Video Game Addiction Acknowledged

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by DuttyFoot: just another way for some big pharma company to make money off another drug. create the illness and we make the drug.


I also agree with this. Who is to say that "gaming addiction" isn't a good thing? Like being hooked on the internet, it keeps our children where we want them, AT HOME safe.
 
  03 March 2013
I was a game addict but I took it under control (sold PS1). I'd hate if someone would "care professional help".
 
  03 March 2013
By the time I was 12 years old I was addicted to video games hard. I spent probably 12 hours a day playing console or PC games when I could. After school I would come home and play till sleep, like 6 hours. I remember at one point when I was like 14 my parents took away the computer for a bad report card and this turned into like a meltdown and a 12 hour crying tantrum... at 14 years old. My parents thinking something probably horribly wrong, I'm sure if some psychiatrist would of offered to be like "Oh he has ____ technology addiction disorder, he should take this drug" my parents would have eaten it all up.

When I was around age 15 I started getting mixed in with the Half-Life modding scene. My 6-12 hours a day playing videos games gradually transitioned into 6-12 hours a day making video games. About 90% of that time was now spent making models, making levels, and programming for half-life mods.

Now fast forward 10 years, I have a better job than any of my peers that I know from high school, by quite a long shot. The one other peer from high school that is in as good of a place as me was also a video game addict and 12 hour a day on the PC type of guy as well. My social development may have been a little bit delayed but you know I think it's more important to love ones works and ones own abilities, than being on the upper side of the spectrum of popularity.

This whole thing is disturbing to me because, lets says a kid got addicted to 'books'. A kid then starts reading fantasy novels for like 12 hours a day. This is actually considered ideal behavior by mainstream America. That obsession with reading books for a lot of kids generally translates into them getting deeper into researching relevant subjects, or learning to write, leading to a career. I bet you if you took away some 14 years old collection of story books when they are at the height of their very intense obsession with it, they would probably have a bit of a meltdown as well. But that wouldn't happen in our culture, because everyone thinks reading is this some like magical ticket to intelligence, and reading anything is automatically a step above any other indoor activity.

But I really think thats just stupid, maybe 200 years ago that held true when ones ability to read fluently, research thoroughly, and write really well ensured you reaching the top of a career path. But today, while those things are still important for sure, I think becoming more and more proficient with technology, digital creation and programming is actually a more secure pathway to a greater quality of life. And really, obsession with those things starts with video games for alot of people who get into it. I think internet and video game addiction is probably a common beginning trait of anyone who knows has a career doing such thing, and the more addicted they initially are, probably the better off they are doing now.

You know if a kid gets addicted to books, it's generally our cultures instincts to give them more books to read. But if a kid gets addicted to games, technology and the internet, it's now going to be the instinct to drug them off of it? I really think it should be treated the same as book addiction, give the kid as much technology as he can handle to master, as many game as he can tolerate to play. Technology and video games is not a dead end street like crack or heroin, to apply the term 'addiction' to it is stupid. A hardcore addiction to technology will only escalate into something more beneficial for the person.

I know someone might want to cite a story of someone getting addicted to video games and things never escalating beyond that for the person. But really I think this is an issue of our culture. If a kid gets addicted to fantasy books and reading, thats an easy transition for them in the current education system to then start reading history books, or other books, and begin transforming that into a career. But if you get addicted to technology and games and internet, there isn't really anything set up in our education to offer a way to transition that into a career. I bet you any 14 year old addicted to call of duty just coming into high school would love to start taking 'learn to 3D model for games classes' or 'intro to game programming!'. But no 14 year old gets that opportunity unless they go to the web and take it upon themselves to learn and get engrossed in an online indie game dev scene as I did when I was 14. So most 14 year olds don't get that opportunity, and they don't understand there addiction and passion can actually be valuable, and it can become a career. Most parents don't pay attention to the world either, and won't support a kid's instincts in these things.

