Games Blamed For Moral Decline And Addiction Throughout History
from the moral-panics-through-the-ages dept
Keith Schengili-Roberts/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
Video games are often blamed for unemployment, violence in society and addiction – including by partisan politicians raising moral concerns.
Blaming video games for social or moral decline might feel like something new. But fears about the effects of recreational games on society as a whole are centuries old. History shows a cycle of apprehension and acceptance about games that is very like events of modern times.
From ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, historians know that the oldest examples of board games trace back to the game of senet around 3100 B.C.
One of the earliest known written descriptions of games dates from the fifth century B.C. The Dialogues of the Buddha, purport to record the actual words of the Buddha himself. In them, he is reported to say that “some recluses… while living on food provided by the faithful, continue addicted to games and recreations; that is to say…games on boards with eight or with 10, rows of squares.”
That reference is widely recognized as describing a predecessor to chess – a much-studied game with an abundant literature in cognitive science and psychology. In fact, chess has been called an art form and even used as a peaceful U.S.-Soviet competition during the Cold War.
Despite the Buddha’s concern, chess has not historically raised concerns about addiction. Scholars’ attention to chess is focused on mastery and the wonders of the mind, not the potential of being addicted to playing.
Somewhere between the early Buddhist times and today, worries about game addiction have given way to scientific understanding of the cognitive, social and emotional benefits of play – rather than its detriments – and even viewing chess and other games as teaching tools, for improving players’ thinking, social-emotional development and math skills.
found at Khafajah in modern-day Iraq. CC BY-SA
Games and politics
Dice, an ancient invention developed in many early cultures, found their way to ancient Greek and Roman culture. It helped that both societies had believers in numerology, an almost religious link between the divine and numbers.
So common were games of dice in Roman culture that Roman emperors wrote about their exploits in dice games such as Alea. These gambling games were ultimately outlawed during the rise of Christianity in Roman civilization, because they allegedly promoted immoral tendencies.
More often than not, the concerns about games were used as a political tool to manipulate public sentiment. As one legal historian puts it, statutes on dice games in ancient Rome were only “sporadically and selectively enforced … what we would call ‘sports betting’ was exempted.” The rolling of dice was prohibited because it was gambling, but wagering on the outcomes of sport were not. Until of course, sports themselves came under fire.
The history of the “Book of Sports”, a 17th-century compendium of declarations of King James I of England, demonstrates the next phase of fears about games. The royal directives outlined what sports and leisure activities were appropriate to engage in after Sunday religious services.
In the early 1600s, the book became the subject of a religious tug of war between Catholic and Puritan ideals. Puritans complained that the Church of England needed to be purged of more influences from Roman Catholicism – and liked neither the idea of play on Sundays nor how much people liked doing it.
In the end, English Puritans had the book burned. As a Time magazine article put it, “Sport grew up through Puritanism like flowers in a macadam prison yard.” Sports, like board games of the past, were stifled and the subject of much ire in the past and present.
Pinball in the 20th century
In the middle part of the 20th century, one particular type of game emerged as a frequent target of politician concern – and playing it was even outlawed in cities across the country.
That game was pinball. But the parallels with today’s concerns about video games are clear.
In her history of moral panics about elements of popular culture, historian Karen Sternheimer observed that the invention of the coin-operated pinball game coincided with “a time when young people – and unemployed adults – had a growing amount of leisure time on their hands.”
As a result, she wrote, “it didn’t take long for pinball to show up on moral crusaders’ radar; just five years spanned between the invention of the first coin-operated machines in 1931 to their ban in Washington, D.C., in 1936.”
New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia argued that pinball machines were “from the devil” and brought moral corruption to young people. He famously used a sledgehammer to destroy pinball machines confiscated during the city’s ban, which lasted from 1942 to 1976.
Huhu/Wikimedia Commons
His complaints sound very similar to modern-day concerns that video games contribute to unemployment at a time when millennials are one of the most underemployed generations.
Even the cost of penny arcade pinball machines raised political alarms about wasting children’s money, in much the way that politicians declare they have problems with small purchases and electronic treasure boxes in video games.
As far back as the Buddha’s own teachings, moral leaders were warning about addicting games and recreations including “throwing dice,” “Games with balls” and even “turning somersaults,” recommending the pious hold themselves “aloof from such games and recreations.”
Then, as now, play was caught in society-wide discussions that really had nothing to do with gaming – and everything to do with keeping or creating an established moral order.
