WHO recognising 'gaming disorder'

I think this is a controversial topic in psychology, and like many others it will be used to treat and misused to control people.

I do see extensive gameplay as a compulsion. Mostly because it's a isolating hobby without a real community. (I don't value online interactions in the same way I value real world ones)

Are all gameplay sessions negative? No!

Are most gameplay hours compulsive? I don't think so...

Do I know a lot people (especially children) who spent unhealthy amounts of time playing computer games? Yes.

Do I know what the World Health Organization's mandate is? No ?

Using this as my base assumptions, my 2 most prevalent questions would be:

1. How are psychologists /psychiatrists planning to help these people, and is the treatment proven?

2. How can this decision negatively impact gamers who are falsely diagnosed with this condition?

This could be very good if someone actively seeking treatment can now get his medical insurance to pay for it.

This could be very bad if it amounts to parents/teachers "persecuting" their children to stop gaming.

It could also spawn a bunch of lawsuits:

Bad: People could launch frivolous lawsuits against game companies.

Good: Maybe someone will instate some good regulation over "whale" exploitation. (the same way some states legally limit the amount of money you can lose in a casino in a day)

Another important insight about being old anachronistic, and behind the times: Gaming-phobia is such a 90s thing. I would think that more people today have an internet surfing compulsion than anything else. I would theorise that In this day and age more people are wasting their time (compulsively) on 4chan and facebook then on gaming. I would go as far as to say that gaming got targeted because it's an older phenomanon, but it's not the most prevalent problem of today's times.

With books like Digital Cocaine in the bestseller list it was inevitable that this would happen. It's not like I even fully disagree with the points made in these books and by these conferences.

What I do disagree with is that one of the key arguments people have for declaring games a addiction is the time factor. Apparently playing 5-6 hours games a day is too much. However watching TV or reading books for 5-6 hours is fine?

Yes, there is too much games using skinnerbox to addict players. Yes, creating games that forces players to play, instead of allowing them to live there life is bad.

Hopefully this will lead to less skinner box games and higher standards in games; instead of being used as a tool to define what midea consumers should be using.

2 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

What I do disagree with is that one of the key arguments people have for declaring games a addiction is the time factor. Apparently playing 5-6 hours games a day is too much. However watching TV or reading books for 5-6 hours is fine?

TV is definitely an addiction in my book, and worse than videogames because unlike video games, children pick it up from their parents. ( Although that might change for video games now that gamers are becoming parents).

Books I think are less of a problem because it takes effort to read them. I think there are less people addicted to books, then there are to computers. I think digital addiction is on a scale which merits a discussion much larger than books.

A cool solution might be to establish a digital "etiquette" instead of going straight for treatment. Just like has happened with Alcohol, Sex, and Drugs.

MMORPG being the root of all evil, they should recognize.

Artificial skills to the max.

E-sport however is something different, not whole true,

i heard in sport game FIFA you have to unlock better players, and still they call it E-sport, that is not correct then.

I guess WHO first have to recognize a "Game Development Disorder" as branch of "Coding Disorder" first Really, we spending more time looking to Visual Stidio windows, than bandits, looking to jail windows Also when game developer looking to real window only his minds is "how to implement lighting and shadows like this one".

No i can not program longer then 1 month, else i get no results so fast, then its time to do something else.

And besides not many people can program games, so it is not so important, someone has to make the games.

Now take a look at real sporters, they also have no life.

So they have to make a difference between artificial skill games and competitive gaming, or also talk about real sport.

4 hours ago, jbadams said:

escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences

I think this aspect is key. It's not really about the time people are playing, but the context of usage.

If someone is playing games for 5 hours a day, but is a teenager with nothing else to do, and gaming has no effect on daily life (studies, socialization and what not), then it is not really an issue. If this same teenager is setting his/her life aside to make time gaming, and this is reducing school performance, creating conflict in the family and the response is more gaming, this already requires some attention, as it does suggest some difficulty in refraining from a behavior. If we consider that this person is an adult, and is risking job or neglecting family family for that, then again it's already a case demanding attention. To add a bit to the mix, there are people that spend a lot of money in gaming. If you have the disposable income, that's fine, but if you don't, and you can't stop despite the negative effects this lack of cash brings you, that's again a compulsive behavior.

