WHO finally declares a video game disorder

[nixpix5]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/06/18/health/video-game-disorder-who/index.html

Finally. I have been waiting for and fought for this over the past 15 years. 

[umsami]

Honestly, after seeing the giant difference in my kids in the past month or so, I truly believe we don't understand just how damaging they are.

 

Glad to see this.

[nixpix5]

6 minutes ago, umsami said:

Honestly, after seeing the giant difference in my kids in the past month or so, I truly believe we don't understand just how damaging they are.

 

Glad to see this.

Yep. I thought it was a balanced article but I did not at all agree with the psychologist's assessment. As someone who has spent time both in research in this area as well as treating the addiction in young people, he is missing the mark. Yes, video games can be secondary to anxiety  and depression. Absolutely they can. However, same can be said for drugs and alcohol. We still treat both the addiction and the underlying anxiety/depression. Video gaming in excess alters dopamine and dopamine receptors in significant ways that is organic. Psychologists and mental health counselors just do not have enough science in their education to truly understand the neurobiological components. I am just glad to see after bucket loads of faithful and strong research over the past 2 decades and countless ruined lives, relationships and marriages, that this is getting some exposure. 

[Bluegoat]

I read a similar article in The Guardian.  I thought similarly to you, nixpix, that it was odd that he said that as it seems to be something that's true with many addictive substances.   And in general I felt like it really downplayed the scientific end of things.  A lot of the comments reflected that, as people felt that it was just a sort of fake thing, like staying up and reading a novel all night.

In fact, the whole article was really trying to not make parents feel bad, which I understand why people might want to take that approach, but it seemed to me that they almost totally undermined the idea that it was actually a potential danger and people ought to act on that.

 

[nixpix5]

47 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I read a similar article in The Guardian.  I thought similarly to you, nixpix, that it was odd that he said that as it seems to be something that's true with many addictive substances.   And in general I felt like it really downplayed the scientific end of things.  A lot of the comments reflected that, as people felt that it was just a sort of fake thing, like staying up and reading a novel all night.

In fact, the whole article was really trying to not make parents feel bad, which I understand why people might want to take that approach, but it seemed to me that they almost totally undermined the idea that it was actually a potential danger and people ought to act on that.

 

Agree 100%. Unfortunately, we do an abysmal job in the world teaching young people neurobiology yet feed them scientific research and expect them to grasp it. It infuriates me. Our neurobiology effects the very essence of our lives and relationships. It is who we are. We talk about mental health, addictions, motivation, perseverance...all of this is neurobiology that has organic components that can be understood at the molecular level. I feel if everyone understood how our neurons, receptors, neurotransmitters worked then we wouldn't have comments in articles that sound completely ignorant. It isn't their fault they don't get it though because it hasn't been part of their education. 

I feel if people knew that if you block dopamine in the reward center narcotics have no addictive effects they might grasp it. It isn't a chemical put in the body that causes addiction. It is whatever is driving the dopamine which is ANYTHING motivating. 

Driving the dopamine causes receptor recycling which means less ability to feel and be sensitive to lower levels of dopamine when the dopamine is not being driven. Dopamine is linked to our serotonin (5HT) so if you decrease receptors and cannot have neuronal firing from dopamine then you decrease 5HT. What is the result of this you ask? Depression. So kids can become depressed secondary to gaming. Kids can acquire anxiety secondary to gaming and more importantly, excessive gaming triggers norepinephrine changes which creates induced AD/HD symptomology (inattentive type). 

Media won't cover the science so others can understand fully as it would mean a lot of hard conversations and changes to an industry that makes a ton of money. Blind eye works so much better.

 

[retiredHSmom]

17 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

Agree 100%. Unfortunately, we do an abysmal job in the world teaching young people neurobiology yet feed them scientific research and expect them to grasp it. It infuriates me. Our neurobiology effects the very essence of our lives and relationships. It is who we are. We talk about mental health, addictions, motivation, perseverance...all of this is neurobiology that has organic components that can be understood at the molecular level. I feel if everyone understood how our neurons, receptors, neurotransmitters worked then we wouldn't have comments in articles that sound completely ignorant. It isn't their fault they don't get it though because it hasn't been part of their education. 