Lindsay Grace, Knight Chair of Interactive Media; Associate Professor of Communication, University of Miami.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: games, history, moral panics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You're comparing chess to Grand Theft Auto and it's invalid.
Equally validated by "history" is warfare, especially total destruction of enemy society, since at least the Romans wiped out Carthage. Therefore, by simple substitution, war is good, especially "genocide" and anyone who says otherwise is just having a "moral panic".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're comparing chess to Grand Theft Auto and it's invalid.
This all you could dig up for free to close out the week, eh?
Why not just close this little site, Maz? You never had much, and you let it turn into a club, not a forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don’t you just leave and take your desire to hatefuck Mike with you, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're comparing chess to Grand Theft Auto and it's inva
He just wants to pirate a copy of "close techdirt for a year." Don't let pirate blue or pirate ho or whatever he's calling himself this time get you down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're comparing chess to Grand Theft Auto and it's inva
Exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're comparing ignorant motherfuckers to blue balls
You gonna cry bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're comparing chess to Grand Theft Auto and it's inva
Why not just go run under a bus - or maybe a train?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey blue - how'd Shiva's attempt to close this little site go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're comparing chess to Grand Theft Auto and it's inva
What’s wrong with clubs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just in: Blue Balls advocates for complete human genocide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This just in: this club's mascot is OFFENDED and readyto call the WORD POLICE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bro you are the most easily offended little prick in the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh please. Even the Word Police have better things to do than this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just love how you immediately recognised yourself as the club Mascot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're comparing chess to Grand Theft Auto and it's invalid.
First, explain why the comparison is invalid. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe your assertion.
Second, warfare has major effects on people who don’t participate if others do. Video games rarely do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comparing Chess to Grand Theft Auto; I win
Chess is War, all classes are sacrificed to service the King.
Most teaching games serve to perpetuate the power of the few; Monopoly® leaves three homeless and starving.
( we have a Quaker International Master here in this meetinghouse )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically games are addictive so it's not surprising that people keep coming to that conclusion. That doesn't mean they're always bad. It's just a known fact games are addictive by nature or they wouldn't be fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's just a known fact games are addictive
If you are loose with "Fact" and "Addictive" then maybe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You could have just said "I don't understand how addiction is related to the brains reward centers" or "oh yeah, I forgot gambling is one of the most addictive things known to man" and you would have looked less foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I forgot gambling is one of the most addictive things known to man"
Which has noting to do with a large proportion of video games...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aren't you one of the people who keeps calling cops assholes for intentionally remaining ignorant? I don't owe you medical advice about gaming addictions. Talk to a doctor or a counselor if you desire professional advice on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If one were to play fast and loose with the definition of addiction, then I suppose that food and water are addictive. If that is the way you think then cool, but it may cause communication problems in the future - juz sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sigh
Games absolutely can be addictive. So is shopping. A Guy is not in any way saying that this fact makes games bad, or that gambling being addictive is what makes games addictive.
All he’s saying is that video games, like many, many generally benign activities, can be addictive. He’s not saying that video games are as bad as gambling, or that the qualities that make video games addictive are themselves bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately, he's dug his own great with the shit fit further down on the page where people call him out on the blanket statement that "games are addictive."
That's not "games can be addictive" that's "are" - an absolute. With a side of doubling down and rabid insults because, oh no, some people didn't agree.
Sorry. No pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*dug his own grave.
Blasted errors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never claimed that all people exposed to a potentially addictive thing get addicted to it. You are also an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, calling everyone an idiot is an excellent way to ensure everyone will listen to what you had to say, as opposed to discount you out of hand and try doubly hard to poke holes in what you were trying to say.
Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I already had that. A certain person/people who act like trolls keep jumping in to reply to my comments to ignore reality and/or insult me often while demanding evidence for things that they won't admit to believing with or without evidence anyway.
You jumped in way after the "if you want professional advice on this subject ask an actual doctor/counselor and/or the gamblers anonymous". Everything after that was them trolling me anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody was trolling you until you overreacted.
Bear in mind what your initial post actually says:
"Technically games are addictive so it's not surprising that people keep coming to that conclusion. That doesn't mean they're always bad. It's just a known fact games are addictive by nature or they wouldn't be fun."
