Parents Neglect - D&D named.....

[Ourph]

IMO that can be summed up as physical addiction is both a body and mind craving that id not satisfied has adverse physical effects on the addict. A mental addiction is simply the demand fulfillment of a desire, likely indicating a lack of will power and/or extreme egocentrism, the failure to satisfy that desire affecting the mind of the addict, and that possibly causing further adverse physical effects.

FWIW,
Gary

To extend on what apoptosis said above, the physical part of substance addiction (the body readjusting to being without an internalized substance) is often acute, but is also very short-lived. The long term recovery of a substance abuse addict and a (for example) gambling addict are extremely similar. If you take an MRI of a heroine addict's brain and a gambling addict's brain three weeks after their last "fix" the neurological phenomenon associated with cravings in both are virtually identical. Make no mistake, a gambling addict has a "body" craving just like the heroine addict. Both the drug and the activity cause release of neurotransmitters that act on the emotional centers of the brain. It's the neurotransmitters that people become primarily addicted to, the activity/substance is just a means to an end.

 

[Tal Rasha]

If you are talking about anxiolytic medication helping those with Social Anxiety Disorder, you are way off base. SAD can be a terribly debilitating disease and can cause severe impairment (heck a nobel prize winner would not go accept her prize because of it).

Duly noted. Will read up on this.

While journalists tend to exaggerate the findings of studies, the study authors generally do not. While i take popular accounts of studies into question and I critically review all studies (i deal with psychiatric and neurochemistry research and clinical trials), I definitely would take scientists opinions over the lay publics about 99.9999999999% of the time (ok i am exageratting i would only take it 99.99%)

I commend you for your scientific rigour in evaluatings studies. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of trusting the scientist's opinion 99.99% of the time. I don't wish to deviate the discussion, so I will only add that my argument went not so much to the public's interpretation of a study, as to the risks and difficulties involved in any research into a large, complex topic.

I play DDO (gasp) and am very active with my guild doing raids and other time-intensive activities in the game. I also have a happy marriage, a good job (outside the home), and time to exercise and cook and enjoy social interactions with others (in real life).

It is very good that you do so, but I think you would agree that seriously playing a MMO makes it more difficult to do all of the above things. Heck, I'm at university and only play games occasionally, and I don't have the time to regularly cook and exercise. If you add a reasonable 4 hours per day of World of Warcraft...

 

[apoptosis]

I commend you for your scientific rigour in evaluatings studies. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of trusting the scientist's opinion 99.99% of the time. I don't wish to deviate the discussion, so I will only add that my argument went not so much to the public's interpretation of a study, as to the risks and difficulties involved in any research into a large, complex topic.

I was speaking with a bit of hyperbole.

It is always a good idea to take any single study with a certain amount of critical thought. Frankly most all studies have limitations and in most peer-reviewed journals they are spelled out in the conclusion/discussion of the paper. Peer review in journals can be pretty tough (depending on the journal you might get back 3 or 4 revisions before the reviewers are happy) and the single biggest issue I have found in clinical studies is the scope of the conclusion and unwarranted extrapolation of the study. Most news articles never mention these limitations and tend to project the significance of the study far past what is actually concluded by the study authors.

My bigger point was that, generally speaking, the publics' understanding of scientific studies is generally very poor. Most journals are not publicaly available so access to read the study is limited. In addition most people are not trained to read scientific studies in a general sense either clinical or basic (preclinical) and also dont have the specific expertise to read within a certain discipline which allows you to consider the context of the study to the existing literature This is of course true in most all fields of knowledge, but in science it can be a particular problem.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I read the Journal of Irreproducable Results quite competently, sir!

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Schmoe]

Look! Someone was playing DDO!

Horrible parenting. WoW is better.

FIFY.

 

[apoptosis]

I read the Journal of Irreproducable Results quite competently, sir!

Cheerio,
Gary

That is my favorite journal by far

 

[Col_Pladoh]

This is a paraphrase of a post on an email list that I find compelling in its sarcastic argument:

Of coures addiction to crystal meth Meth is absolutely the same as that of addiction to an RPG. There is no difference at all. Thus, taking a random sampling of people, providing half of them with the methamphetimine and the other half a compiter RPG such as D&D will result in voirtually the same percentages of each test group becoming brain-damaged addocts that are unable to maintain employment, see to their own needs and be functioning memebrs of society.

This calls to mind the vast number of CRPG and paper & pencil ROG players that steal, rob, and/or prostiture themselves in order to get the next game.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Ourph]

Cars kill many, many more people each year than falling bricks. That doesn't make the guy who gets killed by a falling brick any less dead.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Cars kill many, many more people each year than falling bricks. That doesn't make the guy who gets killed by a falling brick any less dead.

And so...?

That begs the question.

There is a vast difference between the hazard each form of death represents. Thus the level of peril posed by each is extremely wide, the incidence of game addiction assuredly less than death by falling bricks, while that of drug addiction is greater than that of automobile accident.

Cheers,
Gary+

 

[werk]

And so...?

That begs the question.

There is a vast difference between the hazard each form of death represents. Thus the level of peril posed by each is extremely wide, the incidence of game addiction assuredly less than death by falling bricks, while that of drug addiction is greater than that of automobile accident.

Cheers,
Gary+

Right, like you are less likely to be attacked by a shark than hit by lightning. Duh, a much smaller percentage of people are in a body of water that would permit such an attack, while most everyone on Earth is exposed to lightning.

eating > cars > drugs > MMOs

Now, if you could isolate the subject demographic, then you could get some real numbers worth comparing, but each is a petry dish unto itself and not worthy of generalization.