All in all, I believe those compulsive behavior, to which they have added gaming now, are considered a disorder because at one point it ceases to be a pleasant activity. It's all too possible that those people would stop acting like gaming is fun activity, and get increasingly frustrated or antisocial. This is bad for those people and for the community at large.

4 hours ago, SillyCow said:

Using this as my base assumptions, my 2 most prevalent questions would be:

1. How are psychologists /psychiatrists planning to help these people, and is the treatment proven?

2. How can this decision negatively impact gamers who are falsely diagnosed with this condition?

I think the official consideration by the WHO brings more possibility (funding) for those question to be scientifically investigated.

4 hours ago, SillyCow said:

I would think that more people today have an internet surfing compulsion than anything else. I would theorise that In this day and age more people are wasting their time (compulsively) on 4chan and facebook then on gaming. I would go as far as to say that gaming got targeted because it's an older phenomanon, but it's not the most prevalent problem of today's times.

You're likely not wrong there, and there is a lot of people studying this very issue. Truth is, technology changed human behavior in a drastic manner and we are still trying to catch up with our understanding. We are little by little uncovering the mechanisms of why those new technologies are so addictive and I find it important to add game in the mix. Sure, the majority of us has a healthy relationship with internet, gadgets and gaming, but we really need a better grasp of how our mental relationship with them (if for nothing else, i want to believe that it is a good way to avoid witch hunts like those of the past).

I prefer a different much simpler definition not used by the WTO: If you get withdrawal syndrome when you can not access the games for a couple of days (and it's not profession usage), then it's addiction and a problem. Just saying "when it starts to derail your life" you are already past the critical limit. I think anything generating a withdrawal syndrome is an illness (looking at handy-zombies everywhere).

It was already diagnosed by both the WHO's ICD and by the APA's DSM. In both it could be diagnosed as a compulsive behavior disorder. Many people with compulsive behavior about game playing have been diagnosed (and successfully treated!) under the diagnostic codes of compulsive behavior disorders or obsessive compulsive behavior disorders.

What changed is that now this is a specially enumerated compulsion. The nay-sayers who claim the behavior cannot be an actual disorder now have this against their argument. That includes nay-sayers in the insurance industry who are forced to accept it can be an issue.

People can have nearly any behavior become a compulsive behavior. People commonly think of excessive handwashing and aligning objects when they think of compulsions, but it can be any behavior at all. Having locked doors at home or thinking about the stove being on are common ones; many people have it trouble them during vacations and long trips, but a few people obsess over the ideas. Mothers repeatedly checking on children is common; most mothers think about their children, but for a few people the thoughts and behaviors interfere with their lives. Obsessive thoughts or compulsive actions about work or school classes is common. Risk-taking compulsions are common. None are considered a disorder until they start interfering with regular life. When someone hears about them it is easy enough for most people to realize this is not normal and needs help.

Most compulsive behaviors are never specified in a diagnosis, the person is merely diagnosed to have a compulsive behavior disorder or an obsessive compulsive disorder. Only a few specific behaviors have been specifically enumerated, in part because they are severe yet people don't think they are real health problems. Gambling was controversial when it was added as a named diagnosable item, and many common folk who didn't know better said that people couldn't be hooked on gambling, it was just a bad habit. Hoarding was also controversial when added, many common people struggle to understand that hoarding isn't just that the person doesn't want to throw stuff out, it is that they cannot get rid of things without psychological harm.

A kleptomaniac is another, they cannot stop from taking things even when they know it is wrong and even when they make a concerted effort to stop. They're not taking things because they want to, or because they covet the items, they are incapable of stopping themselves. Telling them not to steal doesn't help because they DO know better. Trying to explain it is wrong doesn't help because they ALREADY know it is wrong. Many times they don't like that aspect of their lives and they would change it if they could. It takes professional help to change the behavior. Relatively few people are affected by the condition and most thieves don't have it, but it is a true medical condition requiring professional help.