Games. Not gambling, but games. This is a broad and generalized sweeping statement about a huge category of play. It applies to not only slot machines, but also horseshoes and bocce ball. Whether you intended to or not, your initial statement was that all games are addictive by nature, and that is what people are objecting to (myself included).
You then responded to the first two comments in response with insulting and defensive comments. What did you expect? At that point, you look like the troll. You came in, posted a broad, sweeping statement with wide implications, and then proceed to insult everyone who disagrees with said broad sweeping statement, rather than consider that perhaps you ended up saying something other than what you meant, or even attempt to have a discourse on it.
Why, at that point, should anyone try to take your point seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, I am posting on techdirt so I don't want or expect everyone to take everything I post seriously and I will generally respond with the same respect I am given. So... I owe you none.
Second, any game that someone perceives as fun can help cause or contribute to addiction especially in susceptible people. Recovering severe gambling addicts sometimes can't even play old maid with their children without relapsing and running to a casino and sports bettors often relapse after playing some basketball or football with their family.
And yes all those games including horseshoe and whatever else are triggers for people who are recovering from severe gambling addictions and all people are somewhat susceptible to gaming addictions (not just gambling) but not to the same degree.
The people arguing about it generally look like idiots to me because the gambling example was only given because it is the most obvious an noncontroversial way to illustrate the point. To normal educated people that is a completely noncontroversial statement.
Not all gaming addictions actually include gambling but most actual gaming addictions are gambling related because it has to have a severe health or social impact for a behavior to qualify as an addiction. Playing World of Warcraft to such an extent that you gain or lose an unhealthy amount of weight and stop normal social interaction is an addiction too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... I owe you none.
While you owe no respect, you are equally owed none. I'm pointing out to you that reacting to disagreement with insults and condescension will get you exactly the same thing in return, and no one will listen to you. If you are fine with being discounted out of hand, by all means, continue to throw shit fits and call people idiots.
As to the rest of it ... I agree that people can become addicted to games. I agree that gambling is known to be so - MMOs (with WoW as one of the first widely known examples) tend to employ tactics that foster addiction to the game as part of attempting to get player retention. There are real problems there.
I disagree that all games are, by inherent nature, addictive. It's this last part that you seem to be claiming, and so far, have not provided support for, and it is this claim that people are objecting to. Whether people look like idiots to you for disagreeing with this point is, frankly, irrelevant - except that calling people idiots for doing so is a good way to get everyone to write you off as a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow that is incredibly wrong. It's a good thing we live in your fantasy world otherwise opioids and tobacco would be killing us on a daily basis and I wouldn't know anyone who lost their life savings and homes in casinos.
This fantasy world is more fun than real life actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Wow that is incredibly wrong."
But, you won't say why or link to research you'll just refer to gamers as addicts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to call gamblers anonymous to discuss the issue you can. There's my citation for you gamblers anonymous the nonprofit charity for people with gaming addictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Aren't you one of the people who keeps calling cops assholes for intentionally remaining ignorant?"
Is there another word for people who are intentionally ignorant about their own jobs?
"I don't owe you medical advice about gaming addictions."
No, but you do owe an apology for the majority of people you smeared with that claim who don't have such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said gaming has been scientifically proven to be addictive. You are some kind of butt hurt idiot with the intellectual capacity of the most vapid anti-vaxxer. I owe an apology to no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide a citation to a scientific article that concludes that gaming is addictive. Since you used the word "gaming" without qualifiers, the article needs to support that assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See article "The Addictive Qualities of Gaming" written by Mybuthurts Alot and I'm sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You couldn't google for yourself again. That is one of the reasons I will keep insulting you people for demanding I google things for you.
Instead of a specific scientific study I will first just refer to the world health organizations determination for their new disease of gaming disorder.
https://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming-disorder/en/
Also since gaming and gambling are synonyms in the English language.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/gambling
It is also only necessary to prove gambling is addictive to prove my statement is true with or without a video game. (Although all I really had to do was say video poker or video slots if you demand it also be a video game.)
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2009.0050
There is a link to one of the probably millions of studies on the addictive properties of gambling. It is also taught to nearly all children so maybe you missed a lot of school and will next demand proof the earth is round.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More like you could not be bothered to provide supporting evidence for your own arguments.
