like cigarettes and alchohol, their addictiveness depends souly on the person
No,
Sigarest have nicotine, which is recognised as a highly addictive substance.
Sigarets also have cocoa in them, because it increases the amoun t of nicotine a person can inhale and it makes the nicotine palatable.
Sigarets also have substances to affect the troath area so it can't taste any of the bad tastes from nicotine.
Everything about sigarets is made with the sole purpose of making them addictive, that has been known for years.
It is not just the person, there are substances that are far more addictive than others.
I like how you avoid the one sentence that disproves all you are dismissing about what I wrote, I did say it's not based on ONLY the substance.
And for the record, I smoke cigarettes, but I sometimes go days without them, even when they are readily available, so it's more of a person-to-person thing than what is in something.
The DSM-IV is the bible for American psychiatrists. It does not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder.
Such a bad argument. Do you know how long it took before sigarets had labels that said they were bad for your health, or how long it took before some doctors admitted it was bad?
I go to the hospital a lot, and what do I see, doctors smoking outside. Doctors who know how bad sigarets are.
Because a book did not include gaming as addictive doesn't mean it isn't. When someone plays 3 days straight and dies, it obviously is.
The DSM-IV is the bible for American psychiatrists. It does not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder.
Because a book did not include gaming as addictive doesn't mean it isn't. When someone plays 3 days straight and dies, it obviously is.
It does not mean it absolutely IS, just that is can be.
Same with pretty much anything else in life, there are even people who are addicted to eatting shiny objects (change mostly). but does that make the change they are eatting addictive?
The DSM-IV is the bible for American psychiatrists. It does not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder.
Because a book did not include gaming as addictive doesn't mean it isn't. When someone plays 3 days straight and dies, it obviously is.
It does not mean it absolutely IS, just that is can be.
Same with pretty much anything else in life, there are even people who are addicted to eatting shiny objects (change mostly). but does that make the change they are eatting addictive?
The addictive nature of something is based on criteria. On Dependency, intoxication, withdrawal and a slew of other symptoms. Each factor influenes what ranking a product gets.
I think MMO gaming would be pretty high, but it tends to depend on the game I think also.
The DSM-IV is the bible for American psychiatrists. It does not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder.
Because a book did not include gaming as addictive doesn't mean it isn't. When someone plays 3 days straight and dies, it obviously is.
It does not mean it absolutely IS, just that is can be.
Same with pretty much anything else in life, there are even people who are addicted to eatting shiny objects (change mostly). but does that make the change they are eatting addictive?
The addictive nature of something is based on criteria. On Dependency, intoxication, withdrawal and a slew of other symptoms. Each factor influenes what ranking a product gets.
I think MMO gaming would be pretty high, but it tends to depend on the game I think also.
Yes I agree there are many different factors, and yes when gaming is concerned it can depend on the game, but what one person feels from that game can be completly different from another person.
It comes back to it being the individual person that determines how addict something can actually be though.
Because a book did not include gaming as addictive doesn't mean it isn't. When someone plays 3 days straight and dies, it obviously is.
No, it just shows that the guy who died was a friggin' moron. Natural selection is a beautiful thing Mother Nature cooked up, and it appears to still be working flawlessly.
Doctors who actually studied people "addicted" to online games found not a single case were the game itself was the cause for the "addiction".
Its always reallife issues. Your life sucks, you have trouble finding friends, family is hell, you are in school stress ... the game itself is only your escape, but in itself it has zero addiction potential.
You simply cant get addicted to an online game, just like you cannot get addicted to, for example, chess, or football.
Rofl, sorry to break this to you bud, but you can get addicted to ANYTHING.
Really, ANYTHING, the addiction doesnt have to have anything to do with the object the person is addicted to, but that doesnt change teh fact that they are addicted to it.
"–noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."
Sorry to break this to you, but there is an entire field of science dedicated to the study of and treatment of mental disorders. The standard for categorizing disorders of the mind is a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV.
The DSM-IV is the bible for American psychiatrists. It does not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder. This edition is 17 years old and is being replaced by the DSM-5 in 2013. The DSM-5 will not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder. This man who died may have had an impulse control disorder if he knew that his activity was harmful but felt a compulsion to continue, or he may have suffered from depression if he continued this self-destructive behavior because he knew it was destructive. Either way, this did not make him an addict in the scientific sense of the word.