Sadly there are people who refuse to accept that certain behaviors are actually compulsive, that the person cannot help themselves and cannot stop themselves no matter how hard they try.

This affects all entertainment. Most common folk don't seem to understand that binge watching, or being a couch potato, or a lounge lizard, or even a gamer, for some people is not just about being lazy or choosing to play before getting the work done, or choosing to play late into the night. For some people it is a behavior they cannot stop, just like the person compelled to wash their hands. By specifically enumerating it, they're more likely to accept that some people can have it as an actual condition rather than "just being lazy".

I think people get addicted to all sorts of things. I have defiantly been addicted to MMOs in the past. However I also have been addicted to programming. I remember on a few occasions my boss walked in and found me still working at my desk in the morning and said "GO HOME!". This wasn't a project that was late or anything like that. It was just something I got engrossed by. If you class everything people spend in inordinate amount of time doing as a "disorder" then possible 20 or 30 percent of people in modern societies have some sort of disorder.

I was afraid that might happen. At the risk of being overly pedantic, let's get some of the standard definitions out of the way. (My wife is in psychology, several relatives are in the medical field, and I've had plenty of discussions about these topics over the decades.) It seems we need some definitions.

These behaviors are called compulsions, the thoughts are obsessions, neither one is an addiction like you get by putting a chemical in your body.

Disorder means that it actually impairs their life. Everybody has compulsive behavior and obsessive thoughts, they only become a disorder when it harms life, such as preventing the person from attending events, preventing them from enjoying vacations, or otherwise blocking living life to the fullest.

Binge watching a show so you're sleep deprived in the morning as a choice is not a disorder. Even when it is an mindlessly hitting "play next episode" is still not a disorder. The same binge watching because you cannot stop yourself, where you feel compelled to hit the button and you experience anxiety about it if you don't watch the next show or aren't watching a show, then it can become a disorder.

This can mean someone has a strong obsession or strong compulsion yet it still isn't a disorder because their quality of life is not diminished.

Again: everybody has obsessions and compulsions. And as I wrote in my earlier reply they can be tied to quite literally any behavior or any thought. They are a disorder only for a small percent of people.

And finally, what changed is that it is specifically listed. The diagnostic code for most obsessions and compulsions does not specify the obsession or compulsion. The APA and WHO have added some named classifications because some people and groups -- notably insurance companies -- refuse to accept that certain thoughts or behaviors are harmful. There was a major outcry when gambling was specifically named where insurance companies hated that they were forced to pay for treatment. That's the big reason for this change.

I also want to make clear that the studies have proven it is a real Disorder. It's not like they just decided this in a moment.

It actually took a long time, because first they discovered it had the same effect as Cocaine on the brain (that is why Brad Huddleston book is named as it is). The argument was that the effects where only visible for short burst during a long game session.

A 5-6 hour session showed roughly a 8% similarity to cocaine use; people argued this was too small of a similarity to brand games a addiction.

The study happened in 2015. Now 2018 other studies have been launched and finished; some to prove it wrong and others to prove it right.

Right now there is still a argument over how much of a drug games are, however addiction is real and the extra studies have proven it is a Disorder. Even the ones who aimed to prove games do no harm, found that it does cause disorders amongst a lot of people.

51 minutes ago, frob said:

This can mean someone has a strong obsession or strong compulsion yet it still isn't a disorder because their quality of life is not diminished.

I personalty think quality of life is in fact diminished in most cases where people are obsessed with something.

30 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

A 5-6 hour session showed roughly a 8% similarity to cocaine use; people argued this was too small of a similarity to brand games a addiction.

Right, that's another area where some of the naming gets confusing. For some people the compulsive behavior is cemented because initially it triggers a chemical response. The behavior triggers the brain to emit addiction chemicals, some become desensitized and they seek the same high by doing more of the compulsion or obsession, others continue to get the brain's chemical component that reinforces the compulsion or obsession. Too many people equate the thoughts, the behaviors, and the chemicals. Each are different, each have different treatments.