As a general rule, the person who makes a claim provides the evidence, otherwise what they say can be interpreted as wishful thinking, along with the hope that someone else will do the research to support their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I claim you can fuck yourself with a rough stick and owe you nothing. Start paying me via paypal if you want me to be your researcher in the mean time fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insulting them like you’re an edgy teenager who just watched Fight Club for the first time doesn’t make them any less wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an alternative, have you ever considered not being a dunning-kruger shitwipe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How mature of you. Having a bad day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and here we go. Having nothing, you attack people who question your opinion rather than risk being further destroyed in an honest debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, in the end, all you have are articles that indicate that gambling is addictive, and a semantic trick of "gaming and gambling are synonyms in the English language." This is otherwise known as "communicating poorly" and then blaming others for your own (possibly deliberate) failure to communicate.
Let's be clear: gaming and gambling can be synonyms - however, the term "gaming" has a broader definition than "gambling." Shall we go to the sources? Let's go to the sources:
Definition sourced from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaming
Definition of gaming
1 : the practice of gambling
2a : the playing of games that simulate actual conditions (as of business or war) especially for training or testing purposes
b : the playing of video games
When a single word has more than one possible meaning, context is used to determine that meaning. In this case, the context is an article about how games are blamed for moral decline throughout history, specifically to provide broader context for the more modern moral panics over... video games.
Thus, the context of the comment leans towards (you guessed) definition 2b: the playing of video games. If you meant gambling, you could, and should, have said so - or at least clarified without being a dick about it.
"But wait! Did A Guy even say gaming originally?"
Why no. No you didn't. You said "Technically games are addictive..."
Games. Not gaming. To the source!
Definition sourced from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/games
Oh my. There's quite a few definitions here. We can ignore the adjectives and the verbs, since in the context of your sentence this was clearly a noun, and we can eliminate the ones that are clearly irrelevant, like waterfowl or tactics, but even then...
Definition of game
(Entry 1 of 4)
1a(1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other
(2) : a division of a larger contest
(3) : the manner of playing in a contest
(4) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport a football team's kicking game
(5) : the set of rules governing a game
(6) : the number of points necessary to win
(7) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest
b games plural : organized athletics
c(1) : a field of gainful activity : line the newspaper game
(2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle the dating game the game of politics also : the course or period of such an activity got into aviation early in the game
(3) : area of expertise : specialty sense 3 comedy is not my game
2a(1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play
(2) : the equipment for a game
You know what I don't see? I don't see anything that automatically points to gambling.
Your links indicates that gambling games are addictive. They do not indicate that games are addictive.
Please, dude, good communication is important. Don't do this thing of communicating poorly then trying to blame everyone else for not understanding what you meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I knew I didn't want to look at this for a while. I stand by my claim that you are idiots.
What do you think they play in casinos? Aside from horse/sports betting it's all types of games. Gaming and games sound similar because gaming is accomplished by playing/betting on games. If English wasn't your first language you may have an excuse but I think it is and thus you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, can't say I didn't try. If you refuse to understand how context affects what you say, then join the list of bad communicators who assume everyone else is the idiot when they fuck up in their writing.
Shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TFG tried, a valiant effort, but to no avail.
It is strange how every time I see a turtle I want to stomp on it ... Wow - I'm a jonesin fer somma that Mario!!! I'm addicted - WoooHoooo.
and just the other day I saw a chess board .... ohhhhhh man, started getting the jitters I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well it sure ain't Call of Duty or Overwatch.
And this is proof positive you don't know what you're talking about and have never been in a casino before in your life.
He's not the idiot in the room....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it’s all types of games that involve gambling. People aren’t playing WoW, CoD, Mario, Guitar Hero, etc.
By definition, yes, “gaming” means “playing games”, and under some definitions, this includes “betting on the results of a game and/or sport”. “Gaming” does include “gambling”, and under the aforementioned definition, all gambling is considered to be “gaming”. In fact, “gaming” is often used as a euphemism for “gambling”. However, not all “gaming” is gambling. Proving that all gambling is inherently addictive does not prove that all gaming is inherently addictive. They are not the same thing, and they are not interchangeable.
I’m not sure you’re grasping this. Let me show you the fallacy clearly:
1) All gambling is addictive.
2) All gambling is gaming.
3) Therefore, all gaming is addictive.
Can you see the problem? It’s a pretty straightforward fallacy here, and not even an informal fallacy. Statements 1 and 2 simply aren’t sufficient to prove 3. You’d need to show that, “All gaming is gambling,” is true for statement 1 to even be relevant.