I feel if people knew that if you block dopamine in the reward center narcotics have no addictive effects they might grasp it. It isn't a chemical put in the body that causes addiction. It is whatever is driving the dopamine which is ANYTHING motivating. 

Driving the dopamine causes receptor recycling which means less ability to feel and be sensitive to lower levels of dopamine when the dopamine is not being driven. Dopamine is linked to our serotonin (5HT) so if you decrease receptors and cannot have neuronal firing from dopamine then you decrease 5HT. What is the result of this you ask? Depression. So kids can become depressed secondary to gaming. Kids can acquire anxiety secondary to gaming and more importantly, excessive gaming triggers norepinephrine changes which creates induced AD/HD symptomology (inattentive type). 

Media won't cover the science so others can understand fully as it would mean a lot of hard conversations and changes to an industry that makes a ton of money. Blind eye works so much better.

 

You seem very knowledgeable about genetics and neurobiology. So two questions:

1. why do some people become addicted to video games and some do not?  My sister has dealt much more with sons who seem mildly addicted (refuse to stop playing, bad behavior when they do play, constant requests to play) while my children seem totally unaffected, We have never NOT had a video game system, right now we have two and we have had as many as three. One of my daughters plays very occasionally, one never plays and my 18 year old son likes to play but he has never played more than two hours at a time, frequently goes days and weeks without playing at all. Even as a child he rarely begged and always had very balanced interests.  I have always attributed it to the fact that TV played a very limited role in our lives.  We have no TV at all on the main floor of our home and never have, none in any bedrooms.  We watch less than 1 hour a week most weeks. My sister has a TV in the living room, they watch a lot more.

2. My daughter recently had genetic testing done for medical reasons (to prescribe medicine) she was told 1. that most people are born as an"insulated wire" with a protective coating and that she was born as a "frayed wire" missing that coating and that she would find herself more anxious and more prone to trauma (which is true, she does not have generalized anxiety but she does have PTSD and OCD, both of which are in the anxiety family) 2. That her brain uses dopamine at a very high rate, higher than most people and that would make her prone to low working memory and poor executive function.  The doctor suggested that when her OCD is under control she may want to try a stimulant med. If I understand this right, he basically diagnosed her with ADD?  I had to laugh a lot. She is profoundly gifted and has the best executive function skills I have ever seen. Her working memory seems to be holding up as well in that she had 3.96 GPA in college when getting a theoretical math degree and has a 4.0 across one year of math grad school and one year of a special education masters degree. However, she has always had "absent-minded professor" syndrome, loosing everything constantly, and she claims to not pay any attention in any of her classes and she definitely isn't reading the text book.  My question is if a brain that uses dopamine very, very quickly is an ADD brain how does that relate to dopamine and reward centers and video game addiction (as a note she is my kid that has never played video games)?

[nixpix5]

2 hours ago, retiredHSmom said:

You seem very knowledgeable about genetics and neurobiology. So two questions:

1. why do some people become addicted to video games and some do not?  My sister has dealt much more with sons who seem mildly addicted (refuse to stop playing, bad behavior when they do play, constant requests to play) while my children seem totally unaffected, We have never NOT had a video game system, right now we have two and we have had as many as three. One of my daughters plays very occasionally, one never plays and my 18 year old son likes to play but he has never played more than two hours at a time, frequently goes days and weeks without playing at all. Even as a child he rarely begged and always had very balanced interests.  I have always attributed it to the fact that TV played a very limited role in our lives.  We have no TV at all on the main floor of our home and never have, none in any bedrooms.  We watch less than 1 hour a week most weeks. My sister has a TV in the living room, they watch a lot more.

