Hacker News Reader

Comment by manfredo | Hacker News Reader

Somewhat related comparison: Apparently Americans watch an average of 30-35 hours of TV a week (4-5 hours a day).[1] Whereas many definitions I've seen for gaming disorders set a threshold of 20 hours a week or 2 hours a day to define gaming disorder.

Seems pretty likely that the concern over gaming is primarily due to it being a new medium. I fail to see how staring at a screen passively for 4-5 hours can be considered normal, while staring at a screen while actively facing challenges and solving problems for half that time is a disorder.

Edit: Forgot to add the link to the citation:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/media/nielsen-su...

View on HN

> Whereas many definitions I've seen for gaming disorders set a threshold of 20 hours a week or 2 hours a day to define gaming disorder.

Neither the new ICD-11 “gaming disorder” nor the DSM-5 “internet gaming disorder” (the latter identified as a condition for further study, not an official diagnosis, but with diagnostics criteria) have any number of hours criteria.

> Seems pretty likely that the concern over gaming is primarily due to it being a new medium.

Gambling isn't a new medium, but both DSM and ICD recognize problem gambling (“gambling disorder” and “pathological gambling”, respectively.)

> I fail to see how staring at a screen passively for 4-5 hours can be considered normal, while staring at a screen while actively facing challenges and solving problems for half that time is a disorder.

The latter wouldn't, in and of itself, be a disorder under either the DSM or ICD criteria related to internet gaming disorder (DSM) or gaming disorder (ICD). So, sure, you're right, but only because the hypothetical you pose is completely irrelevant.

I think the key is:

> the behaviour pattern must be of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning

If anything behavior is messing with your life and you find yourself unable to control it then it could rise to needing help.

I definitely agree that the WHO's definition, which focuses on social impairment, is better than the definitions that use a threshold. It's just the disparity between TV time vs. video game time in other definitions (a couple in the top Google results for gaming addiction or gaming disorder) that I'm highlighting.

Watching TV for 4 hours per day does all that to you. Especially now when tv programs are so bad.

>... now when tv programs are so bad.

What? I don't know what you're watching, but I'm here living in the golden age of television, with a big backlog of shows that I would love to watch if I had the time.

I'd argue that's a disorder, too

How about playing chess 5 hours per day? Is that a disorder, too?

Spending time doing something doesn't make it a disorder. Spending time doing something to the extreme detriment of other aspects of your life is what makes it a disorder.

If you spend 5 hours a day playing chess even though you know it's ruining your life then, yes, it's a disorder. If that becomes common enough that chess is often associated with people ruining their lives, then it's reasonable for the WHO to recognise it.

This isn't complicated.

Exactly, and I don't know why we go to the trouble of defining specific categories. Why not just say that "I find myself doing X so much that it affects other aspects of my life and I would like to stop" is the definition of a disorder, no matter what X is, and just help people? Why do we need the label?

The disorder/addiction lies in the why and how of what it is you're doing, not the amount in itself.

You can be an alcoholic when you only ever drink one beer per day, as long as it's either a compulsion to do it and/or it affects your life negatively.

I've heard that theory before, that "you're an alcoholic if you feel the need to drink alcohol periodically". Like, if you drink one beer per day during weekend, you're alcoholic because you feel compelled to do it, periodically/ on external stimulus ("it's weekend").

While this may be a theoretically sound definition of "alcoholism", to me this sounds weak/ not anchored in real human perception. I argue that if it has no significant negative effect on your life, it's not addiction/ disorder.

You're using a really weak definition of compulsion.

One might feel a desire to have a few after work on Friday, and it might even be a weekly habit. But if you can just as soon not to, then you don't have a compulsion.

> For [...] disorder to be diagnosed, the behaviour pattern must be of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning

> and continuation or escalation of [...] despite the occurrence of negative consequences.

These seem fairly clear to me.

> significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning

There was also rule about it being long-term.

So, are you about to loose job because of that chess? Are you failing the school despite being previously good student because of that chess? Are you increasingly isolated from everyone, increasingly angry and frustrated and yelling on people that you could communicate just fine before playing that much (e.g. if you hated each other before that too, then it does not count)? Are you increasingly fearful of social contact and increasingly clueless in conversation? Or rather does it stays the same?

Did you ceased to care about yourself due showering taking too much time off chess in your point of view? It is less about absolute time spent with activity and more about impact on you or your direct environment.

By this criteria I've been addicted to chess, reading books, programming, and possibly video games! Not various drugs, though, despite consuming excessive quantities for extended periods.

I absolutely think it's a double standard, where only activities perceived as morally bad (video games, but not reading books, for example) get labeled like this.

You was addicted if those things negatively affected your life by those standards. I dunno why that would be controversial or argument against this diagnosis. If you seen negative impact on your life and could not stop despite trying, there is zero controversy.

Just about only difference is that such addiction on books happens less often to neurotypical people. And since you was negatively affected by pretty much everything that went around, it seems to be of personality prone to addiction thing.

That being said, playing games is not labeled anything. As the material itself says, only minority of players are diagnozable as majority of players dont have those symptoms.

> I dunno why that would be controversial or argument against this diagnosis

Because I don't think it's a meaningful diagnosis or disorder, and that it is inherently a puritanical value judgement. How many people have their lives negatively affected by working excessive hours, by focusing on sports instead of academics, or any number of other things that will never get their own label?

"Disorder" is not value judgement. It is more about whether you can describe common symptoms and eventually steps to help (if possible).