Also, “gaming” and “games” sound similar because both are derived from the same word: “game”.
It’s not even like I necessarily disagree with your claims, but you are doing a poor job of articulating them and of proving them.
I don’t think you should be criticizing someone in that manner. What have commas ever done to you to make you refuse to use them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That list of links doesn't support your assertion that gaming is addictive.
If you have said many types of gaming are addictive I'd have to agree with you, but some types of gaming aren't addictive which makes your assertion inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.sciencealert.com/us-presidential-candidate-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-is-a-threat-to-childr en-s-health
Or that gaming is the "Most addictive thing on the planet" which seems pretty sketchy to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you aren't experiencing physical withdrawal symptoms such as headaches or sweating, you aren't addicted.
Or:
You might be a redneck if...
...you think video games are an addiction way worse than sugar and/or coffee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s a difference between physical addiction and psychological addiction. Are you saying that gambling addicts and shopaholics don’t exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying they suffer no ill side effects if they don't get their "fix?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except in extremely severe and exceptionally rare cases, there are no direct physiological ill side effects if gambling addicts, shopaholics, or video game addicts don’t get their “fix”, no, and even in those cases they are psychosomatic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well then, except in extremely severe and exceptionally rare cases, there are no gambling addicts, shopaholics, or video game addicts.
If they don't need it, then they don't need it and are not addicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Define “need”. Seriously. There is such a thing as mental dependence. They may not feel physical symptoms of withdrawal, but they feel emotional and mental symptoms. Things like extreme anxiety, irritability, etc. Also, there’s the fact that they cannot stop themselves even if they want to.
There was a guy who actually died from dehydration and malnutrition because he would not stop playing some MMO to so much as eat, drink, or sleep for weeks. How is that not an addiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong | Johann Hari
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs
Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft etc... could easily create Rat Park in every Country they operate in, but that isn't what they, the rat bastards, want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let’s accept what you say about what addiction is is true. There are still people who have some severely strong dependence on shopping, gambling, or video games without the physiological symptoms you seem to think are needed for something to be an addiction who desperately need help because their dependence is deleterious to their health indirectly, and they often know this.
Even if you don’t like calling that “addiction”, it’s still a major problem that needs some sort of treatment. Do you have an alternative name for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Much the same could be said of your need for creating run-on-sentences. Should we have the WHO create a new "disease" for this too?
Further, the definition you just gave has another named disease that predates "gaming disorder" and is well known if not acknowledged by or treated by society: Depression. Specifically Depression caused by environmental factors.
I.e. You live in a society that has no fucks to give to anyone and blames the victims constantly. Signaling to anyone willing to listen that the victims problems are a personal moral failing. You have a job that pays little with high stress, or have kids that cause the same conditions. Finally, the one solace you can manage to find for yourself is now considered a "mental disorder" because some politically correct BS artists decided they had an issue with it. Again, blaming the victims for their "condition" and claiming that everything would be so much better if only they would give up what little makes them happy.
Now, are there gamers that have real issues? Yes. There certainly are, but none of them required the creation of a new "mental disorder" worded specifically to stroke prejudice fears and incite another round of moral panics. Especially when, even with this new "disorder", the only solution those who desperately need help will get is: "Give up what you enjoy and suffer like the rest of us. Oh, and have some pills to mask everything so we don't have to acknowledge it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you understand what a run-on sentence actually is. It is not simply “a really long sentence.” Note that the sentence you quote has only one independent clause. Everything else is a dependent clause. A run-on sentence has multiple independent clauses.
Also, one instance does not prove a dependence.
Speaking as someone who has depression, I don’t see how my definition of addiction is in any way equivalent to depression. How is it depression to spend more and more on gambling or shopping when already in debt? How is it depression to play an MMO until you literally die of starvation and/or dehydration?
You seem to be completely misunderstanding my position. I am not saying that all video games are inherently addictive, or that, say, playing video games to deal with stress or depression is necessarily unhealthy, an addiction, or a mental disorder. I am not asking anyone to give up video games entirely. I am not blaming those who have addiction or depression for their condition or their inability to overcome it without assistance, nor do I consider any of that to be a personal moral failing. I am not advocating for the creation of a new disorder. I am not advocating for or against any particular solution for these problems; I don’t feel qualified to do so. I’m not even saying that anything does or does not need to be done here. That is an entirely different topic. I’m not discussing the idea of “gaming disorder” at all.
