Gaming Addiction

[Celista]

Which isn't new information. They've been studying video game addiction and making claims for its validity before that. Studies in 2006, 2013.

I do know what I'm talking about. My point was "video game addiction" is not a new concept, and while some having been fighting to get it recognized as a real disorder... the prevailing medical community rejects those findings. For the reasons stated.

If you want to have an actual conversation... by all means, contribute. But, if you're going to respond to everyone with a dissenting opinion with "You don't know what you're talking about."

Which btw:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/faq.php?...orumrules_spam

You can "juat stop".

If you're going to give factually false information in an attempt to prove your point then I can and will correct you. It's not like much of this research isn't accessible to the public.

Also, good luck trying to report me for forum spam.

[Amerrol]

What came first: the chicken or the egg?

Do people game all day because they have nothing in their life outside of it, or is it the other way around?

I'd say the former at least to start off, otherwise everyone who plays games casually would destroy their lives eventually. Gaming is escapism, and the shitter someones life is, the more they will try to escape it. With gaming, it usually leads to even more anti-social tendencies, which leads to a worse life outside gaming.

Though there is something to be said about certain games helping people still make meaningful social connections through online play, it isn't really a replacement for real world interaction. It can be enough to prevent someone from hitting rock bottom though.

[A dot Ham]

If you're going to give factually false information in an attempt to prove your point then I can and will correct you. It's not like much of this research isn't accessible to the public.

Also, good luck trying to report me for forum spam.

2 posts and still nothing remotely contributory.

Regurgitating the "facts" of these studies is also... not contributing. Because as they are accessible to the public, I've read them.

How about you address the issue that there isn't a reputable medical journal that accepts "video game addiction" as an actual disorder. There are plenty of studies out there that reach incorrect conclusions. Simply studying something and publishing those findings, doesn't make it true.

I've already addressed WHY those medical journals reject said findings. Feel free to dispute. I won't hold my breath.

[Celista]

2 posts and still nothing remotely contributory.

Regurgitating the "facts" of these studies is also... not contributing. Because as they are accessible to the public, I've read them.

How about you address the issue that there isn't a reputable medical journal that accepts "video game addiction" as an actual disorder. There plenty of studies out there that reach incorrect conclusions. Simply studying something and publishing those findings, doesn't make it true.

I've already addressed WHY those medical journals reject said findings. Feel free to dispute. I won't hold my breath.

Okay, since you're not clear on the subject the area of behavioral addiction research is new reaearch, not old reasearch. We are just now exploring neuroscience as it relates to these addictions. The reseaech about brain behavior in those with gambling disorder came out in the last year. That is the reason why the DSM considers internet/gaming disorder to be an area of possible inclusion in future iterations of the DSM. Because it is a new, exploratory area of srudy.

I am concluding this conversation, try not talking out of your butt next time and have a nice day.

[A dot Ham]

Okay, since you're not clear on the subject the area of behavioral addiction research is new reaearch, not old reasearch. We are just now exploring neuroscience as it relates to these addictions. The reseaech about brain behavior in those with gambling disorder came out in the last year. That is the reason why the DSM considers internet/gaming disorder to be an area of possible inclusion in future iterations of the DSM. Because it is a new, exploratory area of srudy.

I am concluding this conversation, try not talking out of your butt next time and have a nice day.

Not new and if you felt the least bit qualified to use something like a google search. You could find it.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=iart20
2009 study.

Here is the one from 2006:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780399

So again... not. new. research.

Your link:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...order-in-dsm-5

Purposely LEFT OUT of the 2013 edition, meaning... wait for it... the research was conducted prior to... 2013.

"Condition for Further Study" does not equate to "possible inclusion" especially when you consider that more recent studies aren't actually providing any MORE compelling research, and are just echoing the same findings from earlier OLDER studies.

[Celista]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117423

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-to-gambling/

The DSM doesn't label potential disorders as "potential for future inclusion" if they're not going to consider their inclusion on the future.

[A dot Ham]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117423

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-to-gambling/

The DSM doesn't label potential disorders as "potential for future inclusion" if they're not going to consider their inclusion on the future.

LOL neither one of those links says that.

Definition of consider

considered; considering play \kən-ˈsi-d(ə-)riŋ\
transitive verb
1 : to think about carefully: such as
a : to think of especially with regard to taking some action is considering you for the job considered moving to the city
b : to take into account The defendant's age must be considered.