If you would like to disagree with the DSM-IV's classifications and say that a person can be addicted to video games, you're free to do that. But know that to those who have made a career out of scientific study of the mind, you sound about as credible as people who claim that the Earth is flat or that germs don't exist.
You can throw a fancy book out tehre all you want, but ANYONE can get addicted to ANYTHING, it all depends on the person.
Heck i gave you the definition of addiction, cant get any more clear than that, ive seen someone addicted to eating laundry detergent, is that in your precious book?
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Darwin's theory is merely culling the herd. Mental illness or not, having 6 billion people in the world has drastically diluted the gene pool and introduced new gene-related defects. Welcome to the world. Population: you.
People need to realise that is not ""video game addiction" but the person's own mental illness.
There is no such thing as ""video game addiction" it the persons personality that gets addicted to things. If it was not video games it would be cleaning or eating or painting lead soldiers or whatever.
People need to get that. Most people don't get that and blame the object of the addiction as causing the addiction.
Darwin's theory is merely culling the herd. Mental illness or not, having 6 billion people in the world has drastically diluted the gene pool and introduced new gene-related defects. Welcome to the world. Population: you.
Mental illness is vague...millions of people believe in some kind of divine god, but because they are millions its not considered a mental illness yet.
Doctors who actually studied people "addicted" to online games found not a single case were the game itself was the cause for the "addiction".
Its always reallife issues. Your life sucks, you have trouble finding friends, family is hell, you are in school stress ... the game itself is only your escape, but in itself it has zero addiction potential.
You simply cant get addicted to an online game, just like you cannot get addicted to, for example, chess, or football.
Rofl, sorry to break this to you bud, but you can get addicted to ANYTHING.
Really, ANYTHING, the addiction doesnt have to have anything to do with the object the person is addicted to, but that doesnt change teh fact that they are addicted to it.
"–noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."
Sorry to break this to you, but there is an entire field of science dedicated to the study of and treatment of mental disorders. The standard for categorizing disorders of the mind is a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV.
The DSM-IV is the bible for American psychiatrists. It does not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder. This edition is 17 years old and is being replaced by the DSM-5 in 2013. The DSM-5 will not classify "video game addiction" as a mental disorder. This man who died may have had an impulse control disorder if he knew that his activity was harmful but felt a compulsion to continue, or he may have suffered from depression if he continued this self-destructive behavior because he knew it was destructive. Either way, this did not make him an addict in the scientific sense of the word.
If you would like to disagree with the DSM-IV's classifications and say that a person can be addicted to video games, you're free to do that. But know that to those who have made a career out of scientific study of the mind, you sound about as credible as people who claim that the Earth is flat or that germs don't exist.
You can throw a fancy book out tehre all you want, but ANYONE can get addicted to ANYTHING, it all depends on the person.
Heck i gave you the definition of addiction, cant get any more clear than that, ive seen someone addicted to eating laundry detergent, is that in your precious book?
This is embarassing and why there are so many so called educated people who seem barely able to tie their shoolaces or conceive of things outside of what their professors or their tv tells them. I've seen more idiots come out of some of these supposed institutions of higher learning than I can stand and the concept that a behaviour that does not appear in a book means it somehow does not exist, or even if it does, is some how not a form of pathology is unbelievably crazy to me. JUST because something is not in the DSM YET (tho I know therapists who have diagnosed individuals as having a "virtual addiction") doesn't mean it does not exist. Consensus by the panel of middle aged to senior citizen therapists on whether a virtual addiction should be listed as a disorder, a disturbance or what have you could take a long time to reach, if at all. BESIDES the friggin DSM 4 was published in 1994 and its latest revision was more than 10 years ago! How much different is the the world and its immersion into virtual reality since then??? Think for yourself, poindexter (Disdena). Unbelievable. This is what these svengalis want, blind faith. My gosh, its is just the opinion human beings with personal agendas and a host of conflict of interest issues, and believe me, there is no true consensus on its contents.
Who cares? This is just an example of getting the truly stupid out of the gene pool. If you're so stupid that you play a game until you die, good riddance to you.
Darwin's theory is merely culling the herd. Mental illness or not, having 6 billion people in the world has drastically diluted the gene pool and introduced new gene-related defects. Welcome to the world. Population: you.
Mental illness is vague...millions of people believe in some kind of divine god, but because they are millions its not considered a mental illness yet.
Hmmm, excellent point.