What I am saying is that the definition of addiction does not require the presence of physical withdrawal symptoms when the addiction is not satisfied. I am saying that people can form an unhealthy dependence on—an addiction to—video games, among other things, and that some video games are more addictive than others.
You seem to have a problem with society’s treatment of video games and mental health, perhaps even the idea of labels or using drugs to treat mental disorders. Maybe you have a problem with how the WHO or other organizations determine what is or isn’t a mental disorder. All of that is perfectly understandable. However, I am not saying anything about society here, nor how mental disorders are or should be treated. Do not blame me for society’s ills. Do not blame me for how certain people worded the definition of “gaming disorder”, or for the creation of the “new” disorder when “addiction” or some other existing disorder was sufficient.
Again, I’m not saying anything for or against any particular solution to addiction in general or to video games in particular. I’m not saying anything for or against the definition of “gaming disorder”, or whether it should or should not be considered a separate mental disorder. I’m only talking about what is or is not an addiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Above link is a Ted talk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually have read a lot of studies/abstracts on addiction. It's always about the same. The reward center of your brain is rewired in a way that causes damaging behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The reward center of your brain is rewired in a way that causes damaging behavior."
AKA: marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being addicted to a thing does not make the thing an addiction.
It may just be that individuals personality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvPU-cvaKCM
Lloyd Price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you meant, “…does not make the thing addictive.” Being addicted to something, by definition, means you have an addiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm addicted to water. I get really dehydrated when I do not drink enough of it, I am told that is not healthy. So, to remain healthy I give into my addiction to water and thereby stay healthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This sort of argument is facetious. You’re essentially arguing that nothing is addictive. There is a line to be drawn between saying water is addictive and saying that certain substances and behaviors can be addictive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I meant addiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, like I said, if someone is addicted to something, then by definition, they have an addiction to that thing. One might say that that thing or behavior is their addiction, and that wouldn’t be at all inaccurate or imprecise.
Sure, people can be addicted to things that aren’t necessarily addictive (which means they have a tendency to cause addiction), but that’s separate from saying that that isn’t an addiction for those people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the world health organization's new disease of gaming disorder isn't enough for you then you are also an idiot like the climate people and the anti-vax people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you use general statements, which is imprecise and more of a hyperbole than anything else.
If you can't communicate properly in a concise way and people point that out, it's your problem and you will be treated accordingly until you fix your communication issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And nowhere did they assert that video games are addictive. Only that some people can develop unhealthy relationships with them, but it's not because of the game, it's because of the person. In the same way that people can become addicted to: sports, politics, walking, exercising, running, jogging, talking, socializing, etc....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. People can get addicted to (i.e. form an addiction for) any number of things or activities that aren’t themselves addictive. And A Guy isn’t using the best examples to prove his point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You couldn't google for yourself again"
That's not how it works - you make the claim, you provide the evidence. I could google for hours and not see the specific things you have in mind.
" I will first just refer to the world health organization"
...and I will in response link to this:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/10/study-casts-doubt-on-value-of-whos-gaming-disorder-diag noses/
"Also since gaming and gambling are synonyms in the English language."
...you've just proven you don't understand how dictionary definitions work.
So, a questionable study and some murdering of the English language to prove your "point". No wonder you were so reluctant to prove citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Synonyms aren’t always interchangeable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I said gaming has been scientifically proven to be addictive"
Yet, again, you refuse to cite your sources and there is controversy about the studies that have been done and what they actually prove. Whatever study you're thinking of probably doesn't say what you want it to.
Refusing to cite sources in fear of them being debunked while personally attacking those asking for them sounds more like an anti-vaxxer move than anything I've said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'addictive'... depends on which definition you use
Addictive used to mean that withholding a stimulus would put a person's health at risk. However, over the past decades, as 'news' organizations have worked to ever sensationalize, 'addictive' now means anything that a person enjoys doing more than once. The word is so watered down now, though some still associate with the original meaning, that we should just strike it from the dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'addictive'... depends on which definition you use
Actually, addiction has also long included the ideas that they have trouble stopping on their own and that their dependence on the substance/activity is deleterious to their health and well-being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice the one constant through time has been those assigning blame to things as being the fault for moral decline... tend to have the worst morals themselves.
Somehow they get everyone looking over here at the problem and ignore them behaving in the ways they blame on the thing.