The things you mention have derogative terms in culture. And focusing on sport instead of academic is not nearly at level of symptoms described here.

Frabkly, the discussion whether x is meaningful diagnoses makes sense only if you bother to read actual diagnosis - and surrounding text to see whether there are similar diagnoses nearby.

Almost any fairly common obsession has a related derogatory term in standard lexicon, i.e. "workaholic", "meathead"/"jock" etc.

If you play chess so much that you're not bathing and people avoid you because you smell bad, and it hurts your social interactions, yeah, that might be a disorder.

IMO, I think this is all baseless moral panic. I saw a video the other day in which a psychiatrist claimed that choosing to play video games over seeing other people/friends or family is a sign of obsession. People literally do that all the time with all sorts of other hobbies. It's only a problem if you would honestly rather do activity X but have a compulsion to play games instead.

From the WHO press release:

> Studies suggest that gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who engage in digital- or video-gaming activities.

That's not a moral panic. That's saying that a small number of people have a problem, and if they're having a problem they deserve help for it.

But the parent poster didn’t seem to be specifically referring to the WHO report, but the reporting around it, which definitely has a whiff of moral panic around it.

With all the “Fortnite Ruined my/my sons life” articles I’ve seen popping up in mainstream media recently, looks just the same as DOOM panic, all over again.

None of which prevents a sample of people having some serious Game-related addiction issue.

That 30-35 hours of TV statistics counts in people who watch TV while doing something else - cooking, cleaning, eating, sleeping, just having it on background while talking with people etc. I used to learn while watching TV - it is not as effective as without it, obviously, but I still learned enough to have good grade next day. You cant directly compare the two as if 30-35 were focused activity.

When you watch so much TV into night that you are too sleep deprived next day in school, skip lectures because of it or is failing the school, then it is problem too.

Gaming isn't a new medium though; commercial / arcade games have been around since the early 70's, vs TV's since the 30's; that's 40 years between TVs and video games, and nearly 50 years since the advent of video games and now.

I don't get why people still think video games are a new medium. Home consoles have been common since the 80's, which is also nearly 40 years now.

I think the social aspect of modern games (which isn't new either) makes them more of a problem now, because there may be social pressure to play, to conform, to practice in order to get better, etc.

It was probably a lot easier to walk away from a Galaga arcade machine when you run out of quarters, or from an Atari 2600 when you get bored, than it is to step away from a game when you know your real or online friends/teammates/rivals will be playing.

Exactly, gaming is touching its 3rd generation of people, it's a normal everyday thing for people in most urban settings in the world.

Just like news, social media, TV, etc.

What about 40 hour week. Must be a disorder as well.

Let's have a look at the symptoms for addictions:

1) Inability to consistently Abstain;

check

2) Impairment in Behavioral control;

check

3) Craving; or increased “hunger” for drugs or rewarding experiences;

check

4) Diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships;

check

5) A dysfunctional Emotional response.

check!

I get all of those except 3). We all want more rewarding experiences, it's why we love to try new things, travel and get better at our hobbies.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the magnitude that it refers to?

The alternative explanation (apart from the "watching TV while doing other stuff" thing) is that people are _also_ addicted to TV.

Smartphones are also active consumption, but there's clearly addictive stuff involved. And lots of mobile games play off of addictive tricks to get you into it!

I used to have a lot more time for gaming, and I would end up playing the same multiplayer game for a long time. But by the time I realized I didn't actually enjoy it, I would have already spent 6 months to a year religiously going to the game and grinding out sessions just to try and get some fun out of it. But most of the time it was just an addiction to the initial feeling, + loot box-y bullshit.

Just because something is a status quo doesn't make it normal/healthy/whatever.

On the other hand you can do other things while nominally watching TV. You can watch TV while preparing and eating a meal, you can watch TV while folding laundry, you can at least listen to a TV while in the shower, you can watch TV while on the treadmill or elliptical.

It's harder to do this kind of multi-tasking while playing games because games demand more of your attention and require interaction.

I've known people who watch 6 hours of TV a day, except they're not actually watching it, they just want to have it on all the time while they do other things. Which is awful and incomprehensible to me personally--it's like having someone yelling in your ear all day "for background noise"--but I guess it's not necessarily mindless vegging out.

My father would turn the TV on and walk right out of the room again.

Unrelated to that anecdote, I think there is a fear of silence in many people. You can get yourself into a sort of buzzing state, where life is a noisy continuum that is happening to you and you need to keep the buzz going else you notice the stark contrast of silence and nothing, which for many can be really uncomfortable.

I think "awful and incomprehensible" would depend on what they are "watching." Last year, my job moved a couple of hundred miles. I can no longer listen to the morning radio show I used to listen to; but, they are simulcast on a regional TV station, so I can "watch" them. If I'm working from home, I'll put them on in the background.

> Whereas many definitions I've seen for gaming disorders set a threshold of 20 hours a week or 2 hours a day to define gaming disorder.

Nothing against or for either ones (TV/Gaming), but 20 hours a week are almost 3 hours a day, not 2 - 1.5 times more is quite a difference IMO. (and exaggerating or downplaying something seldom helps arguments...)

Many definitions I've seen for gaming disorders set a threshold of 20 hours a week or 2 hours a day to define gaming disorder.

Nowadays with e-sports and Twitch streaming it is possible to be a professional video game player. Are they all by definition suffering from "gaming disorder"?

It's not either or. Both are disorders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com