Call it whatever you need to folks, but in the end that guy obviously had an addictive personality. His poison of choice: video games. He could have become addicted to anything, really.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
"China has more than 450 million internet users, and online games - which can involve multiple users role-playing in a virtual world - are particularly popular with young men"
With that many people spending their time gaming in internet cafes people are going to die in them. It is bound to happen statistically. I've seen people die in resturants and casinos first hand. The casino games and food at the restaurant were not the cause of death. Bad reporting is bad. Is addiction bad? Yes it is. But I'm not going to buy into this anti-gaming propaganda BS.
If it wasn't gaming, it would have been something else that this person would have latched onto to obsess over. Something was obviously wrong with them mentaly and/or emotionally to cause them to have such a firm grasp on using gaming as an escape from their life.
It's unfortunate for this person and his family and friends.
You can throw a fancy book out tehre all you want, but ANYONE can get addicted to ANYTHING, it all depends on the person.
Heck i gave you the definition of addiction, cant get any more clear than that, ive seen someone addicted to eating laundry detergent, is that in your precious book?
You gave a definition of addiction. I showed you where to find the scientific definition. Strangely, the definition you chose to gave doesn't even fit with what your claim. If this Chinese man had a video game addiction, cessation would have caused "severe trauma". Since shutting off a video game does not cause severe trauma, how can it be an addiction according to your definition?
The phenomenon you describe is probably pica. Its diagnostic code in the DSM-IV is 307.52. However, it is not an addiction.
I can't force you to accept the concept of addiction as defined by modern psychiatry, so I don't intend to try. You're neither the first nor last person to hold tight to your own beliefs and refuse to be convinced by the science in a "fancy book".
You can throw a fancy book out tehre all you want, but ANYONE can get addicted to ANYTHING, it all depends on the person.
Heck i gave you the definition of addiction, cant get any more clear than that, ive seen someone addicted to eating laundry detergent, is that in your precious book?
You gave a definition of addiction. I showed you where to find the scientific definition. Strangely, the definition you chose to gave doesn't even fit with what your claim. If this Chinese man had a video game addiction, cessation would have caused "severe trauma". Since shutting off a video game does not cause severe trauma, how can it be an addiction according to your definition?
The phenomenon you describe is probably pica. Its diagnostic code in the DSM-IV is 307.52. However, it is not an addiction.
I can't force you to accept the concept of addiction as defined by modern psychiatry, so I don't intend to try. You're neither the first nor last person to hold tight to your own beliefs and refuse to be convinced by the science in a "fancy book".
Your Right Disdena. Not only that but in the DSM-V addiction is being changed to dependant and abuse behaviours to more clearly define where the locus of control lies - withing the person, or with a substance
@warmaster - actually not everyone can be addicted to anything. Both evolutionary and neurobiological studies have found that in order for you to become addicted to something you must have a disregulated receptor, the substance your are taking then has a shape that is similar to the chemical that binds to that receptor. If you do not have that disregulated receptor you will not become addicted to it. Of course you can still abuse the substance but the locus of control is still you, and not a physicial or chemical need.
And again both those fields have shown that many people will not ever get addictted to those substances. Marijuana only has about a 4% addiction rate, Cocaine~20%, Heroin ~15-20 percent. Alcohol has about 8 different receptors that it can bind to so the addiction ratie is much higher >60%.
If your friend was actually addicted to eating laundry detergen than there must be a disregulated receptor that something in the laundry detergent can bind to. More than likely he was not addicted but was an extreme abuser - which can still be extremely damaging and requires treatment but is no longer considered a dependent addiction.
With the different causes there is also now different treatment protocols ranging from complete abstinence to a reduction.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
This is embarassing and why there are so many so called educated people who seem barely able to tie their shoolaces or conceive of things outside of what their professors or their tv tells them. I've seen more idiots come out of some of these supposed institutions of higher learning than I can stand and the concept that a behaviour that does not appear in a book means it somehow does not exist, or even if it does, is some how not a form of pathology is unbelievably crazy to me.
We're having a discussion about whether a man's death was caused by an addiction to a game. Central to this discussion is the definition of the word "addiction". Your contempt for idiots with college degrees is way off-topic.
JUST because something is not in the DSM YET (tho I know therapists who have diagnosed individuals as having a "virtual addiction") doesn't mean it does not exist. Consensus by the panel of middle aged to senior citizen therapists on whether a virtual addiction should be listed as a disorder, a disturbance or what have you could take a long time to reach, if at all.
Therapists? The DSM is put together from numerous sources of data, field testing, and published literature. It's not like they mail a survey out to every "life coach" with a comfy sofa and a box of tissues.