Sorry that was long. But it kind of angers me. I already have a very ill opinion of the DSM, and now it's just getting more idiotic. As far as I can tell psychologists and the DSM are not an entity constructed to help people, it's an entity constructed to try and cash in on the fact it's easy to make people doubt themselves. It's like a mass organized system of bullying and making fun of. "Oh hes spending all day on the computer, he has no girlfriend, what a loser, nener nener nener, here take this drug it will fix you, go back to the education system which offers you no chance to focus 100% on what you have a passion for."

Last edited by techmage : 03 March 2013 at 11:38 PM.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Michael5188: And how do you treat this type of addiction differently than other addictions?

And if it is important/helpful to acknowledge subsets of addiction like this, shouldn't we have many, many more "official" addictions.

Identifying the type of problem might help in the treatment of it don't you think? I reckon though that gaming addiction sounds like obsessive compulsive escapism. For treatment I recommend 100 hours of compulsory Wii. That should cure anyone.


Nope, no more Metal Gear.
Say AAAAAAA
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
  03 March 2013
I think gaming addiction is a sign of symptom, not the illness in itself.

Just like the books that someone mentioned, it seems that nobody cares about tv addiction, only when gaming was thrown into it. Maybe because a lot of researches went home, throw everything away, and watches tv.

Previously people think people that eat a lot are addicted to food. But now people realize that:

a) some depressed people eat to be happy.
b) there are known DNA that kept telling the body & brain that its hungry - even when its not. Google around. There is a Nova Science documentary on this.

So when it come to gaming, I think it needed to be seen as case per case basis. We all known biologically, introvert are happy when they are alone, extrovert are happy when they are with people.

And we also need to know/find what gaming provide them that make them happy.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by fablefox: I think gaming addiction is a sign of symptom, not the illness in itself.

You might be unfamiliar with the vocabulary. That is EXACTLY how they are listing it as.
It's like anorexic bulimic disorders, they are manifestations of a deeper lying problem. So is this new gaming disorder.

Recognition means they are now willing to acknowledge it and figure the variety of causes, and causes known (whether psychological, neurological, hormonal in nature) you can figure out the treatment.

Quote: Just like the books that someone mentioned, it seems that nobody cares about tv addiction, only when gaming was thrown into it. Maybe because a lot of researches went home, throw everything away, and watches tv.

? Huh?
TV addiction has been long documented and acknowledged, as are many types of extreme escapism like the book example.

Quote: Previously people think people that eat a lot are addicted to food. But now people realize that:

a) some depressed people eat to be happy.
b) there are known DNA that kept telling the body & brain that its hungry - even when its not. Google around. There is a Nova Science documentary on this.

Now meaning? Last couple hundred years?
We have a pretty decent idea, and have had for a long time, of the differences between psychological hunger and real hunger, cravings, chemical imbalances that trick the brain into thinking your body requires fuel and so on.


Quote: So when it come to gaming, I think it needed to be seen as case per case basis. We all known biologically, introvert are happy when they are alone, extrovert are happy when they are with people.

And we also need to know/find what gaming provide them that make them happy.

And again, that is what acknowledgment will lead to, tests of various kind to see what neurological and/or chemical response is produced and eventual predispositions in individuals to be subject to those.

I honestly don't get the crusade some people seem to be embarking on, like if the acknowledgment of a disorder means they will now offer Xanax or Ritalin with every wow monthly card. I think people are just unaware of how these things work.

Acknowledgment of a disorder DOES NOT mean that they are proposing gaming is the problem itself. It means they have finally realized that it can be a manifestation/disorder of some other problem and can be rationalized, much like they did for many other things.

It's generally a good thing, not a bad thing. It doesn't demonize gaming, it just establishes the addiction to it as a symptom of something worth of recognition and study.
They are clearly right in doing it, gaming is a legally and easily available outlet for many obsessive compulsive disorders that would otherwise not surface, or surface elsewhere, no reason why it shouldn't be studied and documented as such.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: You might be unfamiliar with the vocabulary. That is EXACTLY how they are listing it as.
It's like anorexic bulimic disorders, they are manifestations of a deeper lying problem. So is this new gaming disorder.

