierarchical power-driven organization. You just don't hear much about them.

Re:No Joke

[MvD_Moscow]

That's debatable. Bush is religious? Isn't he? The point is religion and some the crap it uses to justify itself (bible etc) has a lot of stuff that creates problems in the world (Catholic views on contraception?). So why don't we try and get rid of these problems? You can't just say that religion and all the horror commited by its memembers aren't related. Perhaps, religion is easy to exploit (without even having to twist it significantly)? Are you saying things like limiting of homosexual's liberties, abortion isn't caused by religion.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

Thanks for providing this fun diversion from work, by the way. I've debated these issues so often that I really feel almost a kind of nostalgia when I get into one again. Reminds me of high school.

I don't know about being smarter, but I do know that its literally impossible to prove to a believer that god doesn't exist.

Short reponse: it's really hard to prove the non-existence of anything. And we're not really trying to "prove" whether or not God exists. Just whether or not there are rational reasons to believe so.

Long response: You're playing with fire here, but you don't seem to realize it. In your haste to show various reasons why even if God Himself came down and gave a tour of Heaven and Hell could still be susceptible to doubt, you opened yourself up to a bigger chasm then you meant to. What you're really talking about here is not proving God doesn't exist (proving non-existence of anything is difficult, by the way) we're talking about pretty fundamental issues of ontology itself. You're headed straight for solipsism. I don't know how familiar you are with Descartes, but he was the one that first pointed out that hey - we can doubt anything. We can't trust our senses 100%, so we can't be certain about ANYTHING. Then he said, but wait "I think, therefore I am", and he used that as his starting poing to get back to some certainty. Trouble is most people agree with what he said about doubt, and disagreed with what he said about getting back to certainty. It would take a bit more to get where I'm going with all the logic behind it but the conclusion is relatively simple: science is based on faith just as much as religion IF you define faith as "believing the most rational thing in the absence of certainty". I don't expect you to believe it's true, but you should at least realize that I believe in a rational definition of faith, and I reject "blind faith" as a religious principle entirely.

This happens way too often for it to be a simple coincidence. This in reference to Pelagius (and others) getting excommunicated, burned, etc. by the stake. I agree it's not coincidence, but you have to be historically smart about how you apply the precedent. Religion today is not the same as religion throughout most of history. During the middle ages you coudn't seperate church and state and political power as you can today, and so that actions of the Church at that time aren't necessarily applicable to the behavior of religion in general now. But I agree whole-heartedly that it's not a coincidence. Part of Mormon belief is in an apostasy - that after Christ set up a church it was corrupted from within and turned into the monstrosity that was Catholicism for much of its history.

abortion v. slavery

Two different things, by no stretch of imagination could you consider slavery a civil liberty.

On the contrary, not only could you, but many people did. The entire basis for American civil freedom and liberty rests on private property rights, and slaves were considered property.

In hindsight it seems horrible to us, but only because we now realize that blacks are just as human as whites. That's the real question: who gets human rights? If I believe that an unborn child is a human then I can just as readily reply that it's ridiculous to say that any one has a "civil liberty" to kill that human being. There's no such thing as a civil liberty for one private citizen to kill another private citizen. Except in self-defense, meaning abortion for the life or health of the mother is a fundamental right. But between 90 and 95% of abortions in America are "purely elective" aka birth control. I have every bit as much right to fight against birth control and a "woman's right to choose" (unless the woman is the unborn child in question, of course) as did abolitionists, who in the eyes of their enemies were restricting the private property rights of slave-owners.

One day future generations will, I believe, look at abortion in our society

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

That's because it's not a question. I said that in the first para of my first response.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[|/|/|||]

No, it's not just about seeing past the lie. It's also about seeing the harm caused by the lie. If the majority of people on the planet were living a harmless lie that would be one thing, but the fact that their unsubstantiated assumptions cause them to make irrational decisions that affect my life really pisses me off. Oh, to live in a world where everyone had to justify their opinions before forcing them on others.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

You conveniently ignored the main question of my post: Why is the literal reading of that phrase not proper, besides the reason that you don't agree with it?

Well, yes, I suppose I did. I will now address it directly.

1. I don't think the literal meaning is "not proper".

1a. I'm not sure that "give up your life" is literarily equivalent to die without exception. The only literal word for "die" is "die". I think ONE meaning of the phrase is that whoever gives up their life, in the sense of dying, for Christ will be saved.

1b. There are other, equally literal, understandings. What is a "life" if not what we do, think and say every day? If someone gives up their life, the things that they have done and said every day, in order to become a disciple of Christ this would be just as accurate a literal reading. I feel both meanings are intended.

2. In general, complex thoughts and arguments require either a lot of wordage, or very, very clever wordage. I feel that the New Testament especially takes the latter approach. The idea is that the teaching should be immediately obvious in a rough, primitive sense, but that the ideals behind the obvious meaning are more important. Take the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain (give or take). Do you think that that statement is literally all the rule implies?

Of course not. The point is, among other things, to engender a sense of reverence and respect for the name of God, an thus for God himself.

The Bible tell the story of a fairly crude and primitive moral system, starting a binary decision: eat the fruit or don't (adam and eve). From there we move up to sacrifice (do it the right way, not the wrong way - Cain and Abel). Then comes the Law of Moses, an intricate system of washings, annointings, sacrifices, etc. that all point towards higher meaning. Then along comes Christ to literally enact what the law of moses had been teaching - atonement (at-one-ment) and coming to be with God.

So there's this giant context the Bible presents us with, and you need to read every verse within the greater context. Not because the BIble is a uniform text, but because chronolgically it outlines a progression from primite to complex.

That's another major reason why I feel it is a mistake to take one verse out of context, say what it literally means, and then be all belliegerant about "what, what more could it possibly mean?"

Take one of the most enigmatic and meaningful verses of the entire New Testament - and also the shortest in the Bible:

"Jesus wept".

God cried. End of literal meaning. At this point, judging by what you've siad so far, we could just move away. But the context is essential and even though I don't claim to know all the meaning behind it, I know there IS meaning behind it. Just as there is meaning waiting in almost everything we do or experience in life.

Do you feel that I've satisfactorily responded to your main question?

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[halltk1983]

This thread had been very fulfilling and insightful on both sides. I am also a Mormon, and all I can say is research != belief, so please research something before generalizing it. And I think stormin has done a good job of saying this

Re:No Joke

[jrob323]

we're not really trying to "prove" whether or not God exists. Just whether or not there are rational reasons to believe so

You're playing with fire here, but you don't seem to realize it. In your haste to show various reasons why even if God Himself came down and gave a tour of Heaven and Hell could still be susceptible to doubt, you opened yourself up to a bigger chasm then you meant to. What you're really talking about here is not proving God doesn't exist (proving non-existence of anything is difficult, by the way) we're talking about pretty fundamental issues of ontology itself

So if someone told you God had given him a personal tour of heaven and hell, what would your initial impression be? 1. Wow, if I doubt what he's saying, I'm flirting with the fundamental issues of ontology itself! All assertions are equally as likely! or 2. This person is probably either lying or suffering from psychosis.

During the middle ages you coudn't seperate church and state and political power as you can today, and so that actions of the Church at that time aren't necessarily applicable to the behavior of religion in general now

That may be true for most western countries.. but even in the west (and particularly in the U.S.) it's a constant struggle to keep government and religion separate.

But again, one religion differs from another as one political theory does from another.

That's because religion is just a superstitious wrapper for politics. Slavery's ok, now it's not. Abortion's ok, then it's not, now it is again. Murder's ok, sometimes, but usually.. not. It's just people trying to find the best way to live together and be happy, or at least avoid misery. Couching these issues in bizarre belief systems just seems inefficient to me.. abortion certainly seems wrong to me, and I'm not religious.

My objective is not so much to convince you that you're wrong as to show you what you're not thinking about.

That's just condescending.

Re:No Joke

[japhmi]

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 know, back when I was working on an MA in Theology, I wouldn't even say that I as "occupied with the theology constantly." That was when I was spending several hours a day reading, listening to lectures, writing papers etc.

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.

Yes, but it doesn't follow that just because someone thinks about God in everyday life is 'obsessed' or 'addicted' to his/her religion

Re:No Joke

[Khuffie]

Ya, Bush is religious, but his justifications for going to war had nothing to do with religion. Neither did congress, who approved going to war. You can't even argue the fact that this current war on Iraq was caused by religion.

People tend to use any crap to justify their actions, it is not necessarily down to religion. There are some religious people who want to limit homosexual liberties and abortion, at the same time, there are non-religious people who want to do the same. Also, there are non-religious people who want to improve homosexual liberties and so on, and at the same time, you'll find religious people wanting to do the same. To summarize: Things go both ways. The problems we face and have faced over the years come from people, regardless of their religious status. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

My objective is not so much to convince you that you're wrong as to show you what you're not thinking about.

That's just condescending.

I really don't think that that's condescending (and it certainly wasn't written in that spirit). I don't expect everybody to think about religion all the time, but I've spent a lot of time doing it. I mean, I was a missionary for 2 years, I was a philosophy major for a while, and I enjoy arguing religion with my best friend (Muslim) and pretty much anyone else that I can (it's only fun when it's friendly, of course). So I'm not trying to imply that I know more than you do, just that I may have vantage points you don't. Don't take it any other way. If we were talking open source and that was a passion of yours than even though I know a little bit about it I would certainly expect you to be able to provide stuff that I hadn't thought about.

So if someone told you God had given him a personal tour of heaven and hell, what would your initial impression be? 1. Wow, if I doubt what he's saying, I'm flirting with the fundamental issues of ontology itself! All assertions are equally as likely! or 2. This person is probably either lying or suffering from psychosis

There's a big difference between a hypothetical "what if I got a tour of heaven - how would I know I wasn't tripping" and a hypothetical "what if some dude walked up to me on the street and said he'd had a trip to heaven and hell". Trivial examples are indispensible to any involved philosophical discussion, it's disingenuous to then act as though the trivial examples are something more.

That's because religion is just a superstitious wrapper for politics.

That's the kind of oversimplifcation that results in a loss of really important distinctions. Politics is concerned with issues like "how should we distribute wealth", "should we distribute wealth", "how should determine the rules we live by". Some of the concerns, like the last one especially, overlap with religion.

But religion also has somme of its own questions that don't really concern politics. Questions like "why are we here on earth", "is there a point to life", that kind of thing. A lot of overlap with philosophy, perhaps, but certainly not with politics.

Also, I don't think that religions are nearly as wanton and artificial in their rules as you seem to think. Most religions have deep and implicit convictions about our obligations to one another and to God that come out in their rules. As an example, the rules about animal sacrifice in the Old Testament foreshadowed the atonement of Christ and reflected priciples about man's relationship to God and worth to him.

Of course if you hop to the end (of the logic, not of the book) and read a bit about cutting an animal in half and walking down the middle it sounds crazy and random. But that's a result of you skipping the beginning, not a reflection of any inherent arbitrariness in the code.

That may be true for most western countries.. but even in the west (and particularly in the U.S.) it's a constant struggle to keep government and religion separate.

I don't even wanto open the whole seperation of church and state can of worms here, but you really can't compare a president who mentions God in his speeches, to, oh, I don't know the Holy Roman Empire. When the Pope (or the Mormon prophet) gets instated as commander in chief of the armed forces and the clergy takes over zoning laws and public utilities we're in the same ball park as religion's place in human life. Not saying we're in the perfect position now, but it's not even close to how things were historically.

-stormin

Re:No Joke

[Macgrrl]

I'm not sure that Slashdot is the right forum for intelligent theological or philiosphical discussion. The said, I personally believe that 'God' is non-interventionalist, and it doesn't matter how much you pray - they (he/she/it) are not going to step in and change anything for you. They may have wound up the toy and set it spinning, but they now only watch it for their own edification/amusement, not to maintain it. Think of it like a science project with a really long runtime.

Re:No Joke

[calzones]

amen

Re:No Joke

[sydneyfong]

> No one MADE me go on a mission, no one MAKES me go to church every Sunday, and no one MAKES me believe what I believe.

Hmm... this?

> But when you consider other religions, you should always consider them at their best - at what the believers aspire to be. No one lives up to all their own ideals, that doens't mean that no one is trying.

It doesn't mean that everybody is trying like you. I believe the GP was not addressing people like you. I'm sure you have come across people which falls under what the GP's ranted against, and I don't think there are just a few of those people hanging out there. And that's what he is concerned about.

When you consider other religions, you dont just consider their best, you consider how they've been really doing, and also their potential to do bad. Just like how you consider other things, may it be countries, nations, governments, organizations, companies, communities, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the mere fact that you're one of the "exceptions" does not negate the fact that there are many many people who are not as enlightened as you are. And even if those people are not the vast majority, the fact that there is a substantial number is something to be concerned about.

Re:No Joke

[theStorminMormon]

Hmm... this?

Hahahaha, nice one.

I believe the GP was not addressing people like you. I'm sure you have come across people which falls under what the GP's ranted against, and I don't think there are just a few of those people hanging out there.

I appreciate the sentiment. And there definately are people that fit the profile of the rant. But I didn't feel that the GP was making that distinction. That's really all I was trying to do. I don't think all religions are great. I maen, that's just a retarded statement. Even the most cursorary look at history shows that's not true. But I just wanted to stand up for those religions, and those religious people, that don't fit the profile.

