Here is how WHO classifies "gaming disorder": gaming is strongly preferred over other activities, the patient does not stop even when there are negative consequences like doing badly at work, compulsive gaming strains the patient’s life or relationships, and all this has been happening for at least a year.
As a number of health experts are pointing out, you could replace the word "gaming" with anything else and it could be considered a disorder based on this language. Gambling. Drinking. Watching football. But now it's there and we're probably going to see a rise in misdiagnosis because of it. Why is the classification and verbiage important? Medically speaking, it helps distinguish what type of help a person needs. By having a broad definition we could have individuals with anxiety, depression, ADHD, or another health concerns, improperly labeled as having a "gaming disorder."
The medical research for gaming is still thread-bare and too full of mistakes. As has been discussed on this blog multiple times, the studies for 'video game violence causing aggression' has been torn asunder for providing invalid research. Too few participants. Too much bias in producing a specific end result. Manipulating of information. Yet these studies are part of the "gaming disorder" discussion that WHO has, unfortunately, relied on.
Is it possible for someone to have a "gaming disorder"? Absolutely. I think if a person hasn't been provided with guidelines in their youth, or has a family with addictive behavior, that can become part of their norm. There are some people with an addiction to gaming; having a classification with WHO can allow those individuals to seek medical help without being dismissed by physicians. That's a good thing. The problem is the classification and text on what this disorder is, is too broad. We need a more narrow, defined context of what is a "gaming disorder." Otherwise we are not helping the people who need it the most.
The medical research for gaming is still thread-bare and too full of mistakes. As has been discussed on this blog multiple times, the studies for 'video game violence causing aggression' has been torn asunder for providing invalid research. Too few participants. Too much bias in producing a specific end result. Manipulating of information. Yet these studies are part of the "gaming disorder" discussion that WHO has, unfortunately, relied on.
Is it possible for someone to have a "gaming disorder"? Absolutely. I think if a person hasn't been provided with guidelines in their youth, or has a family with addictive behavior, that can become part of their norm. There are some people with an addiction to gaming; having a classification with WHO can allow those individuals to seek medical help without being dismissed by physicians. That's a good thing. The problem is the classification and text on what this disorder is, is too broad. We need a more narrow, defined context of what is a "gaming disorder." Otherwise we are not helping the people who need it the most.
\
