Gaming addiction classified as disorder by WHO

"
Gaming addiction is to be listed as a mental health condition for the first time by the World Health Organisation.

Its 11th International Classification of Diseases (ICD) will include the condition "gaming disorder".

The draft document describes it as a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour so severe that it takes "precedence over other life interests".

Some countries had already identified it as a major public health issue.

Many, including the UK, have private addiction clinics to "treat" the condition.

The last version of the ICD was completed in 1992, with the new guide due to be published in 2018."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42541404

new 'calling' for Crawley(?)

 

Well, wonder if I would have been diagnosed with "gaming disorder". Everything will be called disorder in the future I suppose, apart from working, learning, school, profit making etc.

 

Have I forgotten when it is again? Sure I remember a thread on this a week or 3 ago?

(but I can't find it or I would have done the old postie linky thingie)

edit - seems it was linked off this thread

https://www.s4me.info/threads/psych...s-–-is-now-a-mental-disorder.1671/#post-28942

so I have seen the subject, just not in it's own thread

 

Must we pathologise everything?
The likely end result must be that "human" is a pathological condition.
From the way we are collectively behaving, that is not an entirely unreasonable conclusion.

 

Thanks @Wonko for linking.

And thanks @Allele for putting better what I wanted to say.

 

Funny, somehow telling people or my doctor that M.E is recognized by the WHO as a neurological disease no longer seems that serious

 

Sorry, but I don't see anything at all controversial or inappropriate about this. I'm seen pathological gambling addiction close up, people who had lost everything, their lives destroyed, torn apart with grief because all they could think of was where to find the next stake. It affects huge numbers of people and exerts a hold as strong as alcohol or any addictive drug. Most people can gamble a bit without needing to keep doing it. A minority can't — to them it's a need exactly like a drug fix — and that's surely a mental health condition, possibly involving some genetic predisposition. Talking about it as though it's just a bit of a lack of self-discipline would be to fail to understand the severity of the condition. It destroys lives as surely as ME or non-operable cancer.

The WHO is right to recognise it.

 

Seems like a serious matter to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction#Notable_deaths

 

Sorry, just realised this is about gaming in the video sense, not gambling (same word, different meaning). But I'm pretty sure people get seriously hooked on this, too. I don't see a problem in classifying addictions as mental health disorders. They are.

 

I think the question is whether or not playing X hours of video games per day is an addiction. I doubt it is in most cases, as gamers tend to get bored with one game and go onto another, or evolve new hobbies. Even intensive gaming seems to be more related to escapism when there's a lack of more interesting alternatives, typically in high school or college.

It might happen in a way which seems disruptive to normal life sometimes, but I suspect the underlying problem then is something else entirely. If gaming "addicts" couldn't play games, they'd likely replace games with a completely different "addiction" which serves as a similar outlet or method of avoidance. And if a specific addiction is that easy to give up, it's unlikely it was actually an addiction.

The only point I agree on is that excessive gaming may be a sign of a mental health problem. But it also might not be at all.

 

I look "forward" to the recommended treatment, antidepressants and other neuroleptics i will fathom...

 

So is your theory that addictions don't exist at all? The same could be said for any addiction. Re: If heroin "addicts" couldn't find heroin, they'd likely replace heroin with a different "addiction". I guess if heroin didn't exist there would be no heroin addicts at all. Yes, but it does exist, and there are heroin addicts. And even if we remove the object of addiction ... guess what ... the addiction doesn't just disappear. So it's not that easy to give up as you might think. I'm giving myself as the bad example here: I have alcohol addiction, haven't drunk since 2009, but still feel the need to. And honestly, if my health allowed it, I'd probably still drink. I haven't found another addiction which can replace it. Probably my PC addiction (I'm 10-12 hours at the PC)? Yes, but as I said, I still feel the need to drink. So one addiction can't always "replace" another.

 

Right. The addiction to heroin remains in the absence of heroin, because in the absence of heroin, there is still a biological need for it.

In the absence of World of Warcraft, someone will go play Everquest instead. No internet connection, and maybe they'll play cards with friends or solitaire, or even read a book. The point is more of a retreat from reality or thinking about reality, rather than a need for a specific experience.

A heroin addict is not going to just grumble a bit in the absence of heroin, then switch to smoking pot or drinking.

I don't disagree that excessive gaming is a problem, but I doubt it qualifies as an addiction.

 

Still can't understand what your method of distinguishing between real and fake addictions is. Which ones of these do you recognise as real addictions: food addiction, sex addiction, gambling addiction? "Biological need" , as a term, is a type of dependency need, which is different from addiction. No one has biological need for heroin. One can eat food out of biological need (dependency), or one can eat compulsively (addiction). Similarly, (excessive) gaming is not always an addiction of course, but sometimes is.

 

I think a real addiction (as distinct from dependency or frank absence of either) would be when the pursuit of that activity is such that
it is harmful to the person and/or others in their lives. Similarly, when desire for the substance/activity supersedes the natural inclination for self-care ( i.e. food, sleep, hygiene, work) or care for the well-being of others, you are looking at addiction, I would say.

 

Hmmm.... this doesn't look good for me. I gamble on video games about big game hunting.

 

Your son is lucky. He was able to grow up and become an adult. I am glad you got rid of the PlayStation.

If you are familiar with the term Otaku, it represents a lifestyle that encourages antisocial characteristics which reinforces the behaviour to avoid responsibility. Whether is an obsession with anime, video games, manga, purchasing collectibles, and/or porn.... it’s a convenient way to escape the perceived social threats of rejection, teasing, and criticism.

 

Since this is mentioned again: What is so wrong with escaping reality for some time? (I know, the problem is when this happens constantly...)

I assume nobody here has the perfect life, no problems, only best friends, best of health...Life is hard, especially if finances are difficult. One has to find the nice things and enjoy them; sometimes the nice things come as a gift.

Now, it seems gaming as a means to escape reality isn't accepted - but studying and working seem to be. When I studied maths it was clear to me many people chose this to escape reality. In maths, everything's well-defined, clear and ordered, no uncertainties...Some spent nearly all their lives with maths. You could also take other hobbies, like sports, or chess or..., especially if competition is involved. Or people who don't do anything else than working, nearly no holidays, no time with friends and family or with oneself.

I think it's questionable to define a certain behavior as 'sick', and another not - where the underlying processes are similar.

Another thing I think about - there is a reason why people want to escape life or certain situations. Often that's a good reason. To say this is 'sick' doesn't help with solving the underlying problem. If you take away the addiction without solving the problem, I'd say there's a new addiction waiting next door. Plus the addicted is likely to feel terrible. I don't think that's constructive.