Ninety per cent of the young people who seek treatment for compulsive computer gaming are not addicted.
So says Keith Bakker the founder and head of Europe’s first and only clinic to treat gaming addicts.
Via TerraNova, where there is further discussion.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement | 1 year | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Advertisement". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
| viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lang | session | This cookie is used to store the language preferences of a user to serve up content in that stored language the next time user visit the website. |
| __cf_bm | 30 minutes | This cookie is set by CloudFlare. The cookie is used to support Cloudflare Bot Management. |
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| CONSENT | 16 years 4 months 16 days | These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos. They register anonymous statistical data on for example how many times the video is displayed and what settings are used for playback.No sensitive data is collected unless you log in to your google account, in that case your choices are linked with your account, for example if you click “like” on a video. |
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| IDE | 1 year 24 days | Used by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile. |
| test_cookie | 15 minutes | This cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies. |
| VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE | 5 months 27 days | This cookie is set by Youtube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website. |
| YSC | session | This cookies is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos. |
| yt-remote-connected-devices | never | These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos. |
| yt-remote-device-id | never | These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos. |
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| _ir | session | The cookie is set by Pinterest. We do not know the exact purpose of the cookies. |
Somebody got to them — probably a game company.
Prokofy Neva:
That’s quite offensive. You’re suggesting that greed and corruption is rife in this business. But the impact of your offense is somewhat diminished — with the source considered.
Someone needs to come up with a conspiracy theorist song I can use to make fun of people with. Or one of those demotivation posters would work, too.
[…] Hat tips to Terra Nova, Massively, Geeks Are Sexy, and Raph Koster. […]
I’m a bit baffled at the statement there…
Calling it an addiction robs a person of their free will? Only if you beat the person over the head with the idea that addiction is all-powerful, thus creating an ‘excuse’ for their behavior and enabling them through complacency. This does not necessarily have to be the case and when it is, the problem isn’t with the word itself but how it is interpreted.
You cannot define who is an addict or not by how much time they spend doing it.
One of the better examples I have heard is:
Lets say a gentleman leaves work once a week on Thursday evening to enjoy a few drinks a happy hour. That is 2 or 3 drinks a week. By pure volume, most would say this person is not an addict. However, if you really want to know, schedule a doctor’s appointment for happy hour on Thursday for some serious medical issue that needs to be addressed. The appointment cannot be scheduled for any other time than Thursday evenings. The gentleman in question’s choice will say much more about their level of addiction than measuring their pure intake volume.
Prioritization is the key here, will these children (or adults in many cases) neglect matters important to their health, education, and other life needs in order to facilitate their gaming habits?
I can accept the premise that gaming addiction is itself a symptom of depression or social pressures, but we don’t strip the addict title from alcoholics or drug-users for the same reason, do we? Whatever contributing factor may lead to it, the addiction still exists. It is at this point you have to ask, “is this the chicken or the egg?” Being a gaming junkie can have social repercussions and social pressures can lead to addiction. Basically, it is another causation vs. causality question.
Don’t you love nuance? :9
I think it’s amusing that you’re more concerned with the label than with actually eliminating whatever the clinical definition of “gaming addiction” is.
I think the gentleman is doing the nasty with the bartender. So clearly, he’s addicted to good sex. This is obviously a major problem, and we should buy them plane tickets to Vegas for a very fast wedding and honeymoon.
Let’s see… feel accepted while gaming, or feel oppressed in “other life” (note: impossible to have life, or second life, while gaming). Clearly, you should go and do something where you feel like crap, because someone else told you it was Very Important, and they’ll flay your skin from your bones if you don’t.
Yeah, I’d prioritize making an impact over grinding away, any day.
