Study finds reason for games addiction

[Netrigan]

There's certainly some games that do everything possible to keep people playing even if they're not having fun. I fell prey to Mafia Wars which has keeping up with the Jones mechanic. It actually pulled me in with the ease of exploits allowing leveling at will. Once they effectively blocked me from doing it I gradually pulled out of it. And it is always a laugh to hear people talk about skill in relation to the game.

I'm usually pretty good about avoid proper games that rely too heavily on grinding as I get pretty bored of endlessly repeating easy tasks to level up. Ultima 6 was probably the last game I did that for any length of time. Online Red Dead Redemption doesn't really suck me in too hard because of the leveling system and relative lack of content. I might hit a hideout a couple of times but I'll move on pretty quickly.

 

[noble cookie]

This sounds like a usual, everyday gaming related media hate.

 

[SimuLord]

I'm confused as to whether I'm addicted... I easily game for 50+ hours a week but I can easily stay away from pretty much all technology for a few weeks or longer.

STUDY THAT ONE, BBC PEOPLE D:

I'm with you on that. Gaming is my preferred means of filling my spare time, but when I HAVE no spare time, I don't get the shakes and have to game lest my soul explode.

 

[manythings]

You can induce psychological dependency and compulsions with the right tricks. Video game addiction exists in the same way as TV addiction, work out addiction (Bigorexia) and even addiction to buying shit.

EDIT: Also thinking it has anything to do with a "Weak will" or being stupid is fucking stupid in and of itself.

You have no basis for that final statement. Having a weak will can certainly work to tip the scales from habit to obsession to addiction, as a person becomes increasingly dependent on the subject of the habit/obsession/addiction. A weak will is simply an unwillingness to go without the comfort of a psychological addiction, or an unwillingness to deal with the withdrawal symptoms of a physical/chemical addiction.

You cannot just "wish away" the psychological component of addiction, which comes straight down to a person's willpower. Willpower is a skill that can be taught and bolstered... or neglected and atrophied. Recognizing this isn't the same as "blaming" every addict for their addiction, or removing all compassion for the addict. It's simply recognizing that the subject of the addiction isn't always the root cause for the addiction.

Using techniques of conditioning, you can induce new habits and automated responses, and some of these can become addictions. You can't, however, make someone addicted. You can provide the environment and reinforcers, sure, but that's about it. You might cite any number of experiments done with animals to demonstrate the kind of control conditioning can have, but you forget that we, as people, have access to something those animals do not--the ability to recognize and resist manipulation, if we are willing.

The concept of a weak will was invented to give people a sense of moral superiority over others. EVERYONE has their vice, the only reason everyone isn't mired in it is because they haven't encountered it.

To blame everything on an abstract Unicorn of the mind is daft at the best of times. People want to point at someone who has a problem and say "At least I'm better than them". People are assholes and they will do anything they cann to elevate themselves beyond others.

Another interesting point on the concept of will is that Hypnotists, conjurers and mentalists love people with "Strong wills" because they are never as watchful as people aren't so sure of themselves.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

Maybe they should look at screen time PERIOD. Watching TV for eight hours is not any better then gaming for eight hours.

 

[SuperNashwan]

Ive just finished watching the documentary, and what struck me is the bias in how the programme was made. In the same way as gaming manufacturers put devices in the game to make it compelling, media companies put devices in their programmes to make you feel a certain way about the material they present. For example whenever they talk about some negative aspect of gaming, they add dramatic music, choose dramatic footage (the guy with his coat over his head or the filthy apartment of the korean couple) and pick out the most credible commentary. Then when presenting the other side of the coin, its presented dryly, with no drama. They select interviewees that come across as flaky and choose the flakiest parts of the interview.

The BBC is the worst for this - they like to make the claim their programmes are balanced. They do indeed present views from both sides of the fence. But its the way they present those views that is their equivalent of 'the skinner box' - their own psychological devices. It struck me that despite the fact that the Korean 'boot camp' operators, the psychologist who worked with the people who let their baby die, and the guy from Nottingham uni all said that people who get really addicted all have pre-existing underlying problems, the presenter of the piece made it very clear what his sentiments were throughout - the game is evil.

Addiction is real, but programmes like this promote addiction as both the root, source and expression of the problem. It isnt - addiction is a reaction to something else, a pre-existing problem, usually some pain or discomfort that the addiction removes them from for a time. That is why 12 step programmes for narcotics and alcohol addiction emphasize support and emotional well being. Its far better to focus on the roots of happiness, as in the korean boot camp, than hysterically rant at the corporations that these people have chosen to buy games from. All the game, or any addictive substance does is call dramatic attention to something that is already there.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

You know why videogames are addictive? You know why the usual 'addicted' people are male teens? Games require little effort. People are lazy. Hence why no one is addicted to Wii Fit.

