I'm curious why this needs its own definition, rather than being part of a larger "addiction disorder".
There's a good reason why many psychologists and psychiatrists were against the inclusion of this in ICD-11 and why the DSM5 does not list it as an officially recognized disorder either.
Someone here must know a little more about the process by which new things are added to the ICD.
Whereas, with autisms, we don't yet know how to analyze symptoms well enough for there to be a bijection between set-of-symptoms and underlying-autism-variant; indeed, we can barely even separate autism's causes and effects, if at all.
No, it doesn't. There seem to likely be some similar key mechanisms involved, but the shared mechanisms aren't the whole story, otherwise someone addicted to something would be addicted to everything.
We give different diagnoses for different allergies, even though allergies have a common key mechanism.
Especially when comparing video poker machines, it's just like a video game.
Video games don't have that risk/reward in as nearly as a tangible sense. Though you could argue that games like EVE Online, where in game resources have a direct comparison to hard cash. Ie, you can grind up a capital ship in game, or you can theoretically purchase enough ISK (in game currency, about $11,000 USD in this case) to buy one outright.
Video games have less risk/reward, are focused internally, and have more greed and achievement. If I'm able to clear this raid, I'm able to get X, which will allow me to do Y in the same game, which will make it easier to attempt Z, etc. No one plans to play 5 dollar blackjack so they can play 100 dollar blackjack.
Because diagbostic criteria need to be different for different subject matter, and no suitable generalization had been identified.
> also lumps every variety of autism under the same umbrella term.
Because there is a continuum of manifestations and not clear differentiated kinds with crisp, clinically meaningful boundaries or subject matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber#C...
There's a somewhat grey area between "Gaming" and "Gambling", but I think it's fair to consider "Gambling" a subset of "Gaming" where the games actually pay out money (or something of monetary value). This probably doesn't match the WHO definition though.
Not really, we call them workaholics (e.g. work-addicts) if they're so compelled to work that they can establish boundaries between it and the rest of their lives.
Gambling is negative sum for all participants. The house is always going to win. The jackpots are just a user acquisition expense to trick even more participants into playing.
For some people it's a job that generates income for others it's an addiction that impairs proper functioning.
What I heard on the radio was "do you lose your job, lose your wife/family, yet continue to play?"
So what about the case where playing the game IS your job (which is a growing field?) What about the case where your wife/family is playing it with you?
I'm not denying there might be some underlying destructive problem, but to my layman ears it sounds more like something someone is interested in that contradicts what another believes to be "properly functional."
IE, instead of helping your wife do important things, you play a game. Instead of going to bed so you can wake up for work, you play another round, and as a result of not getting enough sleep, your performance suffers. Addiction is basically a mis-prioritization of resources due to abuse of brain chemistry. Worse, it is typically a feedback loop: "She left me, now I am sad, but the game activates my dopamine response, providing some semblance of happiness"