While the allegedly nefarious influence of video games has been debated for quite some time, the World Health Organization recently classified ‘gaming disorder’ as a mental health condition. Some have gone further and refer to the phenomenon as ‘gaming addiction’, thus making the association with established addictions like drug addiction. This raises the question of whether gaming disorder/addiction is a real thing.
One obvious point of concern is that some of those who are championing the classification stand to profit greatly from offering expensive treatments for this disorder. For example, reSTART charges $550 a day for the most intensive part of their treatment program. It is also presumably just a matter of time before pharmaceutical companies start producing medication for the alleged disorder. There is also a push to extend insurance coverage for the alleged disorder, which would really open the floodgates for profit.
It is important to note that the fact that some supporters of the classification stand to benefit financial from this classification does not prove that the classification is in error. To make an inference from the bias of the person making a claim to the claim being false would be a version of the classic ad hominem fallacy and thus poor reasoning. However, the fact that a person is an interested party in a matter does provide grounds for skepticism. This is especially relevant when the person asserts that they are right because of their expertise—bias is one factor that can transform a reasonable appeal to authority (that a claim is true because an expert says it is true) into a fallacious appeal to authority. At this point I should note that I am an avid gamer, hence I also am potentially biased in this matter—after all, who wants to admit that a favorite activity could lead to a disorder or addiction?
One obvious problem with settling whether gaming disorder/addiction is real is to work out proper definitions of “disorder” and “addiction.” In normal usage, people tend to throw around the term “addiction” without much rigor. For example, people often talk about being addicted to donuts or other delicious foods. On this vague concept of addiction, then video games can be addicting like donuts. That is, people will play the games far more than is good for them and do so even when playing is detrimental to their lives beyond gaming. But, of course, informal usage is not the final word on medical matters.
The easy and obvious approach is to go with the standard medical definition and hope that this appeal to the authority of the experts is a strong argument. On the face of it, there could be such a thing as gaming addiction. After all, almost any behavior could become warped in a way that meets the usually characteristic of addiction, such as inability to reliably abstain, a loss of control, cravings, and so on. For example, I have seen people become so obsessed with running that their behavior would seem to match up with the characteristic behavior of addicts. One problem with this approach is that anything could be an addiction, which makes the term “addiction” rather less useful. Another point of concern is that small samples of addiction like behavior and anecdotes from non-experts (like me) fail to support the claim that there is an actual medical condition of gaming addiction. What is needed is, of course, an adequate study to establish whether there is such a thing or not.
One 2017 study indicates that gaming addiction is not real. The study indicates that there are problems connected to gaming, but that gaming disorder seems to more of a symptom of other problems. To be more specific, the study indicates that gaming is a displacement activity rather than an addiction itself. To use an analogy, a person who drinks only because of their life problems is not addicted to alcohol, although they could certainly seem to have a drinking problem. Naturally, there are those who disagree with this study, contending that such a survey-based study will have the usual defect that people tend to underreport bad behavior and to present themselves in a better light. These are reasonable concerns.
It is also worth pointing out that there might be a gaming disorder while there is no gaming addiction. There are, after all, disorders that are not addictions. This is part of the problem of defining the terms, which is a universal problem of meaning. This also ties back to the problem of authority raised earlier; namely the challenge of deciding who gets to determine how things are classified.
Since I am not an expert in the field of psychology, I will not venture to assert that my view is correct. However, it does seem problematic to claim that gaming addiction exists, at least when rigorous standards are applied. There are, one must admit, certainly problems that can arise from excessive gaming—or perhaps it is that excessive gaming arises from problems.
There is no question that people can get obsessed with gaming to the point where it becomes the central focus of their lives.
These people need help restoring balance.
As you also point out, the potential for profit does not obviate the potential problem. After all, there is a cottage industry built around other addictions – smoking, drinking, gambling, drugs … I think there are enough independent medical professionals and peer reviewed studies that are disconnected from any of these profiteers to make this a reasonable issue to consider.
But, to that end, a majority of our insurance dollars and medical research expenditures funnel directly or indirectly toward behavioral issues. Whether or not you can call them “addictions” is a matter of semantics, I guess, but it seems wrong that, to use your approach, so many people should profit so handsomely because so many others cannot control their urges. Heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and so many orthopedic issues are a direct result of obesity – a combination of poor diet and lack of exercise, and the shortened lifespan statistics are used to indict our healthcare system and further the political ambitions of lawmakers. As long as we need a nanny state to look after us for our unwillingness to take responsibility for our behaviors, it would seem as though “gaming addiction” fits right in.