2. My daughter recently had genetic testing done for medical reasons (to prescribe medicine) she was told 1. that most people are born as an"insulated wire" with a protective coating and that she was born as a "frayed wire" missing that coating and that she would find herself more anxious and more prone to trauma (which is true, she does not have generalized anxiety but she does have PTSD and OCD, both of which are in the anxiety family) 2. That her brain uses dopamine at a very high rate, higher than most people and that would make her prone to low working memory and poor executive function.  The doctor suggested that when her OCD is under control she may want to try a stimulant med. If I understand this right, he basically diagnosed her with ADD?  I had to laugh a lot. She is profoundly gifted and has the best executive function skills I have ever seen. Her working memory seems to be holding up as well in that she had 3.96 GPA in college when getting a theoretical math degree and has a 4.0 across one year of math grad school and one year of a special education masters degree. However, she has always had "absent-minded professor" syndrome, loosing everything constantly, and she claims to not pay any attention in any of her classes and she definitely isn't reading the text book.  My question is if a brain that uses dopamine very, very quickly is an ADD brain how does that relate to dopamine and reward centers and video game addiction (as a note she is my kid that has never played video games)?

So there is quite a bit here but we are complicated systems. As you know, genetic make up varies. Some people are prone to addiction and there is a genetic predisposition for it. In this scenario, the person's genes might be coding for less dopamine, less innervation between reward system and frontal cortex and so forth. Often times people that are addicted to gaming will also be addicted to other things throughout life. Not always but often.

Some people, as the article referred to, use self medicating procedures be it a substance, gaming or bidding on ebay to give them a momentary happy boost to their chemicals because they are indeed battling depression. Their depression could have been from drugs, gaming or anything else that drove dopamine so long that it downregulated dopamine and 5HT resulting in depression. Or conversely, they were depressed by an event (bullying, social struggles, death, break up etc) and that lowered their neurotransmitters which means they are seeking to boost them by using an outside stimuli.

Some have impulse control issues because they are already genetically prone to AD/HD symptomology and cannot inhibit their behaviors in the same way others might. This could be because their genes code for differences in norepinephrine and less talking/sensitivity between frontal cortex and other parts of the brain.There are other ways than this to get there but this is just a few examples. 

Another piece of this is the potential that exists in our DNA. We can have genes for all sorts of things but those genes may get upregulated or downregulated based on environment and upbringing. Just because we have a gene for something doesn't mean that it is expressing the proteins necessary to show a phenotype for it. Some genes turn on with ease no matter what, others have the potential to be expressed but we may not do what is necessary or be exposed to what is necessary to turn it on whether it be a good outcome or bad. Our systems are quite honestly amazing and astounding. The way our bodies regulate based on buffering or insult truly takes my breath away. 

I am not quite sure what the geneticist is referring to when he describes someone using dopamine quickly unless he is talking about the rate that a ligand is adhering to a binding site or upregulation. If he is referring to levels of dopamine...that would almost seem opposite to me. So think about it this way...people who need a high threshold of stimuli to trigger dopamine are typically those with inattention issues. That is why those with AD/HD cannot focus on math per se, but seem to have hyperfocus for video games. It gets their dopamine to the place they need for focus to occur. Then, our bodies always work toward a set point that is unique to us so the receptors will get recycled to try to push the brain back to its set level of dopamine (this is called compensatory response) and by recyling receptors, now that person feels less dopamine when doing activities that do not drive dopamine as much as gaming for example.

Someone who has more than normal dopamine response to daily activities would show better focus on most tasks and yes, due to this bigger spike for basic activities, they may space out smaller things like remembering to get their coat off the back of a chair in class for example. This is because our frontal cortex talks to other dopamine rich brain regions like our reward system. The best system is the one that is most sensitive to both the small rewards (remembering our coat so we don't have to buy a new one) and the large rewards (reading a book, watching a movie or playing an occasional video game) and is able to quickly spike between these things to be sensitive enough to regulate. By overdoing the larger dopamine reward we alter our receptors to smaller dopamine rewards. 

With a bigger dopamine output as their personal set point,  I would not expect the person to become addicted to much very easily as they wouldn't be dopamine seeking. Now this gets complicated because our frontal cortex uses dopamine to talk with our amygdala. Amygdala is where you would be registering fear, anxiety, anger in general. The amygdala also houses different density of dopamine on either side. This is all genetically determined and those genes are executed based on our environments. 

