11 ms·

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 gami

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-survey-media-viewing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/media/nielsen-su...

timavr 8y ago
What about 40 hour week. Must be a disorder as well.
- donquichotte 8y ago
  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!
  - lagadu 8y ago
    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?
rhcom2 8y ago
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.
- ssijak 8y ago
  Watching TV for 4 hours per day does all that to you. Especially now when tv programs are so bad.
  - virgilp 8y ago
    I'd argue that's a disorder, too
    - sgroppino 8y ago
      How about playing chess 5 hours per day? Is that a disorder, too?
      - kungtotte 8y ago
        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.
        virgilp 8y ago
        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.
        kungtotte 8y ago
        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.
watwut 8y ago
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.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
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.
- ehnto 8y ago
  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.
- 5555624 8y ago
  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.
jinfiesto 8y ago
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.
- DanBC 8y ago
  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.
  - misnome 8y ago
    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.
tlamponi 8y ago
> 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...)
lacker 8y ago
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"?
aviv 8y ago
It's not either or. Both are disorders.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> 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.
rtpg 8y ago
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.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
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.
- piva00 8y ago
  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.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  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.
jonhendry18 8y ago
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.

timavr 8y ago

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

donquichotte 8y ago
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!
- lagadu 8y ago
  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?

rhcom2 8y ago

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.

ssijak 8y ago
Watching TV for 4 hours per day does all that to you. Especially now when tv programs are so bad.
- virgilp 8y ago
  I'd argue that's a disorder, too
  - sgroppino 8y ago
    How about playing chess 5 hours per day? Is that a disorder, too?
    - kungtotte 8y ago
      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.
      - virgilp 8y ago
        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.
        kungtotte 8y ago
        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.

watwut 8y ago

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.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

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.

ehnto 8y ago
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.
5555624 8y ago
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.

jinfiesto 8y ago

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.

DanBC 8y ago
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.
- misnome 8y ago
  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.

tlamponi 8y ago

> 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...)

lacker 8y ago

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"?

aviv 8y ago

It's not either or. Both are disorders.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> 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.

rtpg 8y ago

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.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

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.

piva00 8y ago
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.
jonhendry18 8y ago
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.

jonhendry18 8y ago

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.