Don’t you love nuance? :6
I’m not convinced that it’s at all useful to use the label “addiction” for both chemical dependencies and for compulsive behavioral issues (sex addiction, gambling addiction, gaming addiction). I’m especially wary when it gets bandied about for behaviors that offend the moral compass of whomever is doing the labeling. It’s worth noting that there’s not nearly as much discussion of work addiction, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a story about prayer addiction, golf addiction or art addiction, though clearly some compulsive people fixate on those.
But I guess “obsessive-compulsive behavioral disorder with an arbitrary object of videogame playing” isn’t quite as punchy as “gaming addiction”.
If a behavior is causing you distress because you feel you can’t control it, then yes, you’ve got a problem. On the other hand, if it’s causing somebody else distress because they can’t control YOU… that’s THEIR problem.
I’m meaning to be concerned with saying someone doesn’t have an affliction that they do actually have simply because the affliction is itself a symptom. Of course, curing the source is the key, but treat the patient well, too (lest their now firmly entrenched habits just lead them right back to it).
Why is it impossible to have a life while gaming? We all do things that make us feel like crap quite often, because we’re engaged enough to see the series of consequences that not doing so will bring us to, affecting some higher priority than our desire to be lazy or defiant. All I’m calling ‘important’ here is acquiring education and job skills, going out and supporting yourself. Ignoring physiological or safety needs to pursue a fantasy of esteem and self-actualization is clearly not a healthy decision-making pattern. I’m not saying it is unhealthy to play games, I am saying it is unhealthy to do so when real basic needs are going unattended hour after hour, whether it is eating, sleeping, or doing homework :9.
Yes, let’s treat them well by calling them names that they have been led to believe is a sickness. Think about it, Kerri. How would you feel if someone told you that you were an addict?
That was my point. I see I shall have to level up my sarcasm skill.
Yes, but you’re wrong. It is not a fantasy that other people, who also happen to be dogs on the Internet, affirm your esteem and worth. Were this a matter simply of single-player games and the accolades won from them, then you might, might, have a point.
Have you ever had your boss yell at you for no good reason? A spouse? A child? A teacher? Or, arguably worse, been utterly dismissed no matter how hard you tried? Is that really something you’re willing to tell someone to turn around and march back into, because it’s “important” and should be “prioritized” over little things like personal esteem?
Would you really say to them, “You’re addicted to gaming. Go back to your dull life, tithe your lunch money to the bully preemptively, and focus on important things like crying yourself to sleep.”? Is this really your solution? Are you really so fenced in by the ivory tower that you can’t imagine that most addictions come about because they help you survive? Because they actually do meet needs?
Go watch Bridge to Terabithia or something, then come back and tell me about the fantasy of esteem and self-actualization.
If I were a rational person, I’d evaluate whether I felt it was true. If I were an actual addict, I’d probably feel my addiction threatened and throw flak up, avoiding the subject at all costs. I’m not ‘calling people names’ to be insulting, degrading, or declare myself superior, I’m simply saying pause to consider if this sounds like passive enabling.
How should your esteem and worth be figured? If we’re talking about relationships based on depth and personality then I’d probably agree that it is still in the realm of healthy leisure activity. If we’re talking about an obsessive relationship with stat mods and seeking the awe and envy of others with the most flamboyant and colorful outfits available from only the hardest dungeons, maybe we need to discuss priorities.
I’m not saying to anyone “avoid any form of leisure activity”. At the same time “life is too hard for me to actually bother living it” doesn’t cut it as an excuse to me.
Ivory tower……IVORY TOWER?!?! You’ve clearly never met me….
Name 1 thing that alcohol, crack cocaine, or video games will bring to my life if I pursue them to the point of addiction? I understand that 90% of the time the media loves to trounce gaming as a super-evil, I’m not trying to make that argument here, but it sounds almost like the response is “games can do no wrong” which is just as fallacious.
Again, that word “addiction” is stirring chemical dependency together with an obsessive/compulsive disorder. The two are NOT the same.
Obsession can unbalance a life; the object of obsession can be anything. But there is a societal construct that loudly scrutinizes some obsessions (video games, rock and roll, comic books, ragtime) and quietly condones others (sports, religion, Shakespeare, classical music).