Having more dopamine response would potentially mean more serotonin response considering they work synergistically. More 5HT could predispose someone to more sensitive feelings to events and that might mean something that might not effect you or I significantly, could effect this particular person substantially and result in PTSD. I would say your DD is responding exactly like what I would expect someone with higher levels of dopamine and 5HT to respond. Gifted, focused on what interests her and emotionally sensitive. Your genetic counselor may not have fully understood the neurobiological implications of her particular profile. 

Her not paying attention in class/reading the book may just be because she doesn't need to. It seems like her brain has excellent Lazer focus to be able to absorb information quickly, synthesize it and store it. It is funny that sometimes gifted people do look like someone with ADD but it is often, I believe, more having to do with the capacity at which they are processing and making connections. 

Has she ever had any odd sensory quirks? Sometimes increased DA and 5HT can cause heightened senses.

Again, this is just one particular way this might occur. It is often those who feel less neurotransmitter that are driven toward addiction in general. They are seeking to regulate their neurotransmitters and feel "good". 

 

[Bluegoat]

Ah, that's so interesting - there was a thread here awhile ago about "absent minded professor" syndrome and there were quite a few people who thought hat it was due to something like ADD.  As an absent-minded person myself, it didn't quite seem to fit, but that explanation makes a lot of intuitive sense to me.

On the main topic though - I think the issue of not wanting to offend the industry may be the crux, or close to it.  I am not sure I think it is just down to lack of education, because I think it could probably be explained to an audience like you'd find reading papers like The Guardian in a very adequate way.  At least to the degree that says, this is a scientific opinion with some real basis and not just some kind of hand-wringing by old fogies.  I find myself wondering why no one writes that article, and that is certainly one explanation.  The other thing though - I noticed a similar kind of article today on some new game, and the vitriol of the comments BTL was really intense for the subject.  The only thing I can compare it to is the sort of response from articles about problems with porn.  It seems to me that these are people that are really, really personally invested in gaming not being a problem.

[Janeway]

Yep.

[BeachGal]

The gaming industry knows exactly what they’re doing. They hire psychologists to help create flow experiences to hook gamers. Certain elements are purposely designed to develop gambling. It’s really quite insidious and despicable.

[Targhee]

40 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

The gaming industry knows exactly what they’re doing. They hire psychologists to help create flow experiences to hook gamers. Certain elements are purposely designed to develop gambling. It’s really quite insidious and despicable.

This. It’s been going on for years now, and I find it so revolting. It’s like lacing a beverage with a highly addictive substance(s) that adds little or nothing to the taste (how many people do you know that seem addicted to Diet Coke?) only with even more damaging consequences.

I still believe in choice and in teaching regulation, and in parental involvement BUT I feel like I’m up against a tidal wave.  I have 3 kids with ADHD, and they would play video games endlessly if it were an option. I would guess 70% of the time DS turns down other activities to play video games if he can. We have tried so many iterations of “screen time” rules in the last 8 years, all the while trying to teach self regulation with paltry results.  We have even stopped screens entirely, but as soon as they have the chance they are back at it like junkies ? I’m not saying they qualify for this Dx, but I feel like maybe the only thing holding them back from it is me - so what happens when they’re on their own ?

[Bluegoat]

That element reminds me of the cigarette industry - adding chemicals to make it more addictive than it would be otherwise.  I think video game addiction is very closely related to the online live elements and the gambling type elements - that's why it's become so much more prominent in recent years.  

That it's unlimited compared to many other activities is an interesting factor too.  I'm old enough that when I as a kid a lot of video games were more limited in their appeal - you became bored, or you actually won the game!  Those of us that wanted an interactive, potentially endless game played RPGs.  But there were intrinsic limits, not only did you have to meet together, there was a significant amount of preparation involved, at least for whomever was eating the game.

I can only imagine what it would have been like if we didn't have to go out and had ready made scenarios at our fingertips with no effort. We'd have been worse introverts than we already were. (Though actually I think the old method made for more creativity and variety in the game, too.)

[TechWife]

I am really glad to see this development. I think video game addiction is as real as any other addiction. The guy who thinks that they jumped the gun is wrong, IMO. This thread, like many here, is very informative and I appreciate the info everyone is contributing.