When you consider other religions, you dont just consider their best, you consider how they've been really doing, and also their potential to do bad.

This may be an academic distinction, but I think what you're describing is sociology, not theology. When you study a religion, you really should study it in terms of the religion, not the followers. I'm not saying you shouldn't ever look at what the followers are doing, but when you do that you're not studying the religion anymore, you're studying the followers.

Heh - maybe that's just nitpicking.

-stormin

Duh?

[bassgoonist]

I really needed an expensive study to know that gaming can be as addictive as drugs...

Pish posh.

[Mr Maggoo]

I do agree that gaming is addictive. However, I would not for a second compare it to that of a drug addiction. Gaming hasn't done anything to my social or school life, im still getting as high as marks as im expected, and I have even more friends since I've started playing certain games. I have been gaming pretty much all my life and I aint gonna stop now.

So what's next?

[agapits]

Are they going to build rehab centers for game addicts where patients can only play super mario brothers or galaxia?

Umm...

[Vladimus]

But honestly I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

It just did. I'm broke, and my buddy pre-ordered.

Re:Umm...

[arakon]

You gave out blowjobs and the ass-secks (or some other morally reprehensible behavoir) so you could get an Xbox360? Okay I stand corrected. Gaming addiction "IS" obviously a serious problem.

lol

Re:Umm...

[jazir1979]

morally reprehensible? ok ok we shouldn't even go here, but get off your high moral horse.

Re:Umm...

[arakon]

its a joke. perhaps you should read the context of the article. Its basically trying to list gaming in with the likes of drug addiction and the lot, which goes the "Save the Children" people find abhorent. No moral high horse here, but I guess I can't rely on the intelligence of the slashdot reader to pick up on sarcasm without the use of the infamous "" tag.

Re:Umm...

[jazir1979]

Well, yeah, you know .. I can't hear your tone of voice over the internet, so some kind of marker is usually required to pick up sarcasm.

Sorry for not having the kind of telepathic intelligence you expect from slashdot readers.

We even have overdoses!

[mister_llah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4137782.stm ... like this poor guy!

Must get my fix

[squoozer]

I'm not addicted I just have to play for 8 hours a day. I'm not addicted I tell you. Damn it - you don't understand. The voices in my head tell me to do it. You'll have to pry the game from my cold dead fingers.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Schemat1c]

And also with Love

Gateway drug?

[daniel422]

And this article doesn't even go near the gateway aspect of videogames. Why I never started drinking and smoking dope until I started playin'. Now it's all been downhill. After that last all-night coke binge playing Sonic the Hedgehog I figured enough was enough...it was time to turn my life around. And it all started with a few mushrooms and a crazy guy called Mario....

Re:Gateway drug?

[Hillgiant]

Apropos: Sonic, Mario, addiction http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/08/28

Nerds to start beating people up for latest FIX?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

So what nerds will start to go around robbing and beating people up just to get their latest fix! Apart from beating up some spotty kid behind the the till at the local kmart/dixons/pcworld etc I don't see most nerds being that succesfull with the beating part! Mind you if your talking about game fixes then beating up the local kmart loser is probably all that is required to get the fix ;-)) As for the robbing well that's those who visit .ru websites !

This Sure Seems To Be Ruffling Some Feathers Here

[MCTFB]

In the past, just like pretty much most guys involved in the computer related professions have done our fair share of gaming over the years and it is pretty much part of the culture. In fact, it is hard to socialize with fellow programmers unless you have some street credibility in Doom, Starcraft, etc. With computer use becoming as ubiquitous among the younger generation as it has always been with the "geek profession" crowd, I think that gaming addictions will continue to be a bigger and bigger problem in society.

I myself used to play an insane amount of Starcraft and Warcraft III. Do I regret all the time I spent playing those games? Sometimes yes, but hey those were fun games isn't life about having a good time so long as it is not at the expense of someone else? Then again, I am sure doing crack cocaine is fun the first few times for those who have tried it (just speculating since I have never done crack cocaine personally). Just like with any other addictable drug, gaming can consume your life and nothing else in life seems fun anymore. Before you know it you are depressed and the only thing you look forward to is gaming, but those darn dopamine receptors just won't get fired up like they used to due to the LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS: The greater the thrill, the harder and edgier the thrill will have to be the next time around to seem as exciting.

Now, I love playing sports, especially soccer, but you can only run around having fun kicking a ball so long before you physically get tired and the pain of sore legs outweighs the pleasure you have dribbling and passing the ball down the field and your brain tells you to stop. Unfortunately, with computer gaming the only thing telling you to stop is a parent, spouse, or your heart as it gives out playing your choice MMORPG several days straight nonstop.

But what if "gaming addiction" becomes a big enough problem to society that it causes other social problems just like many illegal drugs do when people get hooked on them. Just look at online Poker which was once a simple card game, and now has been bastardized into an internet phenomenon of largely anonymous competition. People play Poker not because they think they will get rich, but because people are addicted to the thrill of besting their neighbor. Simply put, competitive people like myself are addicted to competition and that can manifest itself in both positive and negative ways (I don't gamble BTW, because I feel gambling is a stupidity tax and I don't like being taxed in the first place).

So what should be done about gaming addiction, especially since it is not easy to just throw out your computer and function in the modern world? I know plenty of people who have thrown out their TV, but the computer? Seriously, get real. One idea is something that worked reasonably well with the arcade games when they were popular when you didn't have the Playstation 2 or the XBOX is a pay per play system. As you play more and more, the quarters you pop into the machine start to become painful after a while as you notice your wallet getting thinner and thinner. Once you are broke, you are forced to go work to get more money to play more games. Also, if you want to play games you have to make a conscious decision to spend money, whereas if you had a monthly rate of unlimited gaming (such as a Wow subscription), then you would probably overindulge in gaming just as fat people generally overindulge at all you can eat buffets.

So, one easy thing that can be done for any form of online gaming whether it be WoW or Poker or the RTS games I love is to force vendors to charge by the minute and tax that income so as to provide revenue for programs dealing with the social pollution generated from "addictive gaming". Kind of like how we tax many other vices or how we fine companies that pollute the environment under the premise that companies should be held accountable for the negative side effects their business has on society at large.

I know I will get flamed for suggesting this, but as an ardent gamer myself, I know it does not bode well for society if everyone is spending their time searching for loot in some MMORPG, rather than actually getting a good night's sleep so they can be productive at making loot in their real life.

definition?

[idlake]

So, playing games shares some physiological properties with taking drugs. But so do probably lots of other activities, like playing a musical instrument, watching television, having sex, participating in sports, running a startup company, etc. I think in order to decide whether we want to call this activity an "addiction", we need a lot more data and we ultimately need to make a judgement that goes beyond just similarity of physiological responses.

NO WAY

[Karem Lore]

This is utter tripe that is spouted from the mouths of those that do not approve. They call themselves scientists but they are anti-gamers at heart. There is nothing in my gaming habit that is anthing like my smoking, weed, alcohol, crack and heroine addiction right...NOTHING. And if you try and stop me from playing games I will rip your eyes out with a blunt fork...You get me...I am NOT addicted...NOT!

Right, now I got that off of my chest I do love games...However I have never stolen someone else's property to pay for my next hit; ok I admit that MOST (and I am sincere here) are original with FEW torrented files. However thos that are torrented are to check if I will like the game prior to paying for it, usually the answer is no.

Do I get withdrawal symptoms when I go on holiday? Hell no! Do I sit and quiver in my hotel bed seeing things for 24 hours deprivation, hell no.

Now, do I get exicited at the prospect of beating that next target in a computer game? Of course I do, but I don't need to do it tonight or tomorrow, I can still choose; that part of my so-called "addiction" is still in my control and is what seperates games from hard-drug crack and like...I still choose.

Karem

Newsflash: Brain lacks dedicated gaming module!

[IntelliTubbie]

From TFA:

Grüsser says that addictions stem from relying too heavily on one coping strategy, which eventually becomes the only activity that can activate the dopamine system and bring a person relief. "It's the same mechanism in all addicts," she says.

You mean the brain doesn't have completely separate mechanisms for addictions to video games and drugs (and gambling, and sex ...)? Gee, I wonder how evolution missed that one. In related news, the human body reacts similarly to getting hit by a baseball bat as getting hit by a cricket bat. No kidding ... the same mechanism! :)

Cheers,
IT

Re:Newsflash: Brain lacks dedicated gaming module!

[MadMoses]

Gee, I wonder how evolution missed that one.

Evolution? The Flying Spaghetti Monster designed us this way!

Reply to everyone saying Its not true

[vodkamattvt]

You are here --> Step 1. Denial But seriously, most any activity can be an addiction, in some sense, if you do it compulsively to the detriment to the well being of the rest of your life.

Slashdotters Anonymous?

[Zilverfire]

Im pretty sure I've devolped a slashdot addiction...

Re:Slashdotters Anonymous?

[CCelebornn]

Errr, you've forgotton to tick that "Post Anonymously" box....

In related news... (No, really)

[fmwap]

addict3d is running a story titled MPAA: pirated DVDs are "New Drug On The Street"

"A lot of people we were arresting had drug conviction backgrounds. Actually, what they said was, 'This is the new drug on the street,'" said Supik, an MPAA field investigator who assists local law enforcement in anti-piracy raids.

Where's the physical addiction?! If I stop watching or playing will I go into convulsions?

Addictive personalities

[Flying pig]

Personal experience suggests that the tendency to become addicted to things varies from person to person, and is presumably related to individual variations in brain chemistry. Just as there are certain personality types that will with equal ease make good Catholics, Protestants, communists or fascists - they just need to be part of an authoritarian culture - so there are clearly people who get a bigger reaction from certain repeated activities than the rest of us. I have a very low addictive tendency, but I'm aware the downside is that I don't get the high from these activities that some people do.

However, if this is right, there may be a very positive side. Does being a game addict mean that you aren't going to become a crack addict and become a huge nuisance to society stealing things to pay for your addiction? Or is there an "intelligence" factor in this, i.e. people who become addicted to drugs do it because they are too stupid to become addicted to something less socially harmful, like chess, computer games, share dealing or politics?

It would be interesting to know. The traditional solution to heroin addiction was to wean addicts off on methadone - which is not terribly effective. Is the answer to provide some of them with wall to wall games until they find one that makes an addiction substitute?

Anecdotally, it's interesting how some "reformed" alcoholics seem to go into politics (G W Bush, Alastair Campbell in the UK) suggesting that there is indeed some sort of crossover compensating mechanism.

I think too we need to make a distinction between the things people do in young adulthood - often very stupid and subsequently embarrassing behaviour - and what they do in later life. Young men in particular may pursue an activity obsessively, but as they grow older it takes a more balanced place in life - whether it be drinking, fishing, or the pursuit of women. Perhaps it's a "normal" addictive phase, in which case again, the less anti-social the effects, the better.

Re:Addictive personalities

[ClamIAm]

certain personality types that will with equal ease make good Catholics, Protestants, communists or fascists - they just need to be part of an authoritarian culture

I must congratulate you on hiding the cheap shot so well. You are truly an adept in the art of flaming. Anyways, I really don't see how Protestant groups, many whom operate under democratic rule by the people belonging to them, can be considered "totalitarian" (example). This is unless you consider Christian teachings inherently authoritarian, which is lunacy. Also, commuinism is not necessarily an authoritarian culture. Your statement is pure bullshit.

Re:Addictive personalities

[Hard2Parse]

It would be interesting to know. The traditional solution to heroin addiction was to wean addicts off on methadone - which is not terribly effective. Is the answer to provide some of them with wall to wall games until they find one that makes an addiction substitute? No, that's not the answer. Do you want to be the one to clean puke out of their keyboards because they didn't get their methadone?

The problem with that analogy

[MCTFB]

is that drugs, largely because of their illegal nature, are generally expensive habits. Gaming is relatively cheap. If I were to take the 40 bucks I spent on Starcraft and Brood War and then divide that amount by how many hours total I spent on that game, well then I am basically getting a really good bang for my buck, whereas with many illegal drugs, they can bankrupt millionaires practically overnight.

Even for MMORPG's which are on average around 10 bucks a month, the average gamer is still getting quite a good fix for the amount of hours they put into the game.

That is the benefit and the danger of gaming. Just like with masturbation, gaming is for all intents and purposes a free addictive activity, which means there is no reality check that you have a problem until you are evicted, homeless, and hungry. However, with masturbation you can do it so many times in a day before things start to bleed and then you know you definitely have a problem.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[pyrote]

Something doesn't have to be "real" to generate a self reinforcing chemical change in the brain.

Nice a thread on how much more 'real' religion is to a videogame.
Both activities when preacticed will build reinforced neuro pathways that make the brain feel good to use.

Not to call out too many flames, but I've seen more people ruined by religious fanaticisim than by video games.

Don't get me wrong, I am a preist, but sometimes it does get out of hand, much like gaming, gambling, drinking, Extreme sports, IM/AOL, etc...

Even in my own family one person was fired from being an engineer because he couldn't focus on the job at hand rather than everyones salvation. Now he's a family outcast with a Hyper-tension heart issue.

I think it's best said: too much of a good thing (OR ANYTHING) is a bad thing.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[lappy512]

Newsflash! There's a story over at New Slashdot saying that a new study has found that Slashdot addiction has the same effects on people as drug addiction.