Gamers are being stigmatized solely because our hobby is not on the approved list of acceptable activities. The fact that some obsessive individuals are drawn to video gaming should attach no more stigma than the fact that some are drawn to stamp collecting or model railroading.
The problem with gaming obsession isn’t the gaming; it’s the obsession.
Hrm. I wrote a big response and now it’s gone…
Okay, let’s try this again, more tersely than before. :/ Stupid internet. And this time, I can’t even write the whole thing in one sitting. Gotta to go a meeting.
Paused. Considered. Answer: No.
An obsession with labels (you might call it an addiction) is the hallmark of a maladjusted academic. I know; I am one myself, and I’ve been accused of using “lawyer tactics” in philosophical debates by demanding an explication of every word in a sentence. (An accusation retracted when I spelled out the various possibilities each version offered in paragraph form.)
So obviously we’re not talking about games as a whole, are we? Hello, nuance.
See? That’s exactly how it feels.
Sam has answered this better than I could.
I haven’t talked about games this entire time. I haven’t said a word about them. I have objected to your need to retain the label of “addict”. Nothing else.
I’m asking you to realize that “addicts” are people, too. They are already living their lives. People that have a past and a mind capable of reasoning: enough that they’re playing games, in this case. They may not meet your standard of a worthy individual, but then again, that’s part of why they’re an addict. Many addicts look down on themselves because society does, and as a result, dig themselves deeper.
You need to realize that it’s difficult to have a relationship based on “depth and personality” when a person’s idea of their own personality is a cross between “toilet” and “doormat”. For such a person, anonymity is a relief. For such a person, any kind of accomplishment, no matter how small or meaningless or irrelevant, helps them recover and strengthens their sense of character.
I don’t like the state of the gaming industry as it is. I think it’s too obsessed (just like what we lump together as the marketing industry (sorry, Morgan)) with hooking people up to a heroin IV drip, rather than doing something like providing value. But it does provide value; it can’t help but do that. And on top of that, there are people like those in the Social Issue Gaming movement who are trying to harness the Vast and Awesome superpower of Video Game Addiction for the cause of good. (I wish them luck, and I think they’re bonkers.)
But the solution to alcoholism isn’t to say, “You’re an alcoholic.” That’s been my point. Labels do not solve anything. They’re good for preparing for solutions, by making easy categories into which solutions can be placed, but they don’t actually DO anything. What you DO need to do is give them those small accomplishments, so that when you tell them they’re not actually worthless, they have some groundwork from which to believe you. And games can provide that. (In a way that’s a lot less dangerous than something that directly affects you with injected chemicals, too.)
So it might be a dangerous lifestyle from your perspective, but you’re not in their position. From their perspective, playing games is akin to going to rehab. It’s a safe place (magic circle, remember?) in which they can rediscover themselves and find more than has been offered them before. If they’re playing Rage 3 on Kongregate to do this, then sure, I question it too. If they’re playing multiplayer Call of Duty 4 to do it, then no, I don’t think there’s a problem with spending vast amounts of time playing. I certainly think that, someday, someone should point out that they’ve mastered the shadows on the wall and getting up and walking up the steep slope into the sunlight is worth trying. And the kids who are checking themselves into Bakker’s clinic are doing that. By themselves.
Enabling? Sure. Let’s do that.
You’re labeling me a labeler, see how easy this accusation is to make?
I could care less what word we pick, the concept is important here. I’m not tossing a word out to condemn anyone, so please stop painting me as unsympathetic. I have a brother struggling with alcoholism, so I am well aware that addiction is often coupled with other maladies.
I’m talking about the psychological hooks in games which enable people to form an entirely new set of priorities around them, priorities which do not provide for any of your physical needs.
Not quite, you’ve singled me out and made an accusation that its my “ivory tower life” that makes me say/think as I do, I’m making philosophical generalities about the nature of addictions.