[nixpix5]

1 hour ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

I know a guy who was head of a gaming development group.  He said that this was absolutely the case but that it was not really addiction or the gaming companies' fault...and then his son got addicted and now he sees his dreams and family efforts going up in smoke.  

I live and work in tech central and I treated a young kid for gaming addiction who is the son of a well known game designer. I also have a close friend who has a husband that owns a game app development company. Their middle child is struggling so much with this currently. 

[nixpix5]

2 hours ago, Targhee said:

This. It’s been going on for years now, and I find it so revolting. It’s like lacing a beverage with a highly addictive substance(s) that adds little or nothing to the taste (how many people do you know that seem addicted to Diet Coke?) only with even more damaging consequences.

I still believe in choice and in teaching regulation, and in parental involvement BUT I feel like I’m up against a tidal wave.  I have 3 kids with ADHD, and they would play video games endlessly if it were an option. I would guess 70% of the time DS turns down other activities to play video games if he can. We have tried so many iterations of “screen time” rules in the last 8 years, all the while trying to teach self regulation with paltry results.  We have even stopped screens entirely, but as soon as they have the chance they are back at it like junkies ? I’m not saying they qualify for this Dx, but I feel like maybe the only thing holding them back from it is me - so what happens when they’re on their own ?

An article came out three years ago with regard to (mostly) male undergrad dropout rate having increased in my area and it talked directly about gaming being a huge issue on campuses. Once a young person is not being regulated it can potentially have some serious implications. This is why gaming isn't often seen as being addicting. It has to meet the criteria of interfering with regular life and obligations. Kids don't have many obligations and when they do they have parents that buffer the impact. Often times it is the 20s where if it was an addiction, it rears its head. 

I get asked a lot why it seems to be mostly boys who are affected. Not entirely, but definitely more boys than girls exhibit gaming issues. It could be that they are more sensitive to reward system and executive functioning pathway changes in general. This could also explain too why AD/HD is more common in boys. 

Another reason I think this is occurring is because boys in general (please see the "general" as I don't mean girls don't but I am speaking under a bell curve here) seek adventure, outdoor exploration, heroes journey, questing, and all things rough and tumble. I just sit in parks with my kids and marvel as little boys go for the nearest tree, pinecone and branch to make weapons and to battle. I think about how boys were able to fulfill this need more naturally in previous generations. Video games supply that immediate need to adventure, to go on a heroes journey and to matter. It makes total sense even when not taking into account the stimulating screen itself. Kids need to interact with nature, impact their environment and they need to do so without constant adult supervision, interruption and suggestions. They want to mark their world and matter in it.

I keep reading comments that compare gaming and watching television. It is not the same thing. Not even close. Television is passive. You are viewing someone else's "life" playing out. You can feel for them, even put yourself in their shoes but it is finite and not you.

In gaming the character is you. It is your reputation online. You are popular (or not) you have done something impressive (or not). In some ways RPGS are like social media. You have an identity. You spend hours essentially teaching your character skills to become good at a trade and to be useful in the virtual world. It is like college...literally...but for the pixels on the screen. Some kids get deeply depressed or suicidal when their characters are deleted by parents. It can become their identity. I have seen this occur on a smaller scale with younger kids and Minecraft being played on a server.

[Liz CA]

8 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

One of the things about the dopamine dump that happens in process addictions (gambling, gaming) is that there is nothing to stop you from keeping on.   Runners get a dopamine dump from running...but they can't run forever and so there is a limit. Same with other physical activities that provide dopamine.  Gaming, gambling...you can just keep going until the dopamine is WAY more than your body was ever meant to handle.  

Add to that the fact that your brain really cannot distinguish reality when you immerse yourself in something, and you end up with dopamine at very high levels at the same time you have adrenaline dumping going on--you're in "battle" every single minute you are in a war game, for example.  So you have dopamine combined with adrenaline and it is an immense rush...and there's no stopping point.  

It does things to your brain, to your body, to have this chemical overload.  In our case, the person involved is 6'4" and never got over 125 pounds.  Gaming, he went down to 105.  Think about that.  He was so adrenalized that his body couldn't consume enough food to provide any bodily sustenance.  