BESIDES the friggin DSM 4 was published in 1994 and its latest revision was more than 10 years ago! How much different is the the world and its immersion into virtual reality since then??? Think for yourself, poindexter (Disdena). Unbelievable. This is what these svengalis want, blind faith. My gosh, its is just the opinion human beings with personal agendas and a host of conflict of interest issues, and believe me, there is no true consensus on its contents.
What are you trying to say? This controversy you're relating is about reclassification to create new disorders, leading to false positive diagnoses. "False positive diagnosis" means that the patient is diagnosed as having a disorder when they actually do not. For example, if you diagnosed the patient as suffering from an addiction (to, I dunno, video games perhaps?) but in reality they do not have an addiction. That's the danger they're talking about. They're saying that the DSM-5 is going too far in creating new disorders. This paragraph you've posted is one that attacks your own standpoint.
And the kicker is, video game addiction isn't even on the discussion table for DSM-5. There are plenty of discussions about whether or not this or that classification is too progressive and unproven, and that's long before they even get all the way out to nonsense like video game addiction. It's an invention of the media and the alarmists, with no grounding in science.
There are plenty of addictions that has nothing to do with substance .... gambling is a perfect example. And if you think gambling cannot be an addiction, please convince all the scientists who have worked on the issue first before coming here.
There are plenty of addictions that has nothing to do with substance .... gambling is a perfect example. And if you think gambling cannot be an addiction, please convince all the scientists who have worked on the issue first before coming here.
He was talking about substances like sigarets and alcohol. Can you calm down perhaps.
Comments
Now if we could only get another Billion to follow suit.
It happens.. call me retarded, when WOW first came out , played it for 3 days straight and survived, who knows the circumstances.
I like how you avoid the one sentence that disproves all you are dismissing about what I wrote, I did say it's not based on ONLY the substance.
And for the record, I smoke cigarettes, but I sometimes go days without them, even when they are readily available, so it's more of a person-to-person thing than what is in something.
Such a bad argument. Do you know how long it took before sigarets had labels that said they were bad for your health, or how long it took before some doctors admitted it was bad?
I go to the hospital a lot, and what do I see, doctors smoking outside. Doctors who know how bad sigarets are.
Because a book did not include gaming as addictive doesn't mean it isn't. When someone plays 3 days straight and dies, it obviously is.
It does not mean it absolutely IS, just that is can be.
Same with pretty much anything else in life, there are even people who are addicted to eatting shiny objects (change mostly). but does that make the change they are eatting addictive?
The addictive nature of something is based on criteria. On Dependency, intoxication, withdrawal and a slew of other symptoms. Each factor influenes what ranking a product gets.
I think MMO gaming would be pretty high, but it tends to depend on the game I think also.
Yes I agree there are many different factors, and yes when gaming is concerned it can depend on the game, but what one person feels from that game can be completly different from another person.
It comes back to it being the individual person that determines how addict something can actually be though.
No, it just shows that the guy who died was a friggin' moron. Natural selection is a beautiful thing Mother Nature cooked up, and it appears to still be working flawlessly.
You can throw a fancy book out tehre all you want, but ANYONE can get addicted to ANYTHING, it all depends on the person.
Heck i gave you the definition of addiction, cant get any more clear than that, ive seen someone addicted to eating laundry detergent, is that in your precious book?
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Darwin's theory is merely culling the herd. Mental illness or not, having 6 billion people in the world has drastically diluted the gene pool and introduced new gene-related defects. Welcome to the world. Population: you.
People need to realise that is not ""video game addiction" but the person's own mental illness.
There is no such thing as ""video game addiction" it the persons personality that gets addicted to things. If it was not video games it would be cleaning or eating or painting lead soldiers or whatever.
People need to get that. Most people don't get that and blame the object of the addiction as causing the addiction.
Man dies in a car accident after smoking 10 packs of cigarretes a day for the last 40 years...
Cause of death cigarretes?
Same as this bulshit..the man didnt die because he was playing 3 days straight he died because of some problem he had..he just happened to be playing.
Mental illness is vague...millions of people believe in some kind of divine god, but because they are millions its not considered a mental illness yet.