Obligatory Simpsons

[SolitaryMan]

Selma: You're not disappointed are you?
Marge: Oh no, no no...No, I'm just...surprised.
Homer: Yeah...big surprise. Hey Marge, here's another bomb...I like beer! Ha ha ha ha!

Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[Stick_Fig]

Most people just don't realize how much of a coping mechanism gaming can become. And trust me, I speak from personal experience, as someone who tried to get a family member away from a game, but they wouldn't budge. They'd get up at 10:00 AM and sleep at 4:00 AM, and do basically nothing but play this game.

Basically, they were dealing with a loss of their own, and that was their way of dealing with it. It took over: Their health and money problems took a toll, and they ended up passing away at a relatively young age.

You know, I get bitter every time someone comes up with this "personal responsibilty" crap that comes up every time something related to an addiction comes up. THEY TRIED THAT -- THE ADDICTION IS TOO MUCH, AND THEY NEED HELP.

I'm just angry that our society is molded in such a way that people who need help get laughed at if it's a certain kind of ailment. I just hope your family doesn't have to go through what mine did.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[Bob_Villa]

It is very serious, I agree. I have two brothers, 25 and 26, and one at least goes out to work for 8 hours a day, but spends 12 hours a day on Everquest Online. My 25 year old brother spends 20-22 hours a day on EO. He only gets off long enough to eat one meal a day and sometimes passes out for an hour or two. They always lived with my mom, and the last two years ignored her completely. When she died at the hospital I was the only one with her, they never visited her while she was there and cried a little when they found out, and then went straight back to their game.

They are still living in the same house, somehow paying rent, but the 25 year old never leaves the house for any reason and will not get a job, and the 26 year old works and gets groceries, but that is it. I can't get them off for anything. When I come by to visit with my wife and two kids (I'm 27), they just sit down in the basement and ignore us. I finally am just leaving them alone, I visit once every couple of weeks just to see that they are still alive. It is so sad, and I can't get them to realize there is a whole world to explore outside if they would just take the time.

They have three XBox's (sp?) in the basement, and 3 27" tvs and a dvd player, and a Nintendo DS. I was addicted to Ultima Online for about a year, so I understand a little of what they are going through, but I wish they would somehow realize they have a problem and quit.

Sadly, I expect one day I'll come by and they'll have killed each other over some mistake one of them made in a game, or they'll just die from lack of personal care. They will scream like 5 year olds at each other for an hour if one of them makes a mistake on Everquest. I wish there was something I could do.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[DJCF]

Parent is dead right (mod parent up, etc.). There was a stage I went through when I was addicted to chat -- Excite! Virtual Places, if I recall. I'd get up every day at 12, go to bed at 4, 6, 8, 10 in the morning. I'd skip school and because I was living with mum, there was no need to get a job. She thought I needed help, took away the keyboard (I'd go buy another one), locked the door (I'd come in through the window), and so on. But it was my choice

Then one day I decided it was pointless to spend all day talking to virtual people, btter to do something productive. Like play computer games.

And so it started. Starcraft, Red Alert 2, I played (and beat) almost every game under the sun. Mum gave up and let me have a computer in my room, and that was the best desision she ever made (improved my relationship with her no end!)

And gradually, I stopped playing.

Two months ago I bought a brand new computer, Geforce 7800GTX, a gig of memory, and an Athlon XP x64 dual 4400. Awesome system, cost a bomb. But do you know how much I play nowadays? On a good (or bad) week, I spend maybe half an hour if I'm lucky. The rest of the time college work calls, or anything else of my shedule (part-time job training to be a shift-supervisor, volunteer teaching for a non-profit computer centre, or the occaisional really wild party). I'm saving for a visit to a refugee camp in the north of Thailand next summer as well, so that takes quite a bit of time. My point: now I have the deffinition of a fulfilled life. I chose to spend that time on chat, or playing games, it wasnt an addiction (though my mum said it was, tried to get me councilling), and now I dont play anymore. Was it hard? Not at all.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[orim]

If this is a true story that is sad indeed. Interesting how back in the day when our lives weren't that easy, we just didn't have the *time* to indulge like this...
So here's what you do: get them out of the house one day, somehow. Then when they're gone, pay someone to come in and break all their toys. Smash the TVs and XBox's and entertainment, put it all in a big pile and take a nice watery crap on it.

Given that one doesn't have a job and the other is just making ends meet, maybe that'll rouse them from their sleepwalking lives... they certainly won't be able to replace their toys that quickly.

The time for a serious intervention like this is long past.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[tgibbs]

Then one day I decided it was pointless to spend all day talking to virtual people, btter to do something productive. Like play computer games.

This is a key distinction. People may be consumed by an activity, do it at every opportunity, to the point that people say that they are "addicted." But then, at some point, they've simply had enough. They may abandon it entirely, or it may recede to become only an occasional behavior. With normal behaviors, there seems to be some sort of brain mechanism that ultimately puts the brakes on. In behavioral terms, the activity no longer has the reward value that it used to.

But people don't seem to to get bored with cocaine, perhaps because it activates brain reward mechanisms directly, rather than through the normal circuitry. If people quit cocaine, they do so with great difficulty, not because they've had enough, but because the consequences for their health and life are so devastating.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[Bob_Villa]

Sadly, this is very, very true. The 25 year old suffers from Crohns disease and had an ostomy bag put in about 8 months ago, so he doesn't really suffer any more and has adjusted, so he could work. But he won't even try. He said he might want to try fiction writing, so I got him everything he could need for it, and books with great tips and exercises. He never touched them. He said he wanted to go to college once about 1.5 years ago, so I got him the ACT and SAT prep books and he never touched them. He at least got his GED about 4 years ago. I took both brothers hiking once and they complained the whole time. I helped my 25 year old brother find a girl who wanted to date him, but he'd never call her or anything after their first date, he just wanted to play his game. He liked her and had fun, but said the game was more important.

I've tried to get their access cut off, but failed. My mom used to cut the cords and smash the game systems until they became violent and tried to physically harm her once for it. She never tried again.

They both have cavities and need root canals in almost every tooth in their heads. They need to get all of their teeth yanked and get dentures, but have no money and I can't afford to help. So rather than trying to earn more to fix a basic health problem that hurts them like hell, they'd rather sit on their games.

Right after my mom died, I told them to just shut the games off and come up and talk with me about what to do as far as her getting cremated, where to bury her, what to do about all of her things, etc... They got into a huge fight with me and said I'd have to come back later in a few hours when they were done with killing an important dragon. They had to kill the dragon. My brothers do not live in reality anymore, and I really wish Everquest Online would get shut down somehow.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[Stick_Fig]

EXCUSE ME IF I FOUND IT TROUBLESOME THAT MY 46-YEAR-OLD MOTHER WAS PLAYING A COMPUTER GAME SIXTEEN HOURS A DAY RIGHT AFTER MY DAD DIED, JACKASS.

I'm not talking about a brother or someone who's my age. I'm talking about a mother with a family of five to take care of, who just lost someone close to them, and who needed something to pick her spirits up.

I'm not attacking YOUR playing, so don't treat it like that. I'm pissed that my mom spent so much time on the family computer that I had to spend $1000 to buy my own just so I could get schoolwork done. I'm pissed that my family was struggling so much (while I was at school) that they got kicked out of their house and my uncle had to bail them out. I'm pissed that on days planned weeks in advance where she was supposed to come visit me at school, she never showed up because she was busy playing a game. I'm pissed that she's not here anymore, and YOU, ANONYMOUS COWARD, have the cajones to tell me that it's not right to get in her life, because she can stop whenever. SHE CAN'T -- IT'S TOO LATE.

I can't believe the lengths people will go to justify their own gaming existence and make me look to be the bad guy because I find it troublesome that a FAMILY MEMBER WHO WAS ADDICTED TO PLAYING A FUCKING RPG DIED.

If you want to justify your own existence, fine. Just don't act as if my concern isn't valid.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[learithe]

That won't work. trust me, any woman who's lost her man to a gaming addiction knows that. (See Everquest Widows for "evidence"...) And don't try to tell me that I'm just not good enough in bed, either. I wouldn't be surprised if a roomfull of naked Victoria's Secret models couldn't get those guys off of the computer.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[CODiNE]

Hey just a thought maybe you could put some sleeping pills in his food and drag him off for a 1 week vacation in the woods or something where he's got no escape but to hike 50 or so miles to the nearest road. Yeah he might attack you but... he'll have to catch ya first! :-) But seriously me and a friend took a boat to an island (Catalina near Los Angeles) that dropped us off on one end, and the only way to get home was to make it across in 3 days in time to catch our boat home from the other side. I swear there were times we felt like we'd die, but there was no way out, just had to keep going. By the time we finished, WOW... a real sense of accomplishment. We went back again this year with our wives, mine made it... his took the bus. :-)

Maybe it won't work for EverCrack, but it's a great bonding experience, when you're walking hours everyday and have nothing else to do but talk to each other. You learn a lot about yourselves. Just plan your vacation time, buy the supplies, make sure you can make it... you'd better make the first few days short like 3 or 4 miles so you don't kill the kid, he's not at his peak. Then when you're ready... get him while the other bro is at work. Leave a note "We're off camping, see you in a week!"

Eh, I know... crazy idea. :-)

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[Bob_Villa]

I wish I could do this, but he only weighs 90 lbs and is not very strong, plus I'd need money, which is in short supply, and I'm in Nashville, TN. Cool idea, though. I did manage to get them to come upstairs last night, and they are looking forward to coming to my 2 year old's birthday party this Sunday. I just have to slowly keep trying with them, without looking like I'm pushing them. If I try pushing, they go the opposite way every time, it is so frustrating!

The younger one used to love riding dirt-bikes and other crazy sports when he was younger, but just let himself disappear into the video game world and abandoned everything once he had Crohns. Now that he is mostly better, he needs to start going out into the world again, somehow. Thanks for ideas, it has been hopeless for so long, I just want them to grow up!

Dave

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[Maximum Prophet]

I wonder if it would be possible to get a court order to have their access turned off at EverQuest central? Barring that, have them declared legally incompetent, and have a sheriff take away their toys.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[Sean-Khan]

I'm addicted to playing, but I think it's pretty healthy. I get excited with a game, and may play it 'til 4 o'clock at the morning, but usually that's only weekends and I usually get tired of the game in a few weeks. And I study, work, have another friends and meet my friends. I know how addictive games can be but, well, it seems like your brothers don't have a treshold after which people normally get fed up with a game.

I'd guess social situations have become strange to them, and interaction with surroundongs via computers is so much easier than encountering real world. Something should happen to them to allow them to see the real world. Maybe if their electricity bills would 'disappear' from their mailbox, they wouldn't notice it? Cutting electricity down would force them to stop playing and see the real world for a while. Doesn't it usually take few days to get the power back on?

I don't know if this would work, but one solution that comes to my mind is roleplaying games. They could be able to continue to fighting fantastic creatures and gain themselves abilities, and still there would be social aspect - it would be beginning, wouldn't it? If you just can get them into it. You just might need a good advertising speech, and possibly be willing to get into rpg's yourself in the role of gamemaster.

Re:Those of you joking, it's no laughing matter.

[orim]

Whatever happens, good luck with them. Just wanted to say that in case my initial comments about breaking all their toys came off as too mean.
Seriously, wish you all the best.

From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[Numen]

I spent 6 months in rehad many years ago when I was 18. Any comparison between "gaming addiction" and drug addiction is silly, and moreso insulting. I have lost several friends to overdose and hiv as a result of drug abuse. I have lost no friends to "gaming addiction".... Chemical Dependence run in my family, and has impacted many lives within my family alone. Gaming addiction doesn't.

In our next article.... Studies Say, Trauma Cause By Paper Cuts Comparable To Road Traffic Accidents.

Wankers.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[Eric604]

I have lost several friends to overdose and hiv as a result of drug abuse. I have lost no friends to "gaming addiction".

That's because it's really hard to overdose with gaming. I don't know if gaming addiction is less serious than drug addiction (I tend to believe so) but what you wrote there is not logical at all: something is not less addictive just because it's non lethal.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[pintomp3]

the possibility of death is not how you define addiction. in that case driving and mountain climbing are addictions. you are addicted to something if you do it despite very negative consequences (like losing your job or spouse), and that doesn't have to mean the possibility of death. nor do addictions have to be passed on genetically. think of those smokers who still do it after getting a tracheotomy. i am sorry to hear what addiction has done to your life, but it not mean you now have the right to determine what an addiction is.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[JavaLord]

I have lost no friends to "gaming addiction".

What about these guys?

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Don't downplay other people's problems because you have experienced worse.

I don't see your logic at all. You don't think that levels of seriousness/consequence etc should be allowed? If a person catches a cold, does that mean they aren't ill?

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[grumbel]

### I have lost several friends to overdose and hiv as a result of drug abuse.

HIV and overdoses are for most part the result of the 'War on Drugs', it has nothing to do with the addiction itself or the drug. Gaming doesn't involve needles and neither does gaming have a 'leathal dose', so you can't directly die from gaming, doesn't mean it can't cause addiction. Just look over at Korea and China a few people already have died there, not because of gaming itself, but because they gamed for multiple days without eating, drinkng or sleeping.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[learithe]

Gaming addiction impacts many lives within *my* family. I'm watching my partner waste away, losing his job, his PhD project, his social life. It destroys health: spending years at a time sitting in front of a computer will destroy a body, especially if you weren't in good shape to begin with. My older sister almost died from a heroin addiction, and I was there as her family was torn apart by it. Aside from involving the family with dangerous, scary people, gaming addiction has just as much impact on everyone involved.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[drinkypoo]

I have lost several friends to overdose and hiv as a result of drug abuse.