There's tons more info about all this...but I wanted to say what little I know re: the dopamine issue mentioned upthread.

"You" being my lazy way of not using a third-person/indefinite pronoun. 

 

Unfortunately, this has proven to be true. There was this case of a gamer found dead in his chair in a public video gaming room in Taiwan, I think.

It is high time we get some diagnostic guidelines in place. 

Ah, I think I found the article: https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/world/taiwan-gamer-death/index.html

[Bluegoat]

So, is there any real idea if this affects kids differently than adults?

What I am wondering is if we might see, at least, some strong messaging, even regulation, about kids playing.  Because I think the idea that by controlling it for them with rules you teach self-regulation - that is almost masking the nature of the problem.

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

Yes it is different for a couple of reasons.  

1.  Young people’s brains are still in formation. Neural pathways still open and bring established.   When all a young person does is gaming, those are the pathways that get established.  In addition, addictive gaming delays development of and even damages the prefrontal cortex — the executive function.  Damage can be repaired if caught early enough—but after age 25–not so much.  

2.  Adults who start gaming have established other patterns and are much less likely to get addicted.  In a similar vein, research shows that the chances of alcoholism are greatly reduced if one doesn’t imbibe until age 25.  Almost zero chance of becoming an alcoholic.  

So it is not a bad thing at all to set limits—if one is prone to addiction, this may be part of the best help they can get—that, anc introduction of healthier dopamine-producing activities.  

 

Yes, I was thinking of limit-setting as compared to simply not really having any gaming, or really very severely curtailed in type and amount.  I keep hearing about people who thought they had reasonable limits, but it still seemed to be a problem for their kids, and with little sense that it was creating any real ability to self-regulate.

I guess I am wondering if the idea that there is a need to teach self-regulation is kind of a distraction.  I'm not sure an adult controlling use does that, if many kids will still crave it or pursue it anyway.  It's not like gaming is an actual necessity in life like food is.  And I am really doubtful that any adult who hasn't tried gaming will be at a disadvantage in terms of regulating himself because he didn't have a parent control his use as a kid.   I tend to think it would be neutral or even an advantage for some.  Chances are, even at 18, you have some other interests, and habits.

[nixpix5]

5 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

Yes it is different for a couple of reasons.  

1.  Young people’s brains are still in formation. Neural pathways still open and bring established.   When all a young person does is gaming, those are the pathways that get established.  In addition, addictive gaming delays development of and even damages the prefrontal cortex — the executive function.  Damage can be repaired if caught early enough—but after age 25–not so much.  

2.  Adults who start gaming have established other patterns and are much less likely to get addicted.  In a similar vein, research shows that the chances of alcoholism are greatly reduced if one doesn’t imbibe until age 25.  Almost zero chance of becoming an alcoholic.  

So it is not a bad thing at all to set limits—if one is prone to addiction, this may be part of the best help they can get—that, anc introduction of healthier dopamine-producing activities.  

Bingo. 

Kids brains are wiring and the old "use it or lose it" scenario is accurate here. If a pathway is used it gets strengthened, if it isn't it prunes. If all a teen does is game, that is what their brain is wiring for and the stronger the pathway becomes, the more efficient it becomes. Gaming will probably be part of something they always do or want to do.

Adults who don't start gaming until adulthood have a lower chance of addiction. It still does happen though. Typically though, these adults are disatisfied with life or do not have varied interests.

The other one is adults who gamed a lot as kids wired their brain so they are more prone to falling back into old patterns if they find a game that grabs them. My own DH had to cut gaming cold turkey. Over the past 20 years every time he reached for a controller or mouse he fell off the wagon and I would find him bleary eyed at 4am having not gone to bed. When he is coming off of a game binge he is irritable and pessimistic. Once he cuts them again he goes back to normal. It has always fascinated me. He hasn't touched one in 3 years. 

[nixpix5]

6 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Yes, I was thinking of limit-setting as compared to simply not really having any gaming, or really very severely curtailed in type and amount.  I keep hearing about people who thought they had reasonable limits, but it still seemed to be a problem for their kids, and with little sense that it was creating any real ability to self-regulate.