That doesn't mean it will be. They "considered" it prior to the release of the 2013 edition. The new research doesn't provide any new information that wasn't previously published. Thus the likelihood that it will be included in DSM-VI highly unlikely. Furthermore, DSM IV came out in 1952... so you may be waiting quite some time before DSM VI comes out.

One thing is for certain as recent as 2013 greater minds than those conducting these studies remained unconvinced that this was a valid disorder. What else you got?

The Video Game Addiction Myth

Internet Gamers Shouldn't Be Diagnosed With Mental Disorder, Study Shows

Gaming addiction probably isn’t a real condition, study suggests

Internet Gaming – Addictive Potential?

The study also compared Internet gaming to gambling, the only non-substance related addiction included in the DSM. They found that the rate of gambling addiction was higher than that of Internet gaming disorder. “This provides tentative evidence that despite being a new and popular activity, Internet based games might be less dysregulating than gambling,” the authors conclude.

Study also found no significant differences in overall mental health, physical health or social activity between those who met the criteria for Internet gaming disorder and those who did not.

Writing in a commentary about the study, Patrick M. Markey, Ph.D., and Christopher J. Ferguson, Ph.D., conclude that the study suggests “video game addiction might be a real thing, but it is not the epidemic that some have made it out to be.” The study provided more information for the debate over whether Internet gaming is an addiction. The research and the debate can be expected to continue.

News Feature: Is video game addiction really an addiction?

“That’s always been the problem with these behavioral addictions,” says George Koob. “Where do you draw the line? There are those who will argue that compulsive sexual behavior can be addiction-like and others that consider it a joke.” But, he adds, “Anything that’s causing—in my view—pain and suffering and manifests itself as a pathology deserves some attention.”

World Health Organization Classifies Video Gaming as a Mental Disorder

However, that does not entitle anyone to label this as a mental disorder right away.
It is evident the World Health Organization is doing everything they can to “label” people as often as possible. Anyone who derives from the so-called “norm of acceptable behavior” must suffer from some form of illness or other condition. This is not the right way to go about things by any means. Video games are perfectly harmless, as it always up to individuals playing the games to set the necessary boundaries for themselves. Parenting also plays a big role in this process, yet the WHO does not seem to mention that by any means.

[Celista]

LOL neither one of those links says that.

Definition of consider

considered; considering play \kən-ˈsi-d(ə-)riŋ\
transitive verb
1 : to think about carefully: such as
a : to think of especially with regard to taking some action is considering you for the job considered moving to the city
b : to take into account The defendant's age must be considered.

That doesn't mean it will be. They "considered" it prior to the release of the 2013 edition. The new research doesn't provide any new information that wasn't previously published. Thus the likelihood that it will be included in DSM-VI highly unlikely. Furthermore, DSM IV came out in 1952... so you may be waiting quite some time before DSM VI comes out.

One thing is for certain as recent as 2013 greater minds than those conducting these studies remained unconvinced that this was a valid disorder. What else you got?

Can you please stop, the original DSM came out in the 50s while the DSM IV came out in 1994. And that is the point, there is a long tine between iterations so there is a lot of time to consider new reasearch before inclusion.

Also the dsm 5 is clear that something is considered a disorder when it impacts social educational or occupational functioning. We are not debating whether gaming meets the definition of a disorder, we are debating whether it is considered an addiction. Scientists consider addictions based on neurological/chemical response which is why the current neuroscience research is so important.

[A dot Ham]

Scientists consider addictions based on neurological/chemical response which is why the current neuroscience research is so important.

False. You can get the same responses from the brain from sex, masturbation, shopping, food, good grades, exercise... activity in the brain does not equate to addiction. Dopamine functions are normal brain activities.

[Celista]

False. You can get the same responses from the brain from sex, masturbation, shopping, food, good grades, exercise... activity in the brain does not equate to addiction. Dopamine functions are normal brain activities.

I am honestly quite tired of talking with you because everything you say can be proven to be false. If you don't like it, go look up how the research community defines addictions.

For the record, the DSM is quite clear: any behavior that isn't attributable to a TBI/physiological disorder and negatively impacts educational, social, and/or occupational functioning is a disorder. It doesn't matter if it has it's own label or not in the DSM, it is a disorder of some sort. Before we started talking about behavioral addiction subtypes, a lot of these behaviors were considered under catchall disorders like OCD.

So yes, indeed, if you masturbate 12 hours a day (perhaps in an attempt to boost dopamine function) and it negatively impacts work, school, or your social life, it is from a mental health standpoint considered a disorder.

As noted earlier, whether it is considered an addiction is still pending further research.

