China requires anti-addiction software in games?

[Thorin]

Here's something I didn't know, China requires games to contain anti-addiction software.  Of course, it's only aimed at the under-18 crowd...

Xiao Wang [is] an articulate, intelligent 15-year-old. He's focusing intently on his game, SuperDancer, competing with five friends in an online dance contest. His avatar sways and kicks to the music.

Wang plays for five to six hours a day, a habit he blames on boredom, saying there's nothing else to do during the long, hot summer vacation. He says bluntly that the anti-addiction software isn't working.

I suggest the Chinese government invest heavily in kids' activities...  Baseball?  Soccer?  Build a bunch of fields!  Swimming?  Make it free!  Give them something else to do so that they don't play so long.  And then arrest the parents of any kids found playing too long (hey, it's China, they gotta arrest someone!)

[Mr. Analog]

"Annoy-ware", when ignored is impotent. I find it doubly interesting that while a country with a centralized government like China could just pull all video games everywhere off the shelves, out of peoples homes, brains, etc, they don't. Something a few people like Jack Thompson could learn.

I think enforcement helps, much like the impotent ESRB rating system which for whatever reason parent's tend to ignore (compared to Movie or Television ratings). Is it a culture expectation that the moral content contained within video games is somehow intrinsically child safe or in China's case, healthy?

It's a moot point anyway, video game addiction is mythical in nature. Just as television, radio, motion pictures, comic books, toys, Mississippi river rafting, etc. Just another scapegoat for when a kid goes unattended for hours and does something less than constructive.

[Thorin]

Yes, it's not an addiction.  The experts do tend to talk of it as an Impulse Control Disorder (yay, Wikipedia backs me up!), although that's in the extreme cases where people really, really, can't let go of the games.

What I find interesting is that people who appear addicted to the Internet or video games are typically simply acting out some other disorder, and the Internet or the video game is their enabler.  For instance, someone with Asperger's Syndrome might spend hours and hours and hours researching something to death until they know every single bit of information about it.  In the old days these people would be bookworms, but now they can use the Internet instead.

[Mr. Analog]

Is it truly a disorder though? If someone is so dedicated at curing cancer they devote themselves 100% to the task, spending all their time to the pursuit even at the cost of their own health? Are they "broken"?

How people choose to use their time should be up to them.

[Thorin]

Disorder: a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction.

Yes, the term "disorder" is a very wide-spectrum word.  That's why it's always preceded by specific descriptive words.  And yeah, if a person spends enough time on a single task that it significantly impacts their health (since non-significantly is so damn hard to quantify), then I think they qualify as suffering from at least one of the many mental health disorders out there.

Due to the instinct to procreate, it is normal for a human to sometimes engage in activities that put their health somewhat at risk; a risk may be counterbalanced with an increased chance to perpetuate the DNA.  It is abnormal for a human to engage at length in activities that clearly significantly impact their mental or physical health; if their mental or physical health deteriorates, the chance to perpetuate the DNA diminishes.

Now I don't consider someone with a disorder "broken".  Many people have disorders, including some that are not officially disorders yet according to the American Medical Association.  But I do consider diagnosing people with disorders important, because it allows them to realize what is wrong and figure out how to fix it or work around it and it allows doctors to standardize treatments and theses.

For instance, "You have Compulsive Video Gaming Disorder.  This means that you will continue to play video games compulsively, even when it significantly and detrimentally affects your physical or mental health and relationships with other people.  Video Game Compulsion Disorder is also associated with <list other disorders>, which you should get checked for.  You can combat this disorder by enacting one or more coping strategies <list strategies here>".  Now, I just made up Video Game Compulsion Disorder; it doesn't exist yet in the medical lexicon.  But when it or something similar does, people who spend 40 hours in a row sitting behind a computer playing games while forgetting they have kids or people who take their laptop with them to play while at work forgetting they need to work to get paid can be diagnosed and then can stop letting themselves be affected by video games so deeply.

[Mr. Analog]

I disagree with your points there.

I think terming something a "disorder" is largely cultural and implies rectification is in order. I mean, a century ago if you had a stutter they put you in the funny farm and injected you with drugs to shut you up. In some political regimes having different political beliefs was considered a mental deficiency.

If there was a chemical imbalance in a gamers brain that forced them to keep playing, then I'd agree that treatment is in order. At least then something can be done (a treatment could be developed to counteract the physical addiction). If a gamer can't put the game down for strictly psychological reasons, and they themselves don't want to change, I see no reason to force them. Really, all they're doing is being antisocial.

[Darren Dirt]

For instance, someone with Asperger's Syndrome might spend hours and hours and hours researching something to death until they know every single bit of information about it.

Chut up.

*walks away, ashamed...*


PS: I thought this topic had been covered before; I searched for China Addiction, got "Those crazy chinamen..."

Is it truly a disorder though? If someone is so dedicated at curing cancer they devote themselves 100% to the task, spending all their time to the pursuit even at the cost of their own health? Are they "broken"?

How people choose to use their time should be up to them.

Shhh! Careful, keep talking like that and you'll be labelled a libertarian or *shudder* an anarchist, and then nobody on the forum will respond to your posts

[Thorin]

Where did I say that we would force people to change?  What I said was that diagnosing a disorder allows the person with the disorder to better understand what's wrong and how to treat it.  As with *any* disorder, it's up to the person to decide whether to treat it or not (my body is nobody's body but mine!).  When I say treatment, I don't mean pharmaceuticals or medical intervention is necessarily required - it could be as simple as joining a support group (for instance, spend some time looking at DailyStrength.org).