Uh no. No one gets HIV from drug abuse. They get HIV from poor hygeine, which is to say, exposing themselves to the bodily fluids of others. There are plenty of drug "abusers" who actually care for their equipment.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[swordgeek]

First of all, take the quotes away from "abusers."

You're entirely right that no one gets HIV from drug abuse per se. Take junk away from a horse addict for a few days, and then tell him that all you've got is a dirty needle, and see how much he cares. The nature of addiction is that people will subject themselves to poor hygeine, dangerous situations, and the like in order to feed their addiction, if necessary.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[swordgeek]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Or in other words, do some research on addiction before spouting off. Your definition is nothing more than your impression of what addiction is, and you have even less right than the OP to define it, simply because nothing he said was wrong (whereas what you said is utterly wrong).

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[swordgeek]

"I don't know if gaming addiction is less serious than drug addiction"

It's not a question of severity, but of characteristics.

Gaming "addiction" is a psychological problem that mimics the symptoms of chemical addiction, and has unfortunately been given the same name. Without considering whether one is more serious than the other, it must be realised that psychological addiction is NOT the same as physiological addiction. This is the fundamental mistake being made by far too many people in the press, in casual conversation, on /., and even in clinics.

Re:From first-hand experience, it doesn't

[pintomp3]

"Addiction is a compulsion to repeat a behavior regardless of its consequences"

it's the first line from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

end spout..

Brother Leo Said It Best

[bluethundr]

Leo Laporte mentioned recently on the excellent podcast TWIT (This Week In Tech) in extended discussion with his old chronies from when TechTV's ScreenSavers was in its hayday (in otherwords before G4 TV bought it, moved it from the Bay area, replaced everyone who wasn't telegenic with pretty faces staring stiff and stupid into the camera - in short made it suck donkey ass) observed that Blizzzard's World of Warcraft redered one "Only _marginally_ functional as an adult"

A fact to which my level 31 Mage can readily attest. Apparently Leo has a level *blah* Paladin in that game.

Also, of note in that same podcast it was mentioned that there are "Latin American sweatshops" where US citizens pay those less of the less fortunate nations to spend the hours on end it takes to "level up" their character so that when they log in "voila"! They can stomp around the land of Azeroth as a Level 60 fill in the blank. Now, I may be an addict, but where the hell is the fun in that? Also, as in other games is the amazing fact that people are selling characters, equipment and "gold" for umtpeen _hundreds_ to a _thousand_ or more real US 'Mercian DOLLARS!

The Cyberworld never ceases to shock and amaze...

Re:Big Effing Deal

[vought]

Addiction is addiction is addiction.

It doesn't matter if you are fast-twitching, snorting, drinking, praying...

Addictions can be managed in some cases. In some types of addiction, the physical need can be destructive.

TFA seems to indicate that the addictive tendency alluded to here is behavioral, unlike the chemical cravings that nicotine, alcohol*, and heroin produce.

I think the article's lead paragraphs should have been more clear on the difference between these types of addiction. I know people who are self-described as "addicted" to Marijuana. Clinically, there is no such thing.

*Based on the theory that alcohol is a disease; see also Jellinek's disease.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[CFrankBernard]

A repeat of the "Religion - Opiate of the Masses" bumper sticker slogan is +5 Insightful?

A belief or world view that includes beings of non-earthly origin, transcending the self-centeredness of secular humanism and corresponding to reality doesn't necessarily contain or lead to qualities of addiction.

Granted we've all seen so-called Christian churches do bizarre things to seek the Lord on high through emotional states of quasi-consciousness in the name of new testament worship.

A request...

[misterCRAP]

Although I fully appreciate the high standards of debate on /. , will everyone please stop discussing this matter to such a fine detail?

I am acutely dyslexic and so I read rather slow.

You're wasting precious minutes I could be gaming with!!

Bob Saget Agrees!

[DoctaWatson]

"Gaming is not a drug. I used to suck dick for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some dick for a video game?"

Re:Bob Saget Agrees!

[rob_squared]

Damn man, just order a pepsi.

What a load of bollocks

[PhotoBoy]

Of course if you show people pictures of games they enjoyed they're going to want to play them. I mean they're stuck in a room being shown pictures of chairs and other boring items, you show them a picture of Super Mario World of course they're going to want to play it.

If they'd shown a naked picture of Lindsay Lohan would they have concluded that all the subjects were sex addicts because they wanted to have sex with her?

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Hinhule]

What I find more of a problem is work addiction.
Sure they get money out of it, but a lot of times they sacrifice everyone who cares about them in the process.
Is the money really worth not knowing your kids?

Summary for those who can't be bothered to RTFA:

[lxs]

Young men find a new excuse for their irresponsible behavior.

Isn't this exclusively a Nintendo thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Nintendo patented this effect.

Nintendo scored a patent Tuesday ... which covers causing a game character to hallucinate - e.g., see bleeding walls and hear maniacal laughter

True

[codeboost]

I know it's true, gaming is addictive. I've been addicted to substances and then gaming. And I have to admit that gaming had a much more destructive effect on my social life than substance addiction/abuse. You see, when you smoke pot every day, you can still sort of perform your social activities (like have a radio show and do C++ programming), but when you play Counter Strike for 18 hours a day you just can't physically do anything else. CS also puts you in a paranoid-aggressive state of mind and it becomes your everyday mood. It was also quite hard to quit playing, because the better you get at your game, the more you want to prove yourself online. Like a sport, but a very addictive one. For me, it was easier to quit smoking than quit playing CS. I've been CS-clean for months now, but I still get the adrenaline rush when I think about it.

My name is Atario...

[Atario]

...and I'm a Slashdotaholic.



(That's right, I can't live without Slashdotahol.)

ObPA

[SinaSa]

They say there is a Penny Arcade for every slashdot article.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/08/28

Re:Big Effing Deal

[91degrees]

So do alcohol, gambling and tobacco. We regulate those things. Why not games and religion? (aside from that pesky first amendment)

Re:Big Effing Deal

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

However, if you show my mother (a devout Catholic and Sunday school teacher) a cross, she doesn't get the urge to suddenly go to chuch and pray.

So why dos she keep going? Religion is every bit as addictive as a narcotic. Go to the south and observe the mass eurphoric religious chanting that goes on there. If you think a group of junkies shooting up is disturbing, I'd advise you never to attend a ceremony of the faithful.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

A belief or world view that includes beings of non-earthly origin, transcending the self-centeredness of secular humanism and corresponding to reality doesn't necessarily contain or lead to qualities of addiction.

Just as the act of pressing controller buttons to make mario jump or master chief shoot doesn't necessarily contain or lead to qualities of addiction.

It's all subjective. Or more accurately, it's all political.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[scumbaguk]

Behavour is chemical. You can just as easily become addicted to natural chemical highs, like people who race cars or jump from plains and and buildings then you can to "chemical" drugs. Suprise suprise it creates a pleasureable chemical reaction in the brain.

Effective drugs tend to mimic natural brain chemicals, having enough of a similar structure to activate receptors in the brain.

Everything is a chemical reaction and in my mind addiction is not something to be scared of.

It's this natural reaction which has keept us going all these years.
It's pretty healthy to have an addiction to regularly eating and having sex, they both satisfy a chemical dependancy in the brain and both vital to the future of the human race. Look at how often men masturbate when they can't shag, it dosn't serve any purpose except for feeling good. It's an addiction to the chemical rush anything can become associated with, but is it bad? No.

Gaming for many modern people can simulate the rush of the hunt. It's just fulfilling the other half of you that wants to vanquish. Not something every person living in this modern crazy world feel they can't do in real life. Yes it may become a chemical addiction, should we be suprised? No. is it something to worry about? No.

OCD

[TallMatthew]

It's more accurate to say "gaming fanaticism" and drug addiction both show characteristics of obsessive compulsive disorder. Both exhibit mental preoccupation (obsession) and a repetitive behavior pattern(s) that may or may not be reinforced with a positive stimulus (compulsion). If the individual tries to break the compulsive behavior pattern, he/she is pressed by the obsessive thoughts and becomes uncomfortable. It's as if the brain had imported a subroutine with an ill-placed GOTO loop.

Any behavior repeated constantly over a period of time that provides some sort of positive effect is going to be difficult to tear away from and may bring about OCD type symptoms. But comparing it to drug addiction is sensationalism ... people don't kill each other or themselves on account of Sonic Hedgehog.

Re:OCD

[learithe]

Actually, people do kill each other and themselves over video games.

April Fools!

[Anamanaman]

uhh wait... its november.

oh well, back to playing World of Warcraft.

Thats why we call it Duh

[Greymoon]

When will the none drug ppl realize .... ITS NOT ABOUT THE ACTUAL DRUGS... It is indeed what keeps the mouse busy.. Signing Off Duh

chappele show quote.

[fixinah]

And that was the first time I sucked dick to get a video game... but it wouldnt be the last.

As a drug addict...

[DeafByBeheading]

...I find this highly offensive!

Don't tell Singapore

[Essef]

Oh my god! I'm flushing Privateer and Myst down the toilet as I type this (don't ask). Once the Singapore government reads this post we'll all be hanged for sure!

Yes addiction "is addiction" ...

[Douglas Simmons]

... but the question is when does it become a disease. What is a disease? Here's a definition:

1 A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2 A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

To suffer from a disease is not necessarily having weird bugs swimming around your blood, but anything that effects your condition or behavior to clash with what society regards as vaguely normal and harmless. This is both normal and harmless. Therefore it is not a disease.

It is a bad habbit, though.

Re:Yes addiction "is addiction" ...

[superpulpsicle]

If they illegalized video games and made it a black market thing. And someone kill and steal to get money to buy games, then that person is probably addicted.

For the rest of us, 8hrs straight is not an addiction. I don't think 12hrs is either. There are plenty of retired folks watching 12hrs of TV all day long. I don't see any study done on them.

Attempt to normalise drug addiction?

[GetHimHesDifferent]

Perhaps this comparison with gaming is an attempt to lessen the perceived danger of drug addiction. If you compare drug addiction that most of us (thankfully) haven't experienced with something that I'm guessing most of us have (aren't most slashdotters keen gamers?). So it seems like an attempt to swing our opinion. As we're likely to be quite certain that gaming addiction is not that dangerous in most cases, the opinion more likely to swing is that of drug addiction. Good to see most comments so far have been along the lines of "No, it's quite different, don't be silly". This kind of journalism is depressingly commonplace. Like when they say cannabis has 1 chemical in common with chocolate. SO? That's like saying that an apple contains 100 times as much arsenic as a BigMac and implying that a BigMacs are therefore healthier to eat.

Re:Religious addiction?

[bhtooefr]

Well, WoW charges $15/mo. No, it's not 1/10 of the income of a person who can afford a computer to play WoW, an internet connection to use to play it, etc., etc.

BUT... you can't argue that it's not similar...

Absurd Analogy

[external400kdiskette]

An addiction is a very serious thing and even though a total gaming addiction is an unhealthy thing it cant possibly compare to a total hard-drug addiction. Look at a everquest freak and then look at a crackhead ... one's a loser, one's on the verge of death and physically mutated.

Good thoughts, however...

[MeanderingMind]

...people still smoke.

If there's any vice out there which has been thoroughly taxed, known to be bad, and terribly unhealthy, it's the cigarette. Still, for all the effort that has been put into extinguishing the vice, people smoke, a lot.

It's not that taxes aren't deterrants. Higher prices certainly deter people from buying things. It's that when someone is addicted to something, price is no object.

All you do for an addict when you tax their addiction is make them pay even more money for it. The people who aren't addicted will be deterred and walk away, but the people who are addicted or closer to being so will hang on. They'll pay $1 an hour for WoW, EQ or StarCraft. They'll pay $2 an hour. They'll pay $15 an hour so long as they can get their fix. They'll pay every last cent they can spare, and then more, because they are addicted.

The rest of the populace will steer away from games, but the addicts will remain. You will successfully prevent the acquisition of new addicts to be certain, but you will also successfully force the industry to work as hard as they can to keep the addicts (now the only people who still fund the industry) addicted.

The best thing to do would be to start a charity that seeks to help people addicted to games. Individual solutions are largely better than governmental ones.

eat, sleep, wash

[mcraig]

>> Forget to eat, sleep and wash

That's just silly the commands are right there

> get pie bag
Ok
> eat pie
You are no longer hungry
> drink bottle
You are no longer thirsty
> sleep
You sleep
> wake
You stand up
> wash
Command not recognised.

Ahh ok I see the problem !!

*posts note for admin to add wash facilities*

That should do it :)

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

> A repeat of the "Religion - Opiate of the Masses" bumper sticker slogan is +5 Insightful?

bumper sticker!? it's a Karl Marx quote, you filthy peasant (ooh! that's a dead give away!). now get back to your mud.

Is there a point you're actually making in there?

[pslam]

Nice essay, lots of rhetoric, but no conclusions. You do yourself no favours by hiding your points behind crafted statements such as "I know it does not bode well for society if everyone is spending their time searching for loot in some MMORPG, rather than actually getting a good night's sleep so they can be productive at making loot in their real life". Just say "I do not think people should be searching for loot in an MMORPG, it is harmful.".