[A dot Ham]

I am honestly quite tired of talking with you because everything you say can be proven to be false. If you don't like it, go look up how the research community defines addictions.

For the record, the DSM is quite clear: any behavior that isn't attributable to a TBI/physiological disorder and negatively impacts educational, social, and/or occupational functioning is a disorder. It doesn't matter if it has it's own label or not in the DSM, it is a disorder of some sort. Before we started talking about behavioral addiction subtypes, a lot of these behaviors were considered under catchall disorders like OCD.

So yes, indeed, if you masturbate 12 hours a day (perhaps in an attempt to boost dopamine function) and it negatively impacts work, school, or your social life, it is from a mental health standpoint considered a disorder.

As noted earlier, whether it is considered an addiction is still pending further research.

Ok let me just dumb this down to its final stupidity.

Take the video games out of it. Take out any replacement activity/behavior/addiction.

Said person still can't hold a job, still can't socialize, still can't learn.

At what point do you start to consider other pre-existing, or underlying disorders? When do you consider that said individual is just a fuck up, an asshole, a drain on society?

If you're going to define abnormal behavior, you have to define or set a standard for normal behavior.

So what is normal dopamine production? How do those that are "addicted" deviate from that norm?

[RicardoZ]

I don't think I get "addicted" to games per se, so much as I do the worlds they take place in. I can get trapped in the post-apocalyptic world of the TV show "Revolution" just as much as I do in Fallout 4. It's the attachment to the alternate reality I think that reels me in...I don't want to go back to the real world, not so much the actual gameplay or desire to follow the carrot-on-a-stick of character progression, of which I actually do very little.

[Celista]

Ok let me just dumb this down to its final stupidity.

Take the video games out of it. Take out any replacement activity/behavior/addiction.

Said person still can't hold a job, still can't socialize, still can't learn.

At what point do you start to consider other pre-existing, or underlying disorders? When do you consider that said individual is just a fuck up, an asshole, a drain on society?

If you're going to define abnormal behavior, you have to define or set a standard for normal behavior.

Doctors and mental health professionals don't write people off as "being an asshole" or "just being a fuckup". There's always an underlying explanation for behavior. It can be genetic, it can be a physical disorder like a brain injury, it can be a lot of things. It can be a personality disorder. But again, the basis always is--does this person's behavior negatively impact their ability to function at work, school, or social settings? If nothing impacts your ability to do those things, ta-da, you are normal.

If a person can't hold a job, can't socialize, can't learn, there's something going on.

We get super judge-y about mental health disorders because there's a lot of stigma and we don't understand them. Like, with binge eating disorder we have recently found that there's a relevant component that is genetic. Genes interact with environment in regards to expression so when people have the opportunity to binge on food (since food is now in abundance here), we see more people with evidence of having a binge eating disorder (not all obese people have an eating disorder).

The idea that people with mental health disorders are lazy and just need to exhibit self-control is something that needs to really die. That doesn't mean that people with mental or physical health issues get a free pass to sit at home wallowing in whatever behaviors are destroying their life. It's important to encourage these people to seek help so they can become functioning members of society.

The best way to really view mental health disorders is like a physical disease, like having a broken bone or the flu. You expect people to go to the doctor and get help, and don't expect them to willpower the flu away.

That doesn't mean that mental health issues can't be hard to treat and become chronic. Like with certain diseases where treatment methods only help to mediate symptoms rather than cure the disease (such as HIV), some people don't respond to current medication/therapeutic approaches (depression in some individuals is considered treatment-resistant, for example).

However, for most people, mental health issues aren't a lifelong disorder, and most are treatable. Like most instances of disease (but obviously not all).

[A dot Ham]

Doctors and mental health professionals don't write people off as "being an asshole" or "just being a fuckup". There's always an underlying explanation for behavior. It can be genetic, it can be a physical disorder like a brain injury, it can be a lot of things. It can be a personality disorder. But again, the basis always is--does this person's behavior negatively impact their ability to function at work, school, or social settings? If nothing impacts your ability to do those things, ta-da, you are normal.

If a person can't hold a job, can't socialize, can't learn, there's something going on.

We get super judge-y about mental health disorders because there's a lot of stigma and we don't understand them. Like, with binge eating disorder we have recently found that there's a relevant component that is genetic. Genes interact with environment in regards to expression so when people have the opportunity to binge on food (since food is now in abundance here), we see more people with evidence of having a binge eating disorder (not all obese people have an eating disorder).