This is embarassing and why there are so many so called educated people who seem barely able to tie their shoolaces or conceive of things outside of what their professors or their tv tells them. I've seen more idiots come out of some of these supposed institutions of higher learning than I can stand and the concept that a behaviour that does not appear in a book means it somehow does not exist, or even if it does, is some how not a form of pathology is unbelievably crazy to me. JUST because something is not in the DSM YET (tho I know therapists who have diagnosed individuals as having a "virtual addiction") doesn't mean it does not exist. Consensus by the panel of middle aged to senior citizen therapists on whether a virtual addiction should be listed as a disorder, a disturbance or what have you could take a long time to reach, if at all. BESIDES the friggin DSM 4 was published in 1994 and its latest revision was more than 10 years ago! How much different is the the world and its immersion into virtual reality since then??? Think for yourself, poindexter (Disdena). Unbelievable. This is what these svengalis want, blind faith. My gosh, its is just the opinion human beings with personal agendas and a host of conflict of interest issues, and believe me, there is no true consensus on its contents.
"Earlier this year(2010) American Psychiatric Association released its draft version of the fifth edition of DSM, DSM-5. The controversy raging around this publication, previously fuelled by its alleged secrecy, radicalness, and lack of organisation, was now fanned by the proposal of significant changes to various diagnoses. Critics, led by editors of previous DSMs, have expressed their concern that new disorders and the loosening of criteria in old ones will greatly increase the number of false positive diagnoses and generate a host of negative consequences." http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/crazy_controversy/
My gosh...
Who cares? This is just an example of getting the truly stupid out of the gene pool. If you're so stupid that you play a game until you die, good riddance to you.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Hmmm, excellent point.
Call it whatever you need to folks, but in the end that guy obviously had an addictive personality. His poison of choice: video games. He could have become addicted to anything, really.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
From the report
"China has more than 450 million internet users, and online games - which can involve multiple users role-playing in a virtual world - are particularly popular with young men"
With that many people spending their time gaming in internet cafes people are going to die in them. It is bound to happen statistically. I've seen people die in resturants and casinos first hand. The casino games and food at the restaurant were not the cause of death. Bad reporting is bad. Is addiction bad? Yes it is. But I'm not going to buy into this anti-gaming propaganda BS.
My theme song.
If it wasn't gaming, it would have been something else that this person would have latched onto to obsess over. Something was obviously wrong with them mentaly and/or emotionally to cause them to have such a firm grasp on using gaming as an escape from their life.
It's unfortunate for this person and his family and friends.
You gave a definition of addiction. I showed you where to find the scientific definition. Strangely, the definition you chose to gave doesn't even fit with what your claim. If this Chinese man had a video game addiction, cessation would have caused "severe trauma". Since shutting off a video game does not cause severe trauma, how can it be an addiction according to your definition?
The phenomenon you describe is probably pica. Its diagnostic code in the DSM-IV is 307.52. However, it is not an addiction.
I can't force you to accept the concept of addiction as defined by modern psychiatry, so I don't intend to try. You're neither the first nor last person to hold tight to your own beliefs and refuse to be convinced by the science in a "fancy book".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_addiction
My theme song.
Your Right Disdena. Not only that but in the DSM-V addiction is being changed to dependant and abuse behaviours to more clearly define where the locus of control lies - withing the person, or with a substance
@warmaster - actually not everyone can be addicted to anything. Both evolutionary and neurobiological studies have found that in order for you to become addicted to something you must have a disregulated receptor, the substance your are taking then has a shape that is similar to the chemical that binds to that receptor. If you do not have that disregulated receptor you will not become addicted to it. Of course you can still abuse the substance but the locus of control is still you, and not a physicial or chemical need.
And again both those fields have shown that many people will not ever get addictted to those substances. Marijuana only has about a 4% addiction rate, Cocaine~20%, Heroin ~15-20 percent. Alcohol has about 8 different receptors that it can bind to so the addiction ratie is much higher >60%.
If your friend was actually addicted to eating laundry detergen than there must be a disregulated receptor that something in the laundry detergent can bind to. More than likely he was not addicted but was an extreme abuser - which can still be extremely damaging and requires treatment but is no longer considered a dependent addiction.
With the different causes there is also now different treatment protocols ranging from complete abstinence to a reduction.
Venge
It is sad story
For the debat i pass my turn. 11 years i hear that. Just my little though to his family and friends
Gosh, can you at least LOOK IT UP first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_addiction
There are plenty of addictions that has nothing to do with substance .... gambling is a perfect example. And if you think gambling cannot be an addiction, please convince all the scientists who have worked on the issue first before coming here.
He was talking about substances like sigarets and alcohol. Can you calm down perhaps.