That said, after reading the articles you linked and the additional ones linked therein, I’m inclined to believe that this is a “thing”. I don’t think you have much to worry about in your own life, though – many things we enjoy can lead to abuse or addiction – and in the case of this gaming thing, the WHO states,
“”Millions of gamers around the world, even when it comes to the intense gaming, would never qualify as people suffering from gaming disorder,” Poznyak said, adding that the overall prevalence of this condition is “very low.””
On the other hand, I would say that when a gamer does not stop to the point of this guy there’s definitely a problem.
Like you, I’m only a layman – but I see a pattern here. The common denominator is dopamine – and there are many studies that show how people can get “addicted” (a colloquial, not clinical, usage) to dopamine. It’s a major underlying cause behind gambling problems, overuse of Facebook and other social media, excessive gaming and more. I don’t know of any clinical studies that involve the use of dopamine reuptake inhibitors for excessive gaming, but it would be interesting to see. There are definitely studies that link gambling and Internet “addiction” as well as obesity and other compulsive behaviors to major depressive disorder or ADHD, and there has been some clinical success in treating these disorders with medication. Maybe “gaming addiction” should just be renamed to fall under a larger umbrella.
Good points, the poor choices of some are the profits of others.
Non-chemically-induced addictions are not a problem. Dopamine is not a problem. The problem lies in the human choice, the focus on what one gets a dopamine rush from. People do have control over these things. I was observing in a pre-meeting discussion amongst some Gen-Xer’s and Milenials this morning that they discuss computer games much as our generation would discuss music. When is the next version of “x” coming out. Long discussions of the intimate details, silly trivia like where did “All your bases belong to us” originate.
Treating dopamine rushes like some sort of disease will only lead to more problems. TJ made reference earlier to the Cobra Effect (or Rat Effect). Software developers get dopamine rushes during heavy coding sessions, writers, medical professionals, etc. etc. etc. These are not popularly called “addictions” because they are beneficial to society. The problem lies not in our physiology but in ourselves, our conscious choices.
Also, I’d be curious as to the possible correlation of “gaming addiction” to Ritalin and similar consumption.
Definitely agree that medication is not the right response. Probably a few visits from the right sex worker would do the trick…
Then they’d need to be treated for sex addiction. 🙂
“Then they’d need to be treated for sex addiction. 🙂”
BINGO!
It’s not the game. it’s the person!
Obsessive behaviors reveal themselves differently. A person who is addicted to gaming to an unhealthy degree is the same as a person who cannot manage a gambling addiction; the same as others with obsessive behaviors who cannot control themselves. Take one activity away without treating the person, and a different manifestation of obsessive behavior will ensue.
Pointing the finger at games is like pointing the finger at guns – it’s focusing on the wrong piece of the puzzle, and will waste time and money and do no good (except for those receiving funding, selling insurance, or running for office).
I am of the opinion that we are definitely an overmedicated population, seeking that elusive “happy pill” that gets us by situations for which a little personal responsibility and discipline ought to suffice. Your observation about gen-xers is very familiar to me – not only do I teach at a university where gaming is hugely popular, but I actually teach 3D design and animation, and a big part of this involves the various elements of game design. Many, if not most, of my students are heavily involved in gaming from the initial concept to all forms of creation in addition to their independent “research” which is playing games. I hear these conversations all the time, and I frequently think that my students ought to “get a life” – that their obsessions are unhealthy. I don’t, however, think these students should be medicated.
I don’t think that dopamine is the problem – I think the need for that dopamine rush is something to take a look at. As a layman, I am not prepared to say whether that is a medical condition or just a matter of poor choice – but I do see a commonality between the kind of gaming that I linked to in my earlier post and chronic gambling, excessive risk taking, and disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar personality or manic depressive personality disorder.
Why are there some people who can integrate gambling, gaming, alcohol, drugs, sugar and other things in their lives with no problem? Others may have a problem with any of those things but, as you say, the problems are lack of willpower or desire to change behaviors – and there are still others who will gamble away the family fortune, or gain 300 lbs and not shower or use the bathroom because of their compulsive gaming “addiction”?
I’m not ready to say that medication is or isn’t the answer, but it might be an answer. Or maybe it can simply show the common denominator among these destructive behaviors. After all, dopamine is a chemical – and some of us may produce more of it than others, and some of us may respond differently to it.
There are some people who, despite following strict dietary regimens, simply cannot process insulin in a healthy way. Others, with similar diets, naturally produce more cholesterol than others. I’d stand by my original assessment that the vast majority of diabetics and those with heart disease have brought it on themselves, but there are some who haven’t.
The article about the WHO that Mike linked does say that the incidence of a “real” gaming disorder or addiction is extremely rare. Destructive responses to dopamine rush are kind of a new thing, I think they bear some study or investigation.