Quit the double-speak.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Spacejock]

Same symptoms, but gaming is more expensive than a drug habit. Hmm.

Hi, my name is George. I haven't played WoW for...

[TomAnthony]

"Hi. My name is George, and I haven't played WoW for 3 months."

"Ok everyone, give George some applause, he has earned it. Tell us more about your feelings towards WoW, George."

* George looking transfixed at the fire axe in the corner, mumbling about hit rates and stamina bonuses *

"Well, it was OMFG soo cool! LOL! I am a level 60 Paladin, and OMG, Molten Core, there is a big dragon. We're going to kill it. OMG! Just you wait until the patch comes out.... .... ....."

*next week*

"Hi. My name is George, and I haven't played WoW for 3 days."

Addiction? So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Words take on connotations from repeated use and those connotations become assumed, never re-examined.

for example 'addiction = bad'.

Addiction to cocaine? Meth? Sure. These will kill you.

Alcohol? Sure. Kills you, makes you dangerous, maybe. though some people aren't so affected by it.

Caffeine? Hmmm...

That's a tricky one. Is it more or less devastating to you as a person and those around you than say, more psychological addictions? Things like self-destruction in the form of 'cutting', or how about numerous creatures from the generation before mine who spend a lot of their time chasing diet plans.

Not even joking, my mother was addicted to diets. They made her happy, and she chased them like an addict looking for a new high.

How about marijuana? That's a tough one too. I've seen it aid people in destroying themselves, but more commonly it looks like caffeine, one more tool to use in surviving in an age where we've too much time on our hands, too much to get angry at if we've open eyes and ears, and too little power to change the things we hate. It hurts to spend so much time aiding the finances of those you work for and barely scrape by yourself, and a lot of people are in that boat.

Marijuana, for them, is a coping tool. Is it an addiction? Maybe, but does it really matter? There's room in a responsible life-style for an addiction or two, americans have a couple generations of practice at juggling dysfunctions.

is Marijuana more or less dangerous than social addictions? Have any of you ever been to a landmark forum? A born-again christian faith healing? A scientologist get together?

Our nature is to become addicted, and how badly that addiction affects us is very highly dependant on the individual in question.

So much time, so little energy.

Yeah, you could go work in a soup kitchen after work. You could go and run in AIDS marathons, or donate to charities (hmmm... I think I've met a few people addicted to the guilt-relief that provides. Have you?).

But it's so much easier to gamble. To light up a joint, to drink.

It's easier to hide.

And so far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't actively making things worse more power to you.

Addiction to video games? I wonder how it feels to be a christian in the throes of holy passion, surrounded by others who believe the same far-fetched story, listening to the preacher shouting praises to their god and hearing the many many others Just Like Them shouting 'amen' at the end, in those churches that they design to shake with sounds. Feeling your maybe flimsy convictions echoed so loudly they shake the floor.

I bet it's a feeling saturated in dopamine.

Maybe even moreso than the feeling I get when I crush an opponent in warcraft. Or get a headshot.

I wonder what the ratio of doom inspired school shootings to abortion clinic bombings is in America.

I wonder what the ratio of fatal car crashes that occur under the influence of alcohol is to the ratio of people who have crashed cars deliberatly after playing GTA.

What I really wonder though, is the ratio of people who have hurt eachother over a piece of loot getting ninjaed to the number of people who have hurt eachother over an actual theft of physical property.

Video Games addictive? Of course. No sh!t. Anybody with eyes could've told you that a long time ago.

But, as the title suggests, so what?

It's not a tenth as bad as many many other unmoderated/unmonitored substances.

It's not causing problems of a magnitude that are worth addressing in any form until the real problems are dealt with, and probably not even after.

Yeah, I know, we should all be out curing cancer or going to church or making the world a better place, but of all the things we Might be doing instead, I can't believe anybody would be stupid enough to worry about this one.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[ClamIAm]

Hey look, a cheap-shot one liner bashing religion on a forum! How original. I'm sure you will influence many with the (no doubt) highly stimulating and insightful commentary you spark.

Re:Addiction? So what?

[cluke]

Beautiful post man, I wish I had modpoints. (And why Anonymous?)

computing

[my_haz]

s/gaming/porning/g addiction*=100

Game makers

[lightweave]

For me the addiction is to create a game, not to play it (anymore). Does this make me a dealer? And for all the junkies here on slashdot I have some serious stuff for you to get off http://www.thedarkmod.com/

Re:Big Effing Deal

[FidelCatsro]

"Addiction by defination is a "strong emotional and /or psychological dependence on a substance""
So , a religion is by definition

noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
• a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.

"a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"

Now I do believe that strong emotions can enter into this ,being that it is something which you base your whole frame of reference on and are passionate about .
As for a dependance , well if you live your life by a set of rules to which you believe will affect you for all eternity . I would put forth that this is a dammed good trigger for dependency .

Is the addiction a bad thing , in many cases yes , in many cases no .

The idea falls apart

[AsiNisiMasa]

How many people in this thread cited how much Diablo 2 messed up their lives? Guess what... None of them play D2 anymore. The scientists seem to have forgotten that people generally become addicted to a game, then stop playing a short time later because the repetition gets boring. The idea that they need a clinic is absolutely ridiculous. By the time they get checked in, they'll have stopped playing the game they're in for.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[FidelCatsro]

apparently the symptoms include :
The lights being on , but your not home ,
Your mind is apparently not your own .
Your heart sweats and your body shakes ,
You need another kiss to alleviate the symptoms

Also you can't sleep , you can't eat .
There is no doubt this is deep
You will also notice your throat is tight and you cant breath
again all you need is a kiss to alleviate symptoms

Well many like to think they are immune to this stuff , Oh Yeah!
Unfortunately it is closer to the truth to say that they can not get enough .
Gonna have to face it , You're addicted to love.

(Shoot me now)

Re:Big Effing Deal

[tehanu]

Religion can be very very addicting. For mystics and very religious people it is something approaching ecstasty. Take for example the famous "Dark Night of the Soul" by St. John of the Cross which describes how he feels about his religious activities and the union with God. For those who don't know better this would seem like someone writing about their lover.

  1. One dark night,
fired with love's urgent longings
- ah, the sheer grace! -
I went out unseen,
my house being now all stilled.

2. In darkness, and secure,
by the secret ladder, disguised,
- ah, the sheer grace! -
in darkness and concealment,
my house being now all stilled.

3. On that glad night,
in secret, for no one saw me,
nor did I look at anything,
with no other light or guide
than the one that burned in my heart.

4. This guided me
more surely than the light of noon
to where he was awaiting me
- him I knew so well -
there in a place where no one appeared.

5. O guiding night!
O night more lovely than the dawn!
O night that has united
the Lover with his beloved,
transforming the beloved in her Lover.

6. Upon my flowering breast
which I kept wholly for him alone,
there he lay sleeping,
and I caressing him
there in a breeze from the fanning cedars.

7. When the breeze blew from the turret,
as I parted his hair,
it wounded my neck
with its gentle hand,
suspending all my senses.

8. I abandoned and forgot myself,
laying my face on my Beloved;
all things ceased; I went out from myself,
leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies.

I took the translation from http://www.karmel.at/ics/john/dn.html. However, this is a very famous work.

just thought i'd add something about "addiction"

[Depris]

I'm addicted to games, drinking & drugs, pornography, women, music, and playing with myself.

I do all of these activities almost everyday as part of my day to day schedule.

I find I'm a pretty happy person.

If thats bad, ...i'm happy to be evil(tm.)

For once I'd like to see an article like this about something thats actually harmful. For example, say something that involves hurting other people and oneself (in a noticeable way, drugs/drinking/porn/etc. do not count in the least) like "being 'addicted' to beating up old people and taking their money." or "'addicted' to murdering people because they cut you off at the gas station".

Those are some "addictions" worth regulating and talking about.

On a side note by drugs I generally mean drugs we all know are harmful and outta be legal. I don't smoke or consume crack nor do I generally associate with such people. That being said I have meant two functioning crackheads. Both had good jobs and niether seemed to let crack overwhelming control their life. They definitely seemed to be in the habit of consuming it and I assume it'd be hard for them to break that habit. However I seriously question the whole idea of universal "addiction".

Re:Big Effing Deal

[gronofer]

One minute. That's how long it takes from the posting of a story until the first off-topic mention of religion in the comments. What is it with this site?

Reminds me of that vending machine

[MCTFB]

outside my office. I put money in, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but for some dumb reason I keep chucking money in the machine until it actually works.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[gronofer]

Are you all completely obsessed with religion, or what? Are you ADDICTED to religious discussion?

Online chats cause addiction too...

[tuomas_kaikkonen]

I am talking from personal experience as an addict to online chatting on the Internet Relay Chat since its conception until around ... well, I am still an addict, once an addict, but I have not lapsed back to the online chat channels since I left the Unixverstas Olutensin Finlandia Vodka university around 1997. Man, I did seek professional help for that addiction and got quite clean with a three month session in a hospital! The rule I told them to make me follow was this: DO NOT LET ME TOUCH COMPUTERS while I am here. That cured some of the problem, but I lapsed back into chatting in IRC for a few years after that, but no longer 48 hour sessions like I used to have in my worst day+night+days. And talk about the financial costs of enormous long distance phone bills, when I still lived with my parents. Way back in 1986 there was no local dialup for Internet at my home. After moving to the University campus, I got direct feed via their Intranet, so that cut down the costs. It is NOT just computer games that are addictive. Computer chatting can be too. Someone really should study this phenomenon from the behavioristic perspective. Perhaps they have already, who knows?

Re:Big Effing Deal

[estebanf]

...groups such as Online Gamers Anonymous and EverQuest Widows are overflowing with stories of people so wrapped up in slaying monsters that for days they neglect to eat, wash or sleep.

those are newbies stories. Everybody agrees that sleeping or washing are disrupters of good gaming sessions, but the real rush appears when you can mix 12 hours of CS:Source and salami pizza...

oops - the actual quote:

[theStorminMormon]

I forgot to finish writing out the quote. Oops. Here we go:

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Matt. 16: 25; Mark 8: 35; Luke 9: 24

Apologies to Bloodhound Gang

[billybob2001]

The Ballad of Slashy Dot:

Would ya fsck me for Mod points?

Need...more..Karma

"Excellent" just isn't enough

I suppose people who belong to any institution

[MCTFB]

are owned. I guess if you are a Boy Scout, then the Boy Scouts of America own you for the rest of your life. Or if you are a Rotarian, or a Mason, or belong to any social club that involves volunteering your time and money.

And as a Catholic I concur with some of your sentiment about mega-churches, however, I think the whole media fascination with mega-churches and televangelists is way overblown and people like yourself are like any other human only scared of what you don't understand.

How many people do you personally know who belong to a mega-church (which is just a fancy term for modern evangelical churches)? Do you honestly believe they all think the same and might as well just be clones of each other.

Plus, most Christian institutions in the United States do far more good for people than bad (which is all you ever hear about in the media, not because the media hates Christianity, but because bad news is usually more sensational). Playing WoW 40 hours a week is a purely selfish activity, and judging by the behaviour a lot of people display in online gaming communities like Battle.net, I would say it is not just a selfish activity, but an anti-social activity as well.

Re:I suppose people who belong to any institution

[MvD_Moscow]

Yeah sure...

Dude, playing a game doesn't harm anyone (maybe yourself, but that's your choice)!

You can't compare that to religions that have resulted in more deaths than Hitler. Have you forgotten about the crusades? The Inquizition? What about limiting right of homosexuals? Relgious groups have always been the first to limit our freedoms and impose their stupid rules upon people. Organized religion is agianst the human spirit, if anything taking part in organized religion is anti-social behaviour.

Far more good... Good for who? For fanatics and people who want to limit my liberties?

Re:I suppose people who belong to any institution

[modecx]

Sorry to be getting back to all these wonderful people who thought I was trolling (wasn't even trying, and I wasn't even being particularly anti-religious for that matter, and for the most part I couldn't care less about what people chose to do with their time as long as they keep it out of public office), but since I've been out of country for the last ten days, I felt the need to break my /. habit. Ohhh. Cool mentholated slashdot!

Playing WoW 40 hours a week is a purely selfish activity.

You see, you're begging the question. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, who cares? What you're doing is assuming that the human races' interest in spirituality is not purely selfish, and therefore that religious activity is more inherently "pure" and deserving of pursuit than other activities, and I'd call that a logical fallacy. Why do we do anything? Because we desire some outcome. Christians want to live with Jesus in the afterlife--or at least they desire to not burn in hell. Bhuddists want their next incarnation to have less suffering, and ultimately desire to join Bhuddah in enlightenment. Muslims want their 72 virgins, the ancient Pharoahs wanted to become gods, and so on.

My point was that it is possible to be addicted to church as an activity and lifestyle, as much as any other activity or lifestyle. Is it possible to be addicted to doing good--to go as far as martyrizing your time, money, family and life to get a physical/spiritual high? Yeah, I'd argue it. Maybe the reaction one receives from helping others is chemical, or maybe becaue god above is shining down happy rays of sunlight, who knows, it dosen't really matter. However, there are/have been people who get off on giving everything away because they like the feeling, and I'd say that's different from occasionally doing good for the sake of improving the lives of others.