I want to be clear here, too; when I think of problem-gamers I think of the type of person who will let their marriage end before even considering giving up their games, the type who will let their children wallow in filth without bothering to clean them, the type who will give up all real life friends for the game; anti-socialism to the extreme.  Their activities significantly impact their mental and physical health as well as that of their children, wives, husbands, and/or friends.  This is believed to be a very small subset of gamers, although it's not known how big or small the subset really is.

In a perfect world, such people would be diagnosed and given the tools needed to change if they so desire.  In the real world, the problem of labeling occurs.  Way too many people misunderstand the diagnosis and think people who are video game enthusiasts automatically suffer from such a disorder.  Then they label them and forever more judge them based on the labels.  Your example of the stutterer exemplifies this - the stutterer definitely suffered from a speech disorder, but they were locked up in a mental institute because they were labeled as mentally disturbed!

[Darren Dirt]

If there was a chemical imbalance in a gamers brain that forced them to keep playing, then I'd agree that treatment is in order. At least then something can be done (a treatment could be developed to counteract the physical addiction). If a gamer can't put the game down for strictly psychological reasons, and they themselves don't want to change, I see no reason to force them. Really, all they're doing is being antisocial.

On that subject, here's something to think about...

In the real world, the problem of labeling occurs.  Way too many people misunderstand the diagnosis and think people who are video game enthusiasts automatically suffer from such a disorder.  Then they label them and forever more judge them based on the labels.  Your example of the stutterer exemplifies this - the stutterer definitely suffered from a speech disorder, but they were locked up in a mental institute because they were labeled as mentally disturbed!

Good point; similarly some folks claim that the high suicide rate among homosexuals is in large part due to the psycho-emotional stresses imposed upon them regularly by their inner circle or society as a whole...

[Mr. Analog]

Shhh! Careful, keep talking like that and you'll be labelled a libertarian or *shudder* an anarchist, and then nobody on the forum will respond to your posts

People already do that, particularly when I offer hardware advice...

[Darren Dirt]

Shhh! Careful, keep talking like that and you'll be labelled a libertarian or *shudder* an anarchist, and then nobody on the forum will respond to your posts

People already do that, particularly when I offer hardware advice...

Then there's no harm in taking another small step of intellectual consideration...

[Mr. Analog]

Where did I say that we would force people to change?

Well...

diagnosing a disorder allows the person with the disorder to better understand what's wrong and how to treat it.

I sorta got the same impression from your earlier post, so let me clarify my problem with the terminology that gets bounced around. Who decides it's "wrong"? The Gov't? A doctor? The Pope? Even further (and I am jumping ahead with my conclusions here), what is the next logical step if we declare something as a societal ill? If history has shown us anything; rectification, that's what.

I want to be clear here, too; when I think of problem-gamers I think of the type of person who will let their marriage end before even considering giving up their games, the type who will let their children wallow in filth without bothering to clean them, the type who will give up all real life friends for the game; anti-socialism to the extreme.  Their activities significantly impact their mental and physical health as well as that of their children, wives, husbands, and/or friends.  This is believed to be a very small subset of gamers, although it's not known how big or small the subset really is.

I think that as a society we Westerners attribute the root of peoples problems to outside stimulus. As if outside stimulus is the only contributing factor to social delinquency. Perhaps the type of person who'd let their marriage deteriorate before even considering giving up a game really isn't enjoying the marriage and is using a video game as a means of not dealing with it.

Let me spin this around a bit, Is a criminally neglectful parent off the hook because they were "addicted" to a video game?

Getting back to the root topic, I'm glad I live in a society where at least some kind of debate would be heard before the Gov't steps in and dictates how many hours of entertainment your children should have access to. Secondly I'm really not surprised that such imposed Government nannying doesn't work.

[Mr. Analog]

Shhh! Careful, keep talking like that and you'll be labelled a libertarian or *shudder* an anarchist, and then nobody on the forum will respond to your posts

People already do that, particularly when I offer hardware advice...

Then there's no harm in taking another small step of intellectual consideration...

Just "poking the pig" (as Steve would say)

I love that book BTW, that was a great gift.

[Thorin]

Perhaps the type of person who'd let their marriage deteriorate before even considering giving up a game really isn't enjoying the marriage and is using a video game as a means of not dealing with it.

In my eyes, such a person is not suffering from a disorder, they're simply looking for an escape.  I was referring to people who *want* their marriage to succeed but continue to let their video gaming get in the way.  Yes, that's hard to diagnose without a serious chat between the diagnoser and the diagnosee.

Let me spin this around a bit, Is a criminally neglectful parent off the hook because they were "addicted" to a video game?

Nowhere did I say they were off the hook.  A criminally-neglectful parent is still a criminally-neglectful parent.  If children suffer in their care because they're compulsively playing video games (meaning they know they should stop but can't find the willpower to ignore the feel-good sensation they get from playing), providing a diagnosis of "compulsive video game disorder" will do nothing in the short term.  In the long term, however, it will allow said parent to learn about why they play these games when they know they shouldn't and how to change their lifestyle so they don't affect their kids negatively.  Such a diagnosis in no way absolves them for what they did, nor should it lessen any sentence that might be passed on them.  Which is the problem here, really.  People are trying to use a disorder as a cop-out.  That's like someone saying it's not their fault because they were depressed when they robbed and shot the gas station attendant.

Getting back to the root topic, I'm glad I live in a society where at least some kind of debate would be heard before the Gov't steps in and dictates how many hours of entertainment your children should have access to. Secondly I'm really not surprised that such imposed Government nannying doesn't work.

Werd!