Agree. Though I do think there is a place for temporary use of medication to break a cycle. Yet I also believe that the stresses of modern life, especially as regards the degree that counter productive, destructive leftism has taken over our media and academic and especially psychological/psychiatric professions, have created a very unnatural stress environment. Humans, I suppose all animals, have a fight or flight mechanism for survival. In the more natural world these stresses, while much more life threatening than in the modern world, can be addressed by FoF and the stress goes away (or you get eaten…either way, problem gone). However when a rational or moderately rational person feels trapped by a PC culture or a kafkaesque social structure or bureaucracy, there is nothing physical to fight nor a physical place to fly to to escape. There is the intellectual fight but it is a very hard thing for the vast majority of isolated individuals of modest social means to deal with. Alcohol can help but often creates more problems. Other drugs, both legal and illegal, even more so due to the lack of human and societal experience with such.
As for dietary problems and regimental solutions to such, I believe the cholesterol “solution” from decades ago is what has led to the currently much worse situation. Chasing people away from red meat, eggs, pork, butter, etc. resulted in even more unhealthy diets. The cholesterol didn’t get in the cow because the cow ate pork and eggs. Humans crave meat, proteins, and yes even fats for a reason. Things may have gotten a little out of balance over the last 100 years but not to the degree that nutritionists (read: failed doctors and nurses) make such an issue of.
re: As a layman, I am not prepared to say
Given the above and where experts, or I should say what the media and some of the academic world present to us as experts, have led us, society in many regards could have stood some greater input from laymen. True that fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. But if we relied on wise men for all direction, nothing would ever get done.
I think it’s worth looking at this from first principles.
We define classes, categories, and we assign things and patterns to them based on common qualities. When we know an item is assigned to a class, we know it has the characteristics or qualities that members of the class share.
This works perfectly with some classes. If I know a shape is a Euclidean triangle, I can immediately apply many facts and methods that I already know to all Euclidean triangles, with confidence.
Most classes commonly used are less well defined. I would swear I read a quote from Sam Johnson something like: “Define a chair, and with the help of a carpenter I will construct something that all will agree is a chair, but does not fit your definition”, but I can’t find it anywhere now. Certainly, when dealing with human behaviour, we all expect definitions to be loose. As individuals, we are not surprised when a particular instance deviates from the core stereotype. We deal with such cases very well. We immediately adapt our response from the vague generality to the specific case.
Problems arise when vague definitions are codified into law or procedural guidelines such as this, because then an authority is obliged to make a determination whether a case does or does not fit the definition, after which the next action is prescribed, since the authority is often not empowered to vary for specific cases – bureaucracies can’t adapt as individuals can.
I read an informed criticism of the new classification here: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/theyre-so-focused-symptoms-checklist-view and while it covers the weakness of the grounds for inclusion, it does not consider the potential negative consequences as thoroughly, though there is this: “It will also be stigmatising. There’s a lot of people who play games to relax, to de-stress, and if they’re struggling with other things this will just be another one.”
Four questions are suggested to indicate Gaming Disorder: “Have you ever felt you should cut down on your gaming? Have people annoyed you by criticizing your gaming? Have you ever felt bad or guilty about your gaming? Are video games usually the first thing you think about in the morning when you wake up?” I suggest those four questions could be asked about any behaviour from hair-primping to eating apple pie, with equal uselulness. If any behaviour dominates someone’s life, and they want to change that, they should be free to consult a specialist. Making a special case for gaming seems entirely gratuitous.
Here come the calls for more taxes.
https://theconversation.com/gaming-addiction-what-we-can-learn-from-smoking-cessation-programmes-98495
“In the UK, huge success was achieved in reducing smoking rates by taking a multi-pronged approach. This included targeting cigarette manufacturers by banning tobacco advertising, changing product packaging and increasing tobacco taxes. A similar approach may be needed with games developers.”
As I read elsewhere, it’s also remarkable how closely this follows on the debunking of the idea that video games contribute to violent crime.
Some people don’t like video games, and will seize on any opportunity to cite exceptional horror stories and throw mud and FUD in general.
Treating games like tobacco seems to be overkill. Even if gaming disorder is a thing, the low rate and alternatives to address the problem would seem to make it hard to justify this approach. It would be rather like treating all food like tobacco because some people overeat and get obese.
But how hard to justify? One must consider the context supplied by the people who call for restrictions and taxes.
If you already feel:
a) that taxes are good, because they remove money from people who would spend it selfishly and give it to the state, which will use it for the public good and/or
b) that [insert thing here] is bad, or at least you don’t like it, even if you can’t prove that it is objectively bad and/or
c) that the state should loudly signal that the thing you think is bad actually is bad
then almost no further justification is required. That’s how we got carbon taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes.
Another topic for Mike’s consideration: “decoupling.”
https://quillette.com/2018/05/25/groups-groups-idw/