The idea that people with mental health disorders are lazy and just need to exhibit self-control is something that needs to really die. That doesn't mean that people with mental or physical health issues get a free pass to sit at home wallowing in whatever behaviors are destroying their life. It's important to encourage these people to seek help so they can become functioning members of society.

The best way to really view mental health disorders is like a physical disease, like having a broken bone or the flu. You expect people to go to the doctor and get help, and don't expect them to willpower the flu away.

That doesn't mean that mental health issues can't be hard to treat and become chronic. Like with certain diseases where treatment methods only help to mediate symptoms rather than cure the disease (such as HIV), some people don't respond to current medication/therapeutic approaches (depression in some individuals is considered treatment-resistant, for example).

However, for most people, mental health issues aren't a lifelong disorder, and most are treatable. Like most instances of disease (but obviously not all).

Oh I see... you got hung up on the underlined part, and completely ignored the sentence in bold just before it.

At what point do you start to consider other pre-existing, or underlying disorders? When do you consider that said individual is just a fuck up, an asshole, a drain on society?

Thanks for the lecture on the stigmas of mental health.

What needs to die is this concept that every compulsion or shortcoming needs to be justified by some sort of disorder, absolving the person with such diagnoses of any personal responsibility.

I find your definition of a mental disorder being slightly comical as it directly contradicts your position that video game addiction exists, or rather is a disorder. How can one have a "lifelong" genetically pre-disposed addiction to video games without every being exposed to them?

I'm actually quite bored with this conversation. The cards are stacked against you I'm afraid and there are far more professional who reject the "epidemic" of video game addiction, than those that support it, which is why it has been left out of medical journals.

Assholes, and fuck up don't exist... just disorders. I laughed so hard I squeezed out a tear... just one, a single solitary tear.

[Celista]

Assholes, and fuck up don't exist... just disorders. I laughed so hard I squeezed out a tear... just one, a single solitary tear.

I addressed the underlined. I told you how mental health professionals view disorders. You can be an asshole and a fuck up without meeting the definition of a disorder. I told you what the guidelines are. I already addressed your point about personal responsibility in my post before you even brought it up.

I think you just like to argue.

[Jonnusthegreat]

All addictions are curable with simple willpower. If you think it's a problem, then you at least somewhat want to change it. If you want to change it enough, you can eliminate it from your life entirely or keep small parts of it in your life.

You are the only one in control, not the games.

[Pum]

Exactly. Also one shouldn't loose the greater picture of what the data says. It is natural to get excited you find something out of the ordinary. Still the evidence weighs the other way. And that's how you should evaluate evidence especially when we are not psychologists or psychiatrists. Promoting the notion of gaming addiction is harmful both to the hobby as a whole and to individual people by denying their agency and allowing them to easily shed personal responsibility for their own decisions. Its all in all demeaning to do so and pottentialy harmfull to adults who might the nfal easy prey to a charlatan and especially children who may be abused by their overzealous, missinformed parents because of a "yesbut"

For starters, the DSM is not an iron-clad set of guidelines for diagnosis like you seem to believe, it's an ever-evolving set of diagnostics that will change as necessary.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3832462/ 2013

The cited research indicates that the individual’s context is a significant factor that marks the dividing line between excessive gaming and gaming addiction, and the game context can gain particular importance for players, depending on their life situation and gaming preferences. [...] The cited neuroimaging studies indicate that Internet gaming addiction shares similarities with other addictions, including substance dependence, at the molecular, neurocircuitry, and behavioral levels. The findings provide support for the current perspective of understanding Internet gaming addiction from a disease framework. [...]The holistic approach adopted here not only highlights empirical research that evidences neurobiologic correlates of Internet gaming addiction and the establishment of a preliminary diagnosis, but also emphasizes the necessity of an indepth understanding of the meaning, context, and practices associated with gaming

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5410811/ 2017

At the center of this understanding of addiction is the brain’s reward system, in which using the substance triggers release of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which influences neurons in the nucleus accumbens, as well as other brain areas, such as the prefrontal cortex. Repeatedly activating these complex circuits modifies neural connections until these circuits respond to mere anticipation of the reward—as in Pavlovian conditioning—and produces the classic symptom of craving. Over time, the changes in dopamine receptors and the functioning of these pathways can diminish the sense of pleasure and produce tolerance.