Recognition means they are now willing to acknowledge it and figure the variety of causes, and causes known (whether psychological, neurological, hormonal in nature) you can figure out the treatment.


? Huh?
TV addiction has been long documented and acknowledged, as are many types of extreme escapism like the book example.

Now meaning? Last couple hundred years?
We have a pretty decent idea, and have had for a long time, of the differences between psychological hunger and real hunger, cravings, chemical imbalances that trick the brain into thinking your body requires fuel and so on.

And again, that is what acknowledgment will lead to, tests of various kind to see what neurological and/or chemical response is produced and eventual predispositions in individuals to be subject to those.

I honestly don't get the crusade some people seem to be embarking on, like if the acknowledgment of a disorder means they will now offer Xanax or Ritalin with every wow monthly card. I think people are just unaware of how these things work.

Acknowledgment of a disorder DOES NOT mean that they are proposing gaming is the problem itself. It means they have finally realized that it can be a manifestation/disorder of some other problem and can be rationalized, much like they did for many other things.

It's generally a good thing, not a bad thing. It doesn't demonize gaming, it just establishes the addiction to it as a symptom of something worth of recognition and study.
They are clearly right in doing it, gaming is a legally and easily available outlet for many obsessive compulsive disorders that would otherwise not surface, or surface elsewhere, no reason why it shouldn't be studied and documented as such.


I'm talking about general acceptance.

But as the fat thing, I think the DNA involved only found latest few years, but I forgot much about the Nova Science I watched.
 
  03 March 2013
General acceptance of what, I got to ask?

As for the DNA thing, I don't know if it was a sensationalist piece, or some rare fringe cases, but the causes hormonal and neurological of various types of hunger, and how they are regulated, are very well mapped.

Some people might have a genetic predisposition to producing more or less of some substances used to regulate such conditions, like diabetes has a messed up insuline level, or insuline spikes in the morning followed by a breakfast will make you ravenously hungry again even if your body is already well over the fuel levels it needs, and similarly, some people might have an exceptional neurological or psychological response to video gaming activities that wouldn't eventuate with any other stimulus, and we won't know unless it's recognized and analysed.

Saying "something in the DNA" is the kind of crap that sensationalist docos and articles will put in writing to lure readers, like they discovered some magical new corner of our body previously unknown, but it's a tenuous relationship at best to infer that DNA has an effect on hunger. It will have one on how your body works, and that can have an effect in triggering hunger, craves, and a number of other things, but it's ridiculous to establish such a first degree tie between DNA and hunger, and a harmful oversimplification.

Of course the pharmaceutical industry and the shamans of psychology will spin it around and try to profit, but that they will do off any given page of that almanac, it doesn't mean we should stop investigating disorders because someone might mis-diagnose or mis-treat them.

I think a lot of the people getting their knickers up in a bunch about the article are generally being over-sensitive about gaming to avoid confronting the fact they might be addicts, and starting to be called as such by that name. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the disorder.

It's asinine to defend any addiction by bringing up examples of how it led you by mere chance to something positive or leading the argument in circles.
Hyperbolically (or maybe not so much) speaking: I'm sure somewhere out there a happily married couple found unending love and had children they love, and started dating because they shared a needle, it doesn't suddenly make shooting brown sugar an acceptable activity ;p

P.S.
I game, and have been known to go in and out of binge periods. It's not affected my personal and professional life because I recognize the danger of it, call it by its name, and force myself to exercise moderation when and where it matters. It's a lot harder to do as much if you aren't willing to recognize an addiction for what it is.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: General acceptance of what, I got to ask?

As for the DNA thing, I don't know if it was a sensationalist piece, or some rare fringe cases, but the causes hormonal and neurological of various types of hunger, and how they are regulated, are very well mapped.