I know they are people, nothing I’ve said here dehumanizes them or relegates them to some kind of 2nd-class status. I’m not declaring who is or isn’t a worthy individual. I’ve only said that I feel it is robbing people of an accurate understanding of their own situation to tell them they aren’t afflicted with something they are.
Based on virtual performance in a simulated world. We should further encourage people already disconnected from the world to cling even tighter to a fantasy of success and achievement? I’m of the mind that their serious self-esteem issues need addressing, yes, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t ALSO addicted. You can fix the former, but the latter will just send them right back into the same spiral again (or potentially could because of the strength of habits).
I didn’t suggest calling people names was the ‘solution’. My point is telling an alcoholic “there’s nothing wrong with your habits, you aren’t an alcoholic” doesn’t help them, either. I personally see having someone develop their self-image from a game as a solution to real-life confidence issues feeding addictive habits more than discouraging them, personally.
Quite frankly, the words you’ve put in my mouth and the constant assumptions about my motives in posting have been far more insulting than anything I’ve said about addicts.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, then.
Kerri, that depends on how we define addiction doesn’t it?
Maybe we really should start there? The addiction that an alcoholic or drug addict suffers from is not the same thing, even remotely, as what an obsessive personality type will use as a focus for obsession, yeah? And the treatment approach for either is not the same. An obsessive will find a new fixation if you take them away from one. Dealing with it like you would an alcoholic and keeping them away from their current fixation is not helpful as a result. The problem is too intrinsic to be dealt with by removing them from the presence of the thing they’re “addicted” to. It’s because they’re not genuinely addicted at all, and treating them as such doesn’t help, and even has a good chance of hurting; if their next fixation is inherently dangerous and harder to control, you can end up with a real problem.
But beyond that, there are behaviors that are distinctively self-destructive that have nothing to do with obsessive behaviors or addictive ones, that could still result in gaming to the exclusion of paying attention to the physical state. Things caused by self-esteem or emotional issues. A good analogy would be cutting as a method to cope with severe emotional pain. No one calls cutters addicted for cutting themselves, and in many ways, excessive game playing can be seen as a similar situation. In order to escape the pain of existence, the person uses a method that harms them in the long term to escape in the short term. In these sorts of situations, removing the activity also doesn’t help. In extreme cases it can remove the only method the person has to deal with the pain they’re feeling. When you’ve got something like that you need to either help the person find a better way to cope than what they’re using, or find a way to reduce the amount of pain they’re going through, but simply treating them as if they’re addicted isn’t helpful; they’re not, they just have nothing else to make use of. If their problems cleared up, you probably don’t even need to worry about whether they’re doing the activity that they were before; in the case of gaming, a person who comes out the other side will start gaming responsibly, and a cutter can be safely left around sharp objects.
So the label may very well be being removed because it genuinely doesn’t apply. Addiction means something very specific.
Now, that being said, since gaming results in chemical releases, it’s quite possible to become addicted to it, just like it’s possible to be addicted to gambling. If you’re playing compulsively for the rush of the loot drop or the xp ding, you may have a problem. If you’re playing to escape how horrible your life is, it’s probably not an addictive situation, and you may need help of other sorts so you can find better coping mechanisms, but the activity is probably not going to be problematic to continue beyond that; it’s not inherently harmful in that case, and you’re not going to be compelled to continue even when you no longer need it (because it’s all you know, or whatever reason you were turning to it) to cope.
Maybe we need to get rid of that “too”. It seems like the backdoor that lets opressive tolerance in again.
Yes, we can discuss semantics, sure.
Before I felt the desperate urge to craft a new tin foil hat would’ve been a great time for that.
:9
It’s not really semantics though, because they’re not functionally equivalent, even remotely. If we’re using the term loosely, we end up with conflation issues, and it muddies the discussion so much that we talk past each other instead of with each other. As some people have pointed out, addiction and obsessive or self-destructive (like gaming to the exclusion of health) behaviors are not necessarily the same thing. We need to be clear what we’re talking about.