Is joining a monastary any more or less worthwhile--or antisocial for that matter--than gorging on Doritos and playing WoW with your antisocial fellows over the internet? That's the question for the ages, isn't it?

As far as if I know people who attend mega-churches, and if they behave literally as giant flock of sheep? I can say unequivocally that I DO have experience in this area, despite being a definitively non-religious person. One of my cousins was a minister at an evangelical church here in Colorado; he moved to Texas not too long ago, and is now a minister at one of the mega-churches down there. They do the tele-evangelical thing, and have a setup for some crazy number of people. It's literally a stadium, and they have capacity for some 50,000+ people, and every service is full. He's a nice guy, and he's really pulling it in now: $100,000+ yearly. It's basically like I described in my previous post. It's a hub for thousands of people's daily lives. They've got a mini-mall, day care and all kinds of stuff, and I'm sure that they could use the services of an entire WalMart just to satisfy their followers.

I attended some of his services when he was here, despite my dread of it... And it's really somewhat of a mystery how he ended up there, because none of my family is particularly religious, however spiritual we tend to be. The church told the followers how to vote, and were into the micro management of the followers' lives, not unlike some other sects like the Jehovas' Witnesses. At the time, I believe most of the followers would not question anything short of the command to jump off a bridge.

Suffice it to say that I think that Jesus would not be especially pleased.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[DaltonRS]

Go to the south and observe the mass euphoric religious chanting that goes on there. If you think a group of junkies shooting up is disturbing, I'd advise you never to attend a ceremony of the faithful.

The only time I have ever seen anything of that nature was at a Pentacostal church an ex-girlfriend dragged me to, ie the congregation for lack of a better way to put it, went "batshit nuts." I was in Maine. That's deep south for you there.

What does the tithe go towards?

[MCTFB]

Yah there are corrupt churches and there was the middle-ages with the Catholic church, but most of the money that goes to tithing goes to serve the various missions of that church which include helping out the poor which is a fundamental responsibility of every Christian regardless of whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or whatever.

Your money that you pay to Blizzard goes directly to the Vivendi corporate bottom line to fill the pockets of some effite Frenchman living the good life while the poor of his country riot in desperation.

Re:What does the tithe go towards?

[mlheur]

Your money that you pay to Blizzard goes directly to the Vivendi corporate bottom line to fill the pockets of some effite Frenchman living the good life while the poor of his country riot in desperation.

Do we know if the effite Frenchman is devoutly religious, giving 10% of his earnings to help the poor in his community? I've never met him so I'm not sure.

Re:What does the tithe go towards?

[Chosen Reject]

Your money that you pay to Blizzard goes directly to the Vivendi corporate bottom line to fill the pockets of some effite Frenchman living the good life while the poor of his country riot in desperation.

Not True! It also goes to fill the pockets of the people at Blizzard.

Re:Religious addiction?

[theStorminMormon]

Plus, the money you pay to Blizzard goes to, well Blizzard - a business. There are some churches with paid ministers and such that rake in the tithing. But others, like my church, have NO PAID MINISTRY. So not matter how "business like" they appear, the money is going to either support the church or alleviate suffering.

If it's supporting the church - that's OK. The only people in the church are people who want to be there, so tithes are no more sinister than dues to a club you like. No one makes you pay them. And if you feel you have to pay them or incur the wrath of God - that's still your problem. No one can make you believe God even exists in the first place. If I tell you to give me all your money or Santa and the Easter Bunny will kill you, am I coercing you (assuming you're not a 4 year old)? No - it's up to you to take that threat seriously or not, I can't make you believe in Santa.

And the rest of the money goes to welfare programs, educational funds, and disaster relief. I'm OK with that too.

-stormin

I'm sorry you think so

[Flying pig]

But it isn't flaming. My first degree was in psychology and sociology of religion. I was a member of the Church of England for many years, though I am now a member of the Society of Friends. I have considerable experience from serving on church councils of how far democracy really goes in churches, and even in the SoF I am aware that there is considerable covert authoritarianism (the disproportionate influence of "weighty Friends"). Far from being a cheap shot, I am just reflecting what is said quite openly by scholars. If you really want to investigate, you should look up the study (carried out by the Roman Catholic Church, no less) which showed that in France, good Catholics who moved into Communist neighbourhoods were more likely to become communists than non-Catholics.

Also, where did I say "totalitarian"? I didn't, you made that up. In fact, I regard the word "totalitarian" as nonsense and never use it. I said "authoritarian." Authoritarians look to an outside source of authority for their behaviour. Protestants tend to use English translations of the Bible (I have found very few who can even read as far as the first word of the Bible in the original, but that's beside the point.), Catholics rely on the Church, communists on the authority of the Party,Marx and Lenin, and fascists rely on the authority of a human leader. Did I say that fascism was morally equivalent to Christianity? No, I didn't. I would say that all authoritarian cultures contain a mix of good guys and bad guys and things in between. There were brave and moral Italian fascists, like the officer who refused to hand the Jews in his area over to the Germans. There have been evil Catholics and Protestants, like Cotton Mather and a number of Renaissance popes.

I suggest before flying off the handle you try actually reading a post next time. I was commenting on addictions, not seeking to write an essay on the similarities and differences between authoritarian cultures.

And for anybody reading this who puts two and two together - yes, I probably am who you think I am.

Re:I'm sorry you think so

[JustNiz]

>> good Catholics who moved into Communist neighbourhoods were more likely to become communists than non-Catholics.

Why are you making this sensational? Communism is a political point of view, catholicism is a religious point of view. Neither are intrinsically correct or mutually exclusive in their purest forms.

People generally move to neighborhoods of similar socio-economic backgrounds to themselves. if you move to an area that has a certain political or religious bias, you would probably be pre-inclined towards that view anyway.

Re:I'm sorry you think so

[ClamIAm]

"My first degree was in psychology and sociology of religion."
"Far from being a cheap shot, I am just reflecting what is said quite openly by scholars."

These contrast nicely with:

"Authoritarians look to an outside source of authority for their behaviour."

You make two appeals to authority, and (apparently) think that these defend your statements on "authoritarian culture". The irony is delicious. I guess I'm more surprised you didn't have to take a critical thinking class for your "first degree" that makes you such an expert.

Also, where did I say "totalitarian"?

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say 'authoritarian'.

"I didn't, you made that up."

I guess we agree on at least one thing.

"In fact, I regard the word "totalitarian" as nonsense and never use it."

Either this statement is false, or you're lying. So..yeah, it's false.

Protestants tend to use English translations of the Bible

I'm not so sure this is right. Unless the readers in the protestant churches I visited in Iceland and Norway were translating from English to their native tongues as they were reading the lessons, you're probably not correct here.

"Did I say that fascism was morally equivalent to Christianity?"

Did I say that you said this? You might want to follow your own advice:

"I suggest before flying off the handle you try actually reading a post next time."

Calling someone out when they make an unsubstantiated assertion is not flying off the handle. If this is in response to the use of the word "bullshit", I can only say welcome to the Internet, because you must be new.

"I was commenting on addictions, not seeking to write an essay on the similarities and differences between authoritarian cultures."

You also commented on "authoritarian cultures". The main theme of a post being about a certain subject doesn't exempt you from criticism on things you say about other subjects. I'm glad you weren't trying to write an essay on "authoritarian cultures", because you seem to be very confused. The anecdotes you share aren't specific to churches, they're universal to pretty much any organization in history.

"And for anybody reading this who puts two and two together - yes, I probably am who you think I am."

Yeah, you're someone with a vanity complex that thinks they'll get noticed by people they know when posting anonymous messages on the internet.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[ajs318]

Yeah. I joined Workaholics Anonymous once. Waste of money. I missed every one of the meetings ..... always staying late at the office .....

Re:This Sure Seems To Be Ruffling Some Feathers He

[Flaming Babies]

Now, I love playing sports, especially soccer, but you can only run around having fun kicking a ball so long before you physically get tired and the pain of sore legs outweighs the pleasure you have dribbling and passing the ball down the field and your brain tells you to stop. Unfortunately, with computer gaming the only thing telling you to stop is a parent, spouse, or your heart as it gives out playing your choice MMORPG several days straight nonstop.

If you've never felt real physical discomfort or fatigue from playing a video game too long,
your definition of playing an insane amount must differ greatly from mine.

I think this is pretty common knowledge...

[ninja_assault_kitten]

Drinking 10 cans of Diet Coke per day, not knowing when to stop eating, shooting heroin... An addictive personality will always find something. It might as well be video games.

Obvious

[Snaller]

And has been for a long time for anyone who's been around hardcore gamers.

Sure does

[moeffju]

Just one more turn!

Does that mean I can get free drugs^Wgames from the state if I admit I'm addicted?

mod parent up

[Morrigu]

i burned all my mod points already, but someone needs to mod the parent post up to at least +3. this is just sad sad sad, and while most gamers i know would not at all qualify as addicts, some folks will latch onto games (muds and mmorpgs more than other types, perhaps) and do nothing else with their lives.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[infodragon]

Spoken like a true addict :P

So?

[Phantasmo]

I am perfectly aware of the fact that I am addicted to video games. However, it doesn't interfere with my work or prevent me from getting out of the house, so I just don't care.
I don't drink and I don't smoke (weed or tobacco). Everyone has their vices, right? Mine happens to be Metroid.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[imablonde]

Well, I can never remember whether I'm supposed to eat the CD's whole, grind 'em up and snort 'em, or smoke 'em. I guess that's why I never got into gaming!

Finally!

[hahiss]

At last we have an article where slashdotters can stop pretending that they are lawyers and start pretending that they are physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists (research and clinical).

Everything fun.

[Liam Slider]

Everything fun has, at one point or another, been compared to "drug addiction." There was a study that said that web comics have similar effects to drug addiction. Evidentally, if you ask scientists, enjoyment of anything, having a hobby, or even hobbies...well that's no different from being a filthy crackhead. Me, personally I think these studies are being interpreted by people who have no fun in their lives and have giant sticks up their asses, wanting to ruin it for everyone else. And of course such studies are always of benefit to those with a political agenda....especially since many of those want to outlaw or regulate anything fun too.

It's not my fault...

[quibbs0]

It's not my fault pot and GTA are so fun together. Now if I could just focus on the damn missions.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Irish_Samurai]

Because the first three can be taxed uniquely. Religious organizations in the US usually have a tax exempt status, no money to be made by regulating that. Video games are already taxed on a state level with sales tax.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[91degrees]

Why can't games be taxed uniquely?

And why does that prevent regulation?

a conspiracy theory

[objwiz]

this is just a means of revenge plotted by all my ex-girlfriends because I jilted them for a game of World of War Craft

The Feast of Maximum Occupancy

[Headcase88]

Homer Simpson stopped going to church but was almost killed by a fire and saved by Flanders (Christian). (Krusty (Jewish), and Apu (Miscellaneous*) also helped out). Because of the help of his religious friend, Homer agreed to go back to church, but he ususally sleeps when he's there.

*as designated by Rev. Lovejoy

Some Professional Advice to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of you that seemed concerned, please take this professional advice...

Addictions are not considered a bad thing in the medical community unless they are adversely affecting your life in some way. For instance, in a earlier study approx. 62% of people in americans say that they need a cup of coffee in the morning to get their day going. This would certainly be considered an addition. Do we in the medical community consider this a problem? No.... Here is why...

The real question to consider is that cup of coffee adversely effecting your life or health? For instance, are people's health degrading from drinking this coffee? Are they destroying their relationships by dring this coffee? No.. So therefore, this addiction is considered for the most part OK...

In short, if your gaming is negatively affecting your ability to live, then give it up... Otherwise, play away!!

destructive behavior

[White Yeti]

Occasionally someone (always male?) goes on a rampage and then blames some FPS or GTA or whatever. But really, I don't think game-addled "addicts" are panhandling for their next hit, or wrapping their cars around telephone poles.

Didn't Nelson lose his mom to some sort of breath-mint addiction?

Oh my Goatse!

[saskboy]

"Scientists theorise that the most pleasing stimuli prompts the smallest of startle reflexes. They found that excessive game players could not be easily startled, unlike the controls."

It would appear that the Slashdot trolls that post Goatse guy, are actually trying to reduce our startle relfex, and get us addicted to Slashdot! Insidious!

Sonic Hedgehog Causes Cancer

[PhilHibbs]

No shit, it really does! And one-eyed lambs cure cancer, too!

Re:Big Effing Deal

[jrob323]

The belief that humans were created in the image of god, and that the universe was created expressly for humans as a backdrop to our existence, and our spirits will live in paradise forever after we die.. that transcends the selfishness of secular humanism? That attitude about christian organizations that do bizarre things being 'so-called' christian is getting old too.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[tetraphonia]

so korean kids having massive heart failures after 50-hour streaks isn't something to worry about?

This comes as a surprise?

[garylian]

After spending 4+hrs almost every night for nearly 5 years playing EverQuest, I don't have any doubts.

In part, these games do a great job in filling the void that was called "television" for those of us that were teens in the 70s or 80s.

A good game has to get under your skin and in your brain to keep you playing. And especially the MMO model, has to be addictive to keep players coming back. With real content updates coming out usually once a year or so, if it wasn't addicting, the players would leave after a certain point. Yet they stick around, doing the same thing over and over again, waiting for more content.