Some people might have a genetic predisposition to producing more or less of some substances used to regulate such conditions, like diabetes has a messed up insuline level, or insuline spikes in the morning followed by a breakfast will make you ravenously hungry again even if your body is already well over the fuel levels it needs, and similarly, some people might have an exceptional neurological or psychological response to video gaming activities that wouldn't eventuate with any other stimulus, and we won't know unless it's recognized and analysed.

Saying "something in the DNA" is the kind of crap that sensationalist docos and articles will put in writing to lure readers, like they discovered some magical new corner of our body previously unknown, but it's a tenuous relationship at best to infer that DNA has an effect on hunger. It will have one on how your body works, and that can have an effect in triggering hunger, craves, and a number of other things, but it's ridiculous to establish such a first degree tie between DNA and hunger, and a harmful oversimplification.

Of course the pharmaceutical industry and the shamans of psychology will spin it around and try to profit, but that they will do off any given page of that almanac, it doesn't mean we should stop investigating disorders because someone might mis-diagnose or mis-treat them.

I think a lot of the people getting their knickers up in a bunch about the article are generally being over-sensitive about gaming to avoid confronting the fact they might be addicts, and starting to be called as such by that name. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the disorder.

It's asinine to defend any addiction by bringing up examples of how it led you by mere chance to something positive or leading the argument in circles.
Hyperbolically (or maybe not so much) speaking: I'm sure somewhere out there a happily married couple found unending love and had children they love, and started dating because they shared a needle, it doesn't suddenly make shooting brown sugar an acceptable activity ;p

P.S.
I game, and have been known to go in and out of binge periods. It's not affected my personal and professional life because I recognize the danger of it, call it by its name, and force myself to exercise moderation when and where it matters. It's a lot harder to do as much if you aren't willing to recognize an addiction for what it is.



I think this is the episode I watched.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/obesity.html

Quote :

"Researchers have discovered a chemical in your brain proven to regulate body weight, but can pinpointing a fat gene signal the road to a remedy?"

As per general acceptance, its like fat-shaming. People still, to a large extent, think it can be stopped just be thinking harder. It was even mentioned by the person tested by the doctors.. She realized now it wasn't her fault that she 'kept eating'.

Its like current gaming "addiction".

I wonder why if people are depressed to a point they commit suicide (google around for teenage suicide, specially among boys. At early teen they are twice more likely to commit suicide than girls) people are quick to, "oh, if we could only help them".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...de-dean-windass

http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotio...or/suicide.html

But if they are driven to gaming instead of suicide, people was like "this boy is bad, he is addicted to gaming". And people try to shame them: Example: geek/nerd culture before it was cool.

I don't have time for rant but I personally experience a lot in my life. And I do understand why some people are 'addicted to gaming'. And I think for some of them its better to be treated fairly before they committing suicide and people started to feel 'sorry'.
 
  03 March 2013
I still totally don't see how recognizing a disorder shames people or goes against helping someone, or even just demonizes games, but at this point I'll bow out of it.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
  03 March 2013
A government advert awareness campaign, like they do with safe sex or crossing the road, targeted at parents. That should be enough really.

Jules
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Jules123: A government advert awareness campaign, like they do with safe sex or crossing the road, targeted at parents. That should be enough really.

Jules

Yup, and let us be the ones to make that campaign!

and er, bill for it too
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by ragdoll:
- Spending more than 24-30 hours a week online not for work or school.


- Mood shifts, such as increased irritability, if access is taken away

- A significant decrease in other activities and interests


- Neglecting friends, family and other responsibilities

.


I don't buy some of the nonsense on their list. 24-30 hours per week is only 4 or so hours per day. I spend more time online than that. I don't necessarily spend it on ONE THING though. I spend it on many different things, including just reading stuff I want to learn. If I spent that time in the library would it be looked down upon?

If my internet access is cut I can get pretty irritable.

When new technology comes along, I often decrease activities, many of which become unnecessary because the new technology has made for an easier way.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  03 March 2013
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.