I highly doubt that GTA taught kids about hookers, how many moral upstanding leaders have been busted with them in the same time period?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Notice the one constant through time has been those assigning blame to things as being the fault for moral decline... tend to have the worst morals themselves."
Yup. Also have noticed that the "moral decline" is mostly in their head. I think it may be projection on their part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you might get better traction with the bird entrails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have thought that unemployment causes people to spend time playing games. People will find interesting things to do to fill in their time, as staring at the walls is so boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, the classic error of assuming correlation means causation. It just never gets old! In the minds of these complainers, it couldn't possibly be that unemployment is caused by factors outside of the control of the unemployed, so clearly it must be something they are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seconded
and the classic gaslight.. blame the younger generation for all the perceived problems of society which said generation had nothing to do with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This complaint also makes the value judgment that unemployment is bad. Lots of people dream of being able to someday have free time, not managed by someone else, but when young people do it, suddenly it's a problem. And yet, few employers are trying to make jobs more attractive, they just bitch that they can't find workers (...who already have the necessary training and will work for cheap).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
".. they just bitch that they can't find workers (...who already have the necessary training and will work for cheap)."
They can't find employees locally that have a PhD in everything, that will work randomly changing hours for an unlivable wage and possess expert knowledge in every field of study known to mankind.
And therefore they need congress to approve more H1Bs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or, rather, they did find those people. They were "overqualified" or a "bad culture fit". So, yeah, better import some workers from a different culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weird things is ... in the long run it is doubtful that they are saving anything at all with their outsourcing and H1B importing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diverting Blame isn't a New Phenomena
Would also be a good title. Through out history, they have been problems and anything that's "new" generally gets the blame for any existing social ills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is good post and also a good title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My grandfather told me a story of playing marbles on the playground with some friends. The principal (whose name was, seriously, Skinner) walked by with a paddle, swatted one of the kids in the ass, and muttered, "Gamblers."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The principal was betting that the kids old man would not beat the crap out of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microtransactions are NOT Okay
So I'm inferring that you are okay with predatory microtransactions in games that specifically target children and those with both existing and potential gambling problems. Awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Microtransactions are NOT Okay
There's no real societal agreement that this isn't okay. Traditional forms of gambling, including government lotteries, target people with gambling problems too. OK, not kids, but lots of them wasted their money on gaming in the 70s and 80s. We didn't call them "microtransactions", but "continues" weren't free. Of course, the damage is limited because kids don't generally have money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Microtransactions are NOT Okay
On the surface it doesn't seem to be a very big difference between micro-transactions and arcade games, both are designed to pry money from you.
But the thing is, micro-transactions are magnitudes worse than any arcade game invented. Wasting money on arcade machines had a tangible and visceral impact, you needed to have cash which you literally saw disappearing into a machine when playing, with micro-transactions you buy stuff without that experience which makes it so much easier to spend too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gamblers would seem to disprove that assertion, especially as historically they have had to have physical money on hand to gamble away.
I think it really depends on the person and their background.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Microtransactions are NOT Okay
The fact that politicians might be right today is not a sign that they were right back then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You infer incorrectly. Nowhere did he state that or even remotely imply that.
Also, microtransactions, in-and-of themselves, are harmless. It's no different than buying a candy bar for a dollar at the store. That is a microtransaction.
It's when games are designed to strongly encourage (or outright force) you to keep buying things that it gets problematic. Many mobile games are designed like this. And games where you can pay for randomized lootboxes.
But, take for example most MMOs these days. Most are free-to-play that are supported by microtransactions. (Also, MMOs are basically the original lootbox game. What are you going to get when you kill that mob? Nobody knows!) But most don't require those microtransactions to continue playing the game.
With some exceptions, they are all for cosmetic items. And if people want to pay for cosmetic items, so what? It's not a requirement to play the game and you can play the game without them.
So while I agree with you that "predatory microtransactions in games that specifically target children and those with both existing and potential gambling problems" are downright evil and should be banned, microtransactions in-and-of themselves are harmless and can be a positive, non-predatory/addictive way to engage with a game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair, gamers also declare they have problems with small (or sometimes not-so-small) purchases and electronic treasure boxes in video games for being a predatory game-of-chance business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But not because of the small purchase itself, it's how that small purchase is strongly encouraged or required to keep playing a game, or be competitive in said game.
Small purchases for cosmetics or major DLC/expansion packs are far less controversial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]