How many folks have a lvl 60 toon in WoW that they hit Molten Core once a week (all you can do by game mechanics) and then either goof off in other places with that 60, or level up another toon, all while waiting for the next week's MC hit? You aren't gaining any experience, your chances in a 40 person group of getting a gear upgrade is limited, so in effect you are playing for a crappy shot at that dangling carrot over and over again. And yet folks do it with a rabid passion. (After 5 years of EQ, the carrot didn't work on me with WoW. I hit 60 and got bored fast.)

So the fact that these games have a brain altering effect doesn't surprise me much. I still have an itch to renew my original EQ account and play, even though there isn't much I wish to do in the game. Other MMOs have been an ok substitute for a while, but since I am bored with WoW, and CoH/V is not bad but repetitive, I am waiting for DDO to hook my I.V. to, and feed my addiction. Kinda like a heroin addict waiting for his methadone fix.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[bynary]

That happened to one guy. He was 28. There are extreme cases that do not indicate an epidemic.

Is this really addiction?

[tgibbs]

I object to the use of the term "addiction" for any behavior that activates dopaminergic reward pathways. There seems to be a kind of "guilt by association" reasoning going on here--drugs are harmful, behavior {insert anything people like to do a whole lot} activates the same brain regions as drugs, therefore the behavior is harmful.

The reward pathways in which dopamine plays such a prominent role are probably activated in any activity that people enjoy. It is most likely an evolved brain system to encourage organisms to engage in behavior that is beneficial to the organism or its reproductive success.

What distinguishes a drug addiction from other types of intensely reinforcing behavior is that drugs such as cocaine bypass the normal mechanisms that control and moderate activation of this system, triggering activation of reward pathways directly. To apply the term "addiction" to non-drug related behaviors, no matter how intense the enjoyment or how compulsive the behavior, blurs this distinction between drug dependence and simple enjoyment

Re:Big Effing Deal

[justin12345]

I think what it comes down to is that they should never have redefined the term "addiction" in the first place. "Addiction" used to only describe the physical syndromes of tolerance and potentially fatal withdrawal associated with opiate, barbiturate, and heavy alcohol use. Under the old definition those were the only addictive substances, even cocaine didn't make the list as it doesn't cause withdrawal and tolerance declines rapidly with discontinued use.

"Addiction" is now used to describe any experience a person feels compelled to repeat that is viewed as not being in their best interest. The problem with this is that the history of the term being what it is, we have a tendency to equate any (modern) "addiction" with heroin abuse.

I'm not saying that the modern definition shouldn't be on the books, it should just be called something else. You are not going to experience illness or death if you stop playing video games, or stop watching tv, or even if you stop taking cocaine. Call it something else.

OH NO!!

[adnausium]

I've Got G.A.M.E. = Gamers Addictive Malady Endemic

Treat the problem, not the symptoms

[DingoBueno]

It seems to me that there are many, many things to which one may be addicted. Shouldn't we try to exercise some self-control and learn the recognize when we're in over our heads? This isn't new--it's the newest manifestation of core human behavior.

Re:Treat the problem, not the symptoms

[Skazka]

The article mentioned that addictions form when a person has/chooses a single method of coping with all their problems. Note that addictions often involve coping behavior, not just doing something one enjoys to excess. This might be interpreted as removing all other methods of dealing with life, ultimately rendering oneself unable to live without this one constant coping behavior.

Slashdot

[Hoi Polloi]

Great, now I'm scared to see how much time I've wasted going through comments on Slashdot.

Same Thing

[meggito]

Game Addiction frequently IS drug addiction. How many times to you join a game just to be up against 'weed?', 'bong420', and the highest fragger 'StonedShooter'. Meanwhile, that asshat DrunkFlamer is just tking everywhere. I know that I, for one, like to get STONED AS HELL before I play some ET or Lineage2. Why the similarities? Both are escapes from reality. But, remember that they are not necessarily exclusive.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Irish_Samurai]

How are you going to legitimize taxing games on top of the normal taxes associated with a consumer product?

If you begin taxing a media type explicitly you will have lobbyists from the other media types rushing in to defend them becuase it will establish a precedent that will ultimately affect them and their bottom line.

Regulation is NOT for the benefit of the people. It may have been a long time ago, but that intent has been bastardized into a way for lobbyists to exert financial leverage against the government and to allow an easier creation of revenue generating mechanisms for the government. The government (read politicians) is not going to go out and begin to regulate something if it cannot either:

1. Get votes from doing so by creating "make work" jobs
2. Generate revenue from the regulation process

The possibility for games to be uniquely taxed does exist in a conceptual manner, but the reality of implementing such regulations with a Government body prevents it from actually happening.

How exactly would you regulate religion without leverage? How would one go and regulate a tax exempt organization? At most you can remove the tax exempt status, which will ultimately end in the organization incorporating itself. And we've done so well with regulating the behavior of corporations in the US. Ultimately, it would fail - and perhaps may even strengthen the position of the religous organization in the US.

As for Video Games, what do you regulate? The businesses that create them already self regulate content. The vehicles for their distro media has been standardized. The outlets for their sale have already been forced to impose taxes on the final product. The hardware it runs on meets FCC standards and most likely has an import tax applied to it.

Alcohol, gambling, and firearms can all be justified in their regulation because their is compelling studies that justify the reasoning behind it. Alcohol will hinder the development of children if introduced into their system too early. Gambling is associated with money, a resource most children don't have the skills or tools to generate. Also, gambling outlets most often serve controlled substances (alcohol) for free. Firearms carry a consequence with them so ultimate, that the ability to use them is regulated to keep them out of the hands of people who do not exhibit the skills necessary to make decisions regarding their use.

There is no overwhelming evidence that opens up the avenue to regulating video games or religion in this manner. While studies do exist, they are hard pressed to find physical evidence in abundance to make thier case. Hence, the process of regulating these things has not yet become worth the effort.

Addiction is like addiction?

[PeekabooCaribou]

o rly?

Re:Big Effing Deal

[ultranova]

So do alcohol, gambling and tobacco. We regulate those things. Why not games and religion? (aside from that pesky first amendment)

Propably because

1. All attempts to regulate religion in the past either failed miserably or turned into persecution, war and/or mass murder, and
2. US was founded by people fleeing these things, and they didn't want to repeat the experience.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[cornelius1729]

Look at how often men masturbate when they can't shag, it doesn't serve any purpose except for feeling good.

Actually masturbating stimulates sperm production, which makes you more fertile for when you do get round to shagging, and consequently gives you an evolutionary advantage. Jerk away!

No way!

[whitroth]

I can stop playing solitaire any time I want!

        mark "don't want to...."

Re:now we're WAY off-topic

[theStorminMormon]

And 2000 years ago the nascent Catholic church was considered a cult by the Jews.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Slime-dogg]

Granted we've all seen so-called Christian churches do bizarre things to seek the Lord on high through emotional states of quasi-consciousness in the name of new testament worship.

And the majority of Christian churches will frown upon the churches that do participate in these activities. There are certain dangers associated with the babbling human syndrom (as I call it). It is easy to be confused into believing that you are "filled with the Holy Spirit," even though there is no way of actually telling. Of course, Demons can NEVER step upon holy ground!

The Nature of Addiction

[Petersko]

I'm surprised at some of the uninformed drivel being passed around here.

People are actually suggesting that wanting to do something a lot somehow constitutes addiction. It doesn't. It just means they really enjoy it.

Myself, I had a cocaine problem for a year and a half. Despite the fact that a cocaine addiction is almost entirely psychological, there were physiological manifestations. When I knew I was going to buy some, my attention span would shorten, my mannerisms would change and become twitchy, I would be unable to sleep, and I would have to defecate more frequently. We're talking partial liquification. Without doubt a cocaine problem is the surest cure for constipation.

Just wanting to play games real bad doesn't cut it. People with a psychological addiction are not simply anxious to get back to the game.

I have no doubt at all that games can be psychologically addicting. I just question whether people who say, "Oh he's totally addicted to WoW", really have any idea what constitutes addiction.

Re:The Nature of Addiction

[swordgeek]

No coke use in my background. However, I was a medicinal chemist before I got into computing and know something of the nature of addiction. Somewhat like you I suspect, I get utterly pissed off at people who don't understand the difference between psychological (pseudo-) and physiological (true) addiction. Let's lay it out for people right here:

Psychological addiction (gaming, sex, gambling, possibly running) is a learned response. This is Pavlov's dog, taken to the extreme. It is tied to the personality of the user. Yes, some people kill themselves with it, but it's not the same as...

Physiological addition (crack, heroin, rock, sometimes nicotine)is a long biochemical process started with a receptor binding to the psychoactive compound. It has clinically measureable (and measured) properties, which lead to the symptoms.

"Psychological addiction" is so named because it has symptoms that mimic (sometimes very closely) those of physiological addiction. However: the stimulus is completely different, the reaction is somewhat different, and the withdrawal is dependent more on the person's mental makeup than on their inalterable body chemistry.

So in other words, chemical addiction should be treated chemically when possible (methadone) and brutally if necessary, whereas psychological addiction should be treated with counselling, and chemically if necessary (antidepressants, most likely).

Re:Big Effing Deal

[krunk7]

A repeat of the "Religion - Opiate of the Masses" bumper sticker slogan is +5 Insightful? A belief or world view that includes beings of non-earthly origin, transcending the self-centeredness of secular humanism and corresponding to reality doesn't necessarily contain or lead to qualities of addiction. Granted we've all seen so-called Christian churches do bizarre things to seek the Lord on high through emotional states of quasi-consciousness in the name of new testament worship.

1) Karl Marx
2) You have completely and utterly missed the meaning of this statement. Congratulations.

What a cross person you are

[Flying pig]

I'm sure you get something out of being so angry and aggressive, but what?
OK, I should have said "modern languages", not "English". But I notice you avoid answering my core point, which is that few Protestants have any knowledge of either Hebrew or NT Greek, despite claiming that their religion is Biblically based. Muslims are required to learn Arabic so they can properly understand the Qu'ran, and I appreciate this. My own NT Greek is just about good enough to enable me to read NT translations critically with the original alongside, and I wish I had time to improve it.
You seem to think that rational argument involves trying to pick holes in odd words rather than concentrating on content. Of course I had to write "totalitarian" in order to say that I regard it as a non-term which I would not use in discussion. That isn't being self-contradictory. And it is not being authoritarian to refer to the work of scholars, which are open to challenge and are peer-reviewed when published. I was replying to your ad hominem attack which accused me of flamebaiting, and pointing out that I was merely expressing what I consider to be quite mainstream views, at least outside the US. You are completely at liberty to disregard anything I post, but perhaps you should ask yourself why you are generating such anger? Why do you put "first degree" in inverted commas? Most professional people nowadays have two or more degrees, and I was just explaining in a few words that I was not totally unqualified to make my point. My subsequent qualifications, like most older people writing on Slashdot, are in computing. Are you just one of those people who cannot bear to have their beliefs challenged? If so, the Internet is not a good place for you.

Humanity = Addiction

[meggito]

Maybe my logic is flawed but... Human beings are pattern recognition machines. Our worldview is nothing but the collection of patterns. Cars drive on the streets, padestrians walk on the sidewalk, planes are in the sky, these are patterns. If you see a car on the sidewalk this is clearly out of the pattern and indicates that we should note the incident. Specifically, we reassess the pattern in light of the new information by comparing it (car driving on the sidewalk?) to our previous knowledge (cars drive on roads, on wheels, etc.) and decide if this needs to be updated in light of new info (someone dyes their hair, this breaks a pattern, now we have to update in light of new info, and we now recognize that person (or their pattern) as having red hair). Our response to a situation (which is just an abstraction of lots of patterns) depends primarily on previous, similar experiences. This underlines the pattern-forming (habit forming) nature of us pattern-recognition machines. We know at 7:00 we need to wake up, that is the pattern. We know next is a shower, brush-teeth, etc. But, our favorate road is closed, we must reevaluate the situation, find a new route, and, if this is a long term thing, update our pattern to reflect the change (if short term you should remember it tomorrow I hope). What drives our reaction to these patterns? Chemical desire. We go to work to make money to buy food to satisfy a chemical need. We have sex, exercise, smoke pot, and play video games. In turn we must date/socialize, keep up that gym membership, pay our dealer, and pay our electric bill. Paying our electric bill is an addiction in that we need it to stay warm (satisfy Psyiological needs), and continue in our patterns (habits) such as watching tv (addiction), playing games (addition), or doing improvements to your house (addiction). My point in all this is that people are habit-forming by nature. What differentiates between what we commonly call an addiction/habit is that it is negative. Running is an addiction but is considered ok. Basketball players are atheletes, not endorphin addicts. So, what is the distinction? Common morality. I do not mean morality! I mean the pattern of morality that is recognized by those across a particular community. In Amsterdam smoking pot is not out of the ordinary and thus not against COMMON morality. I use this term very very loosely for lack of a better word as legalizing (not smoking) pot can easily be considered moral by both deontolical (doesn't hurt anyone but the user) and utilitarian (we spend BILLIONS on keeping pot dealers in jail) means. My point is not whether it IS right or wrong but whether or not it is outside the PATTERN. This is why video games are considered addictive and football is not. If you lived in Korea (with a different common morality than above) you will find that video game 'addiction' (our standards) is the norm there and they actually have multiple TV stations dedicated to video games. Here gaming is a sport not an addiction. The truth is... Everything is based on pattern recognition and pattern forming. As a result, everything can be habit-forming and become an addiction. The only difference between hobby and addiction is the perspective on whether or not activities are 'healthy' under 'morality' but this is done at the macro level and not necessarily reasonable. Our society runs on addicts. 95% of the US are workaholics. Most of them follow the same pattern day after day and become 'addicted' to their pattern of life. They just don't get called addicts because working is considered (and is) a very moral thing. So, I've ranted, my bad.