Either way, when it becomes a disorder people continue with the compulsion or with the obsession even though they are aware of the damage it is doing. Many want to stop, they simply cannot do it. Strong actions like completely removing game systems triggers incredible anxiety and other issues, just like removing all the sinks from an OCD handwasher. The obsessions continue, but being unable to fill the compulsion causes all kinds of negative actions.

3 minutes ago, Gnollrunner said:

I personalty think quality of life is in fact diminished in most cases where people are obsessed with something.

It depends. A student who has obsessive thoughts about school can become a better student. Up to a certain point it can be useful in driving the student to study more, or to mentally review subjects and topics covered in the courses. But beyond that point it interferes with life. Exactly where that line is depends on the individual.

25 minutes ago, frob said:

It depends. A student who has obsessive thoughts about school can become a better student. Up to a certain point it can be useful in driving the student to study more, or to mentally review subjects and topics covered in the courses. But beyond that point it interferes with life. Exactly where that line is depends on the individual.

frob, I really enjoyed how well you laid it all out in your previous posts and I think you're spot on. The last part of this post is where I think the crux of the problem lie. We need people to be able to hammer away on computers for hours and hours a day doing monotonous choirs. It is fundamental to our economy. The problem is, as I see it, is this; if your contributing to the economy by working then those very behaviours are encouraged/needed. However; if it's outside of work that these behaviours are causing disruptions to your work life, then it's a disorder. I caution though, the dichotomy that I'm attempting to illustrate isn't as black and white as I make it seem. I hope not to have to go through all the cases in support and against. But I think in-between these two extremes there is truth.

57 minutes ago, Awoken said:

However; if it's outside of work that these behaviours are causing disruptions to your work life, then it's a disorder.

I think it's worse than that. With mobiles and laptop people now do this on the job. What about a knidergarten teacher surfing facebook instead of watching the kids. What about game developers playing games on the job for hours instead of creating them?

The compulsive fun parts of the web will lure you away from the "hammer away on computers for hours and hours a day doing monotonous choirs. It is fundamental to our economy" that you wrote about. Even at work.

5 hours ago, Gnollrunner said:

I personalty think quality of life is in fact diminished in most cases where people are obsessed with something.

I think it's entirely contextual.

People get obsessed with all kinds of things. Sometimes, it's even beneficial. Pro-athletes, musicians, engineers. Really anyone at the top of their game will have a degree of obsession.

As to whether that's detrimental, again, it's situation dependent. If a medical researcher is obsessed with finding a cure for cancer, that might turn out to be a great thing for humanity. If the same medical researcher ignores their family because of this, it might be a source of distress to those involved.

Someone spending 5 hours plus playing games could be wasting their life and failing at their other responsibilities, or they could be diligently honing their skills to be the next e-sports champion.

22 hours ago, ChaosEngine said:

Someone spending 5 hours plus playing games could be wasting their life and failing at their other responsibilities, or they could be diligently honing their skills to be the next e-sports champion.

But that's comparable to the difference between being a stalker and wooing a romantic partner: In both cases you express your interest and spend time and effort pursuing the object of your desires.

But one is a great way to develop your life into something better.

The other will get you ostracised/fired/jailed .

The whole point is admitting that there is a context.

One would argue that stalkers are unaware of this context, and think that they are only wooing.

The second factor is a societal context: In a religiously fundamental society (the kind with arranged marriages), romantic wooing might seem like a deviant behaviour.

I think we were at that stage when I was a kid. Where looking for a computer to entertain you seemed "nerdy" and socially awkward. But even though it is widely accepted today, there are some people on the far end of the spectrum that might benefit from help.

11 hours ago, SillyCow said:

The whole point is admitting that there is a context.

Agreed.

11 hours ago, SillyCow said:

there are some people on the far end of the spectrum that might benefit from help.

Without question. This is well worth a watch.