Addiction is a problem in and of itself; if you come into contact with the substance or activity that you’re addicted to, you lose willpower completely, and beyond that, you’re constantly tempted to go back to the thing that addicts you, in absence of any other issue. Other issues may make it easier to lapse, but the draw is there even in the best of times. Addicts don’t get the choice to stop “being” addicted, they only get the choice to stop giving into the addiction. This is different from a poor coping mechanism, because in that case the problem lies elsewhere, and if a better coping mechanism is found, or if the thing being coped with goes away, exposure to the substance or activity ceases to be an issue. Here the person does have a choice about whether they continue to abuse the activity that they’re relying on. There’s no inherent compulsion; it just happens to be the best or perhaps only way they know how to deal with things.
And that’s why calling it an addiction when it doesn’t demonstrate that compulsion inherent to itself isn’t accurate or helpful. Addiction does not allow for moderation; as I’m sure you’re aware, the only real choice that the alcoholic has is not to start. Once the first drink hits, they’ve already lost. But moderation is a possibility for people that are using gaming as an escape or a coping mechanism, or a fixation for obsession, as long as the underlying causes are dealt with. They’d be able to continue to game in a responsible fashion once they have the support they need. In the short term the gaming can get in the way of developing that support of course. The crutch becomes hobbling instead of supportive. But the difference is that it’s not the activity that’s the issue, and even if removing yourself from it is part of the solution, going back once you’ve fixed the root issues isn’t going to cause a relapse, nor are you going to be drawn toward it if you no longer really see it as necessary. Similarly, simply stopping isn’t going to work either, because that just creates a void while leaving the real the issue is unresolved. Again, this is different than an addiction, where stopping and finding ways to maintain the willpower never to start again is the solution.
Again, it is possible to be addicted to gaming, as some games share more than a few traits with gambling, and that’s proven to be addictive for certain people. But it’s important to draw the distinction between real addiction and self-destructive use of gaming for other reasons, because the solutions are not the same.
I’m even wrong about using the word semantics? We’re going to discuss the semantics of semantics?
I gave my opinion and a defense of my personal character (why my personal character became a subject of debate, I have no clue!), there’s really nothing else to do but thump chests and repeat our positions to each other over and over, sadly.
I’m inclined to skip that step, personally :9.
Eh, no no, I wasn’t trying to put any value statement on that. I’d just as soon keep your character out of it entirely, as I don’t really know you, and it’s completely irrelevant anyway.
What I would like though, is to see if the above in any way alters your position, disregarding everything else that’s been said. Or, failing that, whether you think I said something fundamentally incorrect in the above.
I suppose I can make an effort to reduce the wall of text to something more readable though… let’s see…
If addiction is defined as a compulsion to perform an activity in absence of an additional problem – the addictive behavior stems from exposure to the stimulus, not because of it’s being used as a coping mechanism – and we allow for other sorts of self-destructive fixations, such as coping mechanisms or ocd, then we cannot treat addiction in the same manner that we’d treat those other fixations, because the other fixations will continue to occur in other forms if the root issue is not treated, and the activity isn’t actually the problem. Addiction, on the other hand, will occur regardless of any other problems if the activity is partaken in at all.
So using different terms, and only applying addiction to things that are caused specifically by the activity, and not secondarily to a deeper issue, is a valid way to look at things.
Does that make sense? Or not?
Nothing on you, its finals week and there is zero excess brain capacity for me to translate this from my brain gibberish into words without non-verbal cues. There’s a lot to chew on and knowing me it’ll get chewed on. Also possible that the article wording and not the fine research being done just left me with too much of a ‘false dichotomy’ impression being made.
Now, back to suppressing my addiction to have deep, meaningful discussions on the internet (possibly a fantasy, as well :9) and attempting to absorb this psychoacoustics text book by osmosis.