Re:Humanity = Addiction

[NerveGas]

  You're missing the key differences between addiction and acting based on previous experience. In fact, you don't seem to understand what an addiction is at all. When you act based on the outcome of previous decisions, you generally go for what has produced a positive result. And if you felt like it, you could try something else just to see if it worked better.

  In an addiction, you *have* to "get your fix", even if the outcome is painful, or otherwise negative - and you don't really have a choice in the matter, you can't just say "Well, maybe I'll try *not* taking this drug..."

  True addiction isn't "I like to do this, and I do it a lot." True addiction is "I can't stop doing this no matter how badly I want to." Patterns aren't addiction.

steve

A note on alcoholism

[Sycraft-fu]

If you are really an alcoholic, you need to quit drinking period, for ever. There is no "in moderation" as an alcoholic. You may not be that extreme yet, but it'll come, and screw up you life. If you do drink in moderation, as in you can easily drink only a drink for an entire day regularly, then you aren't an alcoholic and never were.

Alcoholism is something that you either have or don't, and there's no curing it. Drinking heavily does not make one alcoholic, it makes one a heavy drinker. The difference is the need. Alcoholics feel a need to drink, a very strong one, and they can't just stop. So where a non-alcoholic has no problem having one beer and then not drinking anymore, an alcoholic finds that near impossible. They may not have a ton in front of you, but they'll do it. For example you all might go to a bar and have two beers. The non-alcoholics will go home and leave it at that. The alcoholic will go home and proceede to drink the rest of the night.

So, if you find that once you start drinking you have problems stopping, that you drink more often than you want to, that you basically ALWAYS drink a lot (meaning 3 or more in a day), then there's a real good chance you are an alcoholic and you shold seek help. It can't be treated, you can't wean yourself off it like cigarettes, it's just something you have to live with. However that means completely forswearing alcohol. It's also not something to be ashamed of, it's just how your body works. It's like diabeties or a similar disease. Drinking doesn't cause it, it's just how you are.

Re:A note on alcoholism

[madaxe42]

I was fiercly hooked - I'd generally have my first drink by about 11am, and generally wouldn't stop until I passed out sometime early the next morning - that went on for a good 6 months. I then quit cold turkey. Which hurt. A lot. And I do still drink, just not in any quantity ever - if I didn't ever drink again, I'd always be scared, always unsure - the fact that I *can*, and I *can* put it down, and walk away now is reassuring.

Re:A note on alcoholism

[Sycraft-fu]

In that case, you aren't an alcoholic. That's good. Just don't confuse your drinking with alcoholism. The reason I push this is I know a number of alcoholics and a common misperception is that they can quit "whevener they want" and that "it's just willpower" and that "it won't hurt if you have a drink for this special occasion". For alcoholics, none of that is true. They can't just put it down and walk away and it's not ok to have a drink, ever, because it'll lead to more.

Too True

[FireIron]

I knew I had a problem when I found myself in the back alleys of Paragon City, late at night -- tired, dizzy, and strung out -- trying to score just one more damn badge.

Re:now we're WAY off-topic

[vertinox]

Fair enough. Still doesn't answer the deeper questions, but I don't think humans can find those on their own.

Not Addiction

[stoicio]

These are symptoms of compulsive behaviour.
It's a chicken/egg thing.

Drugs create a chemical compulsion based
on screwing up the brains
frontal vs. amigdalic regulatory chemistry.

In video gamers, the compulsion is likely
a part of thier personality.

The real question is:
Are video gamers drawn to them because of latent compulsive behaviours?

Harcore plain jumpers

[GrumblyStuff]

Naturally I was a bit skeptical regarding the danger and excitement of jumping on a flat surface but when I slipped and got a concussion, boy, was I hooked.

soulist? My dictionary doesn't have that one...

[nido]

1)Unless you're a soulist, the mind is a product &reflection of the physical.

Technically speaking, you mean vitalist.

This is the materialism vs. vitalism debate.

Vitalism: (philosophy) a doctrine that life is a vital principle distinct from physics and chemistry. (life is the non-material 'spark' that animates the physical. -me)

Materialism: Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Both are philosophies. IMHO, there is more 'scientific' evidence supportive of vitalism than there is supportive of materialism, but I guess that just depends on what you'd rather believe...

See Ingo Swann's _Psychic Sexuality_ (a self-published book, search for the author's website) for more on this topic.

Uh, that's impressive.

[Moofie]

Wait. So people who exhibit obsessive behavior exhibit obsessive behavior? Wow! how much did THAT particular research gem cost?

Re:Uh, that's impressive.

[swordgeek]

Brilliant! At least someone understood what that godawful article actually said.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[KarmaOverDogma]

"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."

I'll agree with that.

No, really! I do!

Re:now we're WAY off-topic

[alnjmshntr]

Yeah, it takes at least 2000 years for everyone to forget the precise details of what happened, and after that anythings possible.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[CFrankBernard]

For me to merely point out that the message is commonly known via bumper stickers doesn't preclude knowledge that it started with one famous (dead) guy. I described the message this way to emphasize my bewilderment that the message was "Insightful" if everyone has already read and considered it. Maybe "No duh" or "Trite" would be more appropriate : )

The churches are "so-called" Christian because in practice they disregard the first two-thirds of their books teaching that the new testament later clarifies and builds upon and therefore end up with bizarre interpretations.

Not even fscking close

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Playing video games isn't going to get you thrown in prison, your home and other assets taken away and prevent you from ever finding a job.

Re:Not even fscking close

[learithe]

It might not get you thrown into prison, but it *can* get your home and your assests taken away. And it's cost many, many people jobs and college degrees.

Re:Big Effing Deal

[uberjoe]

or jump from plains and and buildings

Is that like jumping up and down in Kansas?

Re:Big Effing Deal

[feepness]

Everything is a chemical reaction and in my mind addiction is not something to be scared of.

The clinical definition of addiction is something that impairs job or social functioning.

ie:

If I jerk off every single day before I go to sleep, great. If I jerk off ten times a day and my frequent restroom breaks interfere with job performance then I may be addicted.

Can't talk, gotta ding lvl 58 by tonight

[CharAznable]

Of course, it doesn't *have* to be today. I'm doing it today purely by choice. I'm in control. Yeah. In control. Only 15k xp to go.

TV Addiction

[phorm]

TV and game 'addiction' aren't really comparable though. Your general stream of TV shows is quite often restricted to a particular timeslot. If at 10:00 your shows are all over and there's nothing to watch by a few coloured lines or maybe reruns of 90210 (I'd rather watch the coloured lines, myself)... then chances are the TV is getting switched off. Games, even online games, can be played anytime... there is no timeslot restriction other than perhaps the times when you lack for opponents in online games.

New Study Needed

[sunderland56]

Seems like they only studied three out of four groups (gamers, druggies, neither). Where's the study on drug addicts who play games? Are the effects additive, or not?

Dreaming of evercrack

[DennisInDallas]

I thought that it was just me! I haven't played in a couple years, primarily behind the dreams begining to invade my waking self. The boss has display cases full of swords in a couple of the halls here, and I still can't walk by those c/o well, you know...

Re:Big Effing Deal

[leadzepplin]

However, if you show my mother (a devout Catholic and Sunday school teacher) a cross, she doesn't get the urge to suddenly go to chuch and pray.

People see jesus's face on the side of a building,(or a the top of a grilled cheese sandwich) and then feel compelled to drive there to 'worship'. So, yea, I'd say some people take religon to that degree.

Reasons to Quit [MMORPG of Choice]

[learithe]

I thought this article on Reasons to Quit Everquest" had a lot to say about the nature of the problem....

Re:Big Effing Deal

[Macgrrl]

Yeah, Robert Palmer lives! (Well, actually he's dead, but his music still rocks)

MOD PARENT UP

[shiftless]

and with that, basically all that needs to be said has been said

Humm..

[Venim]

I'd believe it...

Well duh

[wolfmanXUG]

I just wonder how many Tax $$$$ was wasted on this study.

I think they missed something here

[Sierpinski]

They compared 15 men in their 20s who admitted that gaming had chased other activities - such as work and socialising - out of their lives, and 15 game-playing but otherwise healthy controls.

Who says that the gamers would have had an active social life if they weren't gaming?

They're making a generalization about addiction. ALL addictions are like this, whether it be sex, games, drugs, music, tv, or even the lottery. To single out games just makes those who play games look a little more like drug addicts to the non-game playing community.

In another test, the researchers monitored the response of a large muscle in the eye, to see how much the volunteers could be startled while looking at a game-related image. Scientists theorise that the most pleasing stimuli prompts the smallest of startle reflexes. They found that excessive game players could not be easily startled, unlike the controls.

If you try to get someone to flinch, maybe they'll flinch the first few times, but usually after a while, people either get used to the flinch-worthy action, or they come to expect it. Any stimulus that a person gets exposed to will eventually desensitize them after a while. I was raised being allowed to watch movies like Friday the 13th. Now, bloody movies do nothing to me. I have a friend who, in contrast, was not allowed to watch any scary movies. Years later we watched a movie together and he couldn't handle it. Just another example of personal experience in a given situation.

"Computer games have a reinforcing quality, for sure," agrees John Westland, a social worker at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. "I don't think the comparison [to a drug of abuse] is a bad one," he says.

I wonder how long it will be before a pre-employment application form has 'Game addiction' along side 'Drug addiction'. Might as well add Mountain Dew to the list, or hey, coffee!

And while not everyone agrees that computer games have the addictive potential of drugs, or even gambling, groups such as Online Gamers Anonymous and EverQuest Widows are overflowing with stories of people so wrapped up in slaying monsters that for days they neglect to eat, wash or sleep.

When this happens (I recall reading a story about StarCraft in one of the Korean countries a while back) I think the issue to consider is the person who doesn't eat or sleep for days at a time, and not the games. For every person who has gotten addicted to pain meds, there are plenty others who have taken them without any addiction. Blaming the pain pills (or in this case, the games) is misfocused. Obviously that person needs professional help.

On bread and religion:

[modecx]

Sorry for getting back so late, I've been gone like I said in a previous post...

I must say, however: that was a very nice waltz around the point. You could be the intellectual equivalent of Muhammad Ali. Skillfully done indeed.

I guess it all revolves entirely around exactly how you define religion, faith, and spirituality. To me, religion and spirituality are like bread. Religion is a loaf of bread in a plastic bag, mass-produced by machines, with minimal human input. There are a huge variety of breads on the shelf at the supermarket, everything from plain white bread, and sourdough, Jewish rye, to whole wheat, pumpernickel, and even bread with raisins and cinnamon baked right inside, and they come in all shapes and sizes! Hot damn. I think I associate the raisin-cinnamon bread to Scientology. It sounds good going in, but all of those good ingredients never add up, and the raisins are kinda creepy, just like thetans and Tom Cruise. Short bastard. Excuse me for the digression... The breads are consistent in quality, and the plastic bag keeps everything fresh so you can take a slice every now and then to make some toast, or perhaps a sandwich.

Some people believe that you have to open the plastic bag in a certain way to get at the grainy goodness inside, which necessarily, are the individually sliced pieces of preserved spirituality. They believe this so fervently that entire families have been opening the plastic bags the exact same manner for generations. In fact, they go to bag opening school every week so they learn to open the bag in such a way to cause minimal damage to the bag! They have faith that if they follow these instructions in at least a general way, they can preserve the continence of their plastic bag, and therefore keep their loaf moist until they get the chance to go to the market next week, lest they end up with croutons, which, incidentally, are great for soups and salads; but they like PB&Js, and cinnamon toast, not potato soup or Caesar salad!

And then comes along Jesus, except, to me, he's pitching homemade bread, fresh from the oven. It's the kind of heavenly, doughy bread that you could just imagine crawling into to take a good nap. It's tastier, and probably has better nutritional value than the stuff available at the market. It's really amazing, drewl-inducing stuff. Best of all: he gives you the recipe, so you can cruise down to the local agora and grab up the commonly available ingredients, and then you can easily create a fantastic Martha Stuart-esque loaf of Jesus-bread at home, for practically nothing, all it takes is a bit of work. That's the enlightenment part, I think. To be Christian is to aspire to the bread baking mastery incarnate, and disincarnate, that is Jesus, is it not? He's not the sort of masterbaker to lord his culinary awesomeness over us. He wants everyone to be as good as him in the kitchen; otherwise, what is the point!

The institutional bread makers then see what an amazing thing Jesus had going on, and they say, "Goddamnit, we can do that too, but we'll make it up so that people don't need to waste their time with baking and ovens and all that crap... And we'll make a profit doing it!" The rest is a bloody history of bland, mass-produced bread that rolls eagerly between thumb and forefinger into hard, tasteless pearls of spirituality. Personally, I think Jesus would be disappointed, particularly with the missionary method of opening the bag.