 

[moretimethansense]

... Did anybody actually watch the damn show?
Compared to many "studies" it was remarkebly netral and spent a good deal of time pointing out that game addiction is while problomatic not as bad as your average sensationalist news outlet would have you believe.

The points they bring up are obvious to us the thing was about informing those thart don't already know.

 

[Dastardly]

You can induce psychological dependency and compulsions with the right tricks. Video game addiction exists in the same way as TV addiction, work out addiction (Bigorexia) and even addiction to buying shit.

EDIT: Also thinking it has anything to do with a "Weak will" or being stupid is fucking stupid in and of itself.

You have no basis for that final statement. Having a weak will can certainly work to tip the scales from habit to obsession to addiction, as a person becomes increasingly dependent on the subject of the habit/obsession/addiction. A weak will is simply an unwillingness to go without the comfort of a psychological addiction, or an unwillingness to deal with the withdrawal symptoms of a physical/chemical addiction.

You cannot just "wish away" the psychological component of addiction, which comes straight down to a person's willpower. Willpower is a skill that can be taught and bolstered... or neglected and atrophied. Recognizing this isn't the same as "blaming" every addict for their addiction, or removing all compassion for the addict. It's simply recognizing that the subject of the addiction isn't always the root cause for the addiction.

Using techniques of conditioning, you can induce new habits and automated responses, and some of these can become addictions. You can't, however, make someone addicted. You can provide the environment and reinforcers, sure, but that's about it. You might cite any number of experiments done with animals to demonstrate the kind of control conditioning can have, but you forget that we, as people, have access to something those animals do not--the ability to recognize and resist manipulation, if we are willing.

The concept of a weak will was invented to give people a sense of moral superiority over others. EVERYONE has their vice, the only reason everyone isn't mired in it is because they haven't encountered it.

To blame everything on an abstract Unicorn of the mind is daft at the best of times. People want to point at someone who has a problem and say "At least I'm better than them". People are assholes and they will do anything they cann to elevate themselves beyond others.

Another interesting point on the concept of will is that Hypnotists, conjurers and mentalists love people with "Strong wills" because they are never as watchful as people aren't so sure of themselves.

I think you've got a very cynical and highly misinformed view of "strong will." Everyone has their breaking point, and everyone has differing breaking points on differing issues. I mean, you wouldn't argue that different people have different thresholds for pain and discomfort. Some people can contort their bodies in ways that would make me cringe. Other people can barely take a pin prick without bawling.

Someone having a strong will doesn't mean they're invulnerable. It doesn't mean they're "better than." Sure, some people act like that, but so what? Just because you don't like the attitude some people take about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Some folks have a higher tolerance for the psychological discomfort and pain of doing without something. For some folks, it's easier because they've had different experiences. For some, one thing is easy and another is hard to resist. You're right that people have differing strengths and weaknesses, and generally people don't have a will that is universally strong or weak, but rather one that is strong in a few key areas (while weak in others).

Some people can break a smoking addiction by quitting cold turkey. Some can't. Both experience withdrawal symptoms that are biologically the same. What is the difference between the two? One person has the ability (and likely support of others) to endure the physical and psychological discomfort and pain have dropping the habit. The other person lacks one or the other in that particular area. But it doesn't mean they're a "worse person," any more than I'm a bad person because I can't play baseball as well as I can play guitar.

You're rebelling against the idea of wills because you don't like a particular attitude about them, which isn't a reasonable stance to take. You might consider revising.

 

[Terminate421]

So me Killing people in black ops is addicting, even after I played for 5 minutes this weekend, turned it off and went to the movies. (I played later, It was just my mood)

 

[BenTheWolf]

Just watched th episode. Had some interesting ppoints. What it basically says is for 99% of people Gaming is great and can be a part of their life enjoyably and profitably.

However there is that 1%- who may have underlining problems, that get addicted and this is dangerous. It's a condition that should be looked into. People CAN get addicted to games, but people CAN also get addicted to food or football, doesn't mean everyone or many people will, should still be acknowledged though.

 

[ExileNZ]

Okay, so before this discussion goes any further, everybody who hasn't already read the Extra Credits on "Skinner boxes" go do that right now. RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

Seriously, it's only a week old and I get the impression half the forum hasn't read it yet.

Now, that said... actually, I don't think I can add anything of value that wasn't already discussed in Extra Credits.

So everyone follow this link and THEN open your proverbial mouths:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2487-The-Skinner-Box

EDIT: Crap, I did have something to add - I like to play games, often for long periods, but when I get busy with work, paperwork or travel I typically don't game at all. I just don't have the time.