In 2001, a key study in Neuron led by Hans Breiter of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston used fMRI to show that gambling could activate reward centers in the same way as a substance (8). Neuroimaging studies of video gamers are more recent, but show many similarities, Volkow adds. One 2011 fMRI study led by Simone Kühn, of Ghent University in Belgium, of 154 14-year-olds found that frequent gamers had more gray matter in the left ventral striatum, a change that may result from increased dopamine release that also shows up in those addicted to gambling

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023737/ 2016

The present study showed the prevalence of addicted gamers to be 1.4 %, problem gamers to be 7.3 % and engaged gamers to be 3.9 %.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744898/ 2015

According to DSM-5 (4), Internet gaming disorder refers to the “persistent and recurrent use of the Internet to engage in games, often with other players, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress as indicated by 5 (or more) criteria in a 12-month period.” These criteria comprise lack of control over the use of Internet games, preoccupation with Internet gaming, psychological withdrawal, developing tolerance for games and need for increase use of games, loss of other significant interests, use of Internet games despite negative consequences, and significant decline in social and occupational domains

So even here, the DSM actually goes against you and it at least recognises the existence of an IGD; time will tell what will happen there.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...adb.12282/full 2017

This has a bit more neurology involved so would need to have a thorough read to process it, but:

In summary, we have demonstrated that the brain can change following IGA such that the topological pattern of brain functional networks shifts toward the random pattern, pointing to a less optimized organization of the brain with regard to information processing. Even though dysfunctional behavior in IGA may not be considered to be fully pathological, the topological shift of brain functional networks is likely to indicate alterations of the brain as shown in other pathological variations.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061797/ 2012

Overall, the studies indicate that Internet and gaming addiction is associated with both changes in function as well as structure of the brain. Therefore, not only does this behavioural addiction increase the activity in brain regions commonly associated with substance-related addictions, but it appears to lead to neuroadaptation in such a way that the brain itself actually changes as a consequence of excessive engagement with the Internet and gaming.

I could actually go on and on, however I don't have the time for such frivolities and during the exam period I could do without new information pushing what I need out! So what you've been saying about "outlier studies" is abjectly false; the research is there, you just seem not to be listening to it or even reading it. The last link I provided, which was a systemic literature review, said that to the date of when it was published there was only ~19 studies conducted into IGD, and naturally prompted the need for further research. As scientific studies go, this is an extremely new subject area that is only in its infancy, however thus far a picture is already being painted.

A titbit of advice to contribute to your own little journey of self-improvement, perhaps try not to be so fervent in your own scientific understanding, especially when you're trying to play up your own apparent superior knowledge as fact (disregarding how you displayed it in quite a spectacularly incorrect fashion). Neuroscience is one of the most complicated subject matters out there, which too is ever-evolving, which too is in its infancy.

Stay strong IronCorvus, everything will be okay.

[Deleted]

Clearly you aren't absorbing what you are reading. Cigarette addiction (nicotine addiction) is a chemical dependency problem. It is NOT the same as a gambling problem.

If you were reading, the part you quoted gives 5 EXISTING disorders, or mental vices that make gambling a problem for some individuals, and not the gambling itself that causes the behavior.

What are you talking about?

They all end up in 1 hormone: dopamin. For starters - dopamin makes you feel happy/rewarded. This is why, you can get addicted to smoking(or the action of it), without the intake of nicotine(nicotine free vapor fx.).

But you can get addicted to dopamin. It can be from gambling, workout, people, love, job or yes, even gaming.

During my game time, I had serveral breakdowns from this addiction. Going from saying "Yo listen up, gaming addiction doesnt exist according to fictional scientists" is just misguiding a person, who might need some coaching(something most of us not aware of the need or simple don't want to face it).

[pateuvasiliu]

At the end of the day we humans just want to live a happy life ( or well most do )


Now for some that means sleeping with 300 people, having kids, being a doctor, saving lives, playing football, making money, seeing the world or any combination of all that and then some.

The point is no one gets to tell you what should make you happy. Gaming isn't any worse than what I listed above, as long as it doesn't interfere with your daily life negatively. It sure as hell has more benefits than watching TV.

[A dot Ham]

What are you talking about?

They all end up in 1 hormone: dopamin. For starters - dopamin makes you feel happy/rewarded. This is why, you can get addicted to smoking(or the action of it), without the intake of nicotine(nicotine free vapor fx.).

But you can get addicted to dopamin. It can be from gambling, workout, people, love, job or yes, even gaming.

During my game time, I had serveral breakdowns from this addiction. Going from saying "Yo listen up, gaming addiction doesnt exist according to fictional scientists" is just misguiding a person, who might need some coaching(something most of us not aware of the need or simple don't want to face it).

There is zero evidence that people get addicted to a hormone their body naturally creates. That is totally bogus information, and shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the data in front of you.