I guess I am wondering if the idea that there is a need to teach self-regulation is kind of a distraction.  I'm not sure an adult controlling use does that, if many kids will still crave it or pursue it anyway.  It's not like gaming is an actual necessity in life like food is.  And I am really doubtful that any adult who hasn't tried gaming will be at a disadvantage in terms of regulating himself because he didn't have a parent control his use as a kid.   I tend to think it would be neutral or even an advantage for some.  Chances are, even at 18, you have some other interests, and habits.

That's the rub though. Some kids start gaming and even when managed, it is all they want to do and they will choose it above everything else. As their neural pathway for gaming gets stronger and stronger, the other ones prune out. So these kids tend to still do other hobbies but only because their parents are reminding them to practice their instrument, signing them up for sports, etc and they don't like it as much as gaming. They aren't getting the same dopamine output for anything else. This is one of the first signs that the person will have a challenge regulating later. 

This doesn't happen to every kid but I can sure as heck say it is more than 3% as the article tried to claim. It is not as rare as they are trying to let on. 

I think when it comes to letting kids game or not it is a huge decision. No, I personally think the idea that letting a kid game to teach them how to regulate is like saying let your kid drink at home and teach them how to regulate. It is going on the assumption that all people game at some point. This is not true. If kids game, they wire for it and often will continue. If kids don't, they won't wire for it and probably won't ever really play. 

I think parents feel guilty if they were to not allow gaming because they wouldn't be able to relate to peers or somehow they are depriving them. Some parents think we are living in a tech world and by not allowing gaming they will he at a disadvantage. Some parents game a lot and because their own brain has been wired with tech they no longer are sensitive to the warning signs. I have heard every variation of why a parent won't cut their kid off even though the kid fights to do their homework, lies, loses sleep, is eating poorly, is irritable, and so forth. I am shocked at how many people believe that list is just a "typical teen" and while yes, teens do cycle through some of those, I see almost none of those traits in boys who aren't allowed to game or girls who don't have social media. Speaking of social media...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1JF37S

Parents who brought their kids to therapy would come back week after week wanting me to magically talk their child out of addiction while not even considering cold turkey. When a kid is this far gone all that works is total abstinence. Sometimes if caught early enough a child can detox for 3 to 6 months and then slowly get reintroduced and regulate. Especially if the parent equips them with the signs to look for when it is becoming too much. However, some kids go back and slide right back into it as if they never left.

 

[Bluegoat]

Right, t's that sense of something inevitable, that could not possibly be a significant risk, that I think is both interesting and a barrier.

 

Is it that people are remembering their Atari or old X-box and so it seems crazy?  Or that it's marketed as a game, for kids?

[retiredHSmom]

35 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

I think when it comes to letting kids game or not it is a huge decision. No, I personally think the idea that letting a kid game to teach them how to regulate is like saying let your kid drink at home and teach them how to regulate. It is going on the assumption that all people game at some point. This is not true. If kids game, they wire for it and often will continue. If kids don't, they won't wire for it and probably won't ever really play. 

While agree with most everything you say and definitely bow to your greater experience, I have trouble with this statement. My parents bought an Atari for our family in the late 70's, early 80's. A psychologist who IQ tested me told them that I had a deficit in spatial relations and that playing video games would help.  My four siblings and I always had a video game system. We played weekly but by high school only one played at all and in adulthood no one plays video games.  My children have all had access to a game system for their entire lives and they definitely do not have issues with gaming. One doesn't game at all, one does a few hours a month and one plays a few hours a week and often goes weeks with no game time at all. Obviously this is anecdotal but I cannot believe that we are the only people in America with this experience.  There has to be something more to the equation.

35 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

I think parents feel guilty if they were to not allow gaming because they wouldn't be able to relate to peers or somehow they are depriving them. Some parents think we are living in a tech world and by not allowing gaming they will he at a disadvantage. Some parents game a lot and because their own brain has been wired with tech they no longer are sensitive to the warning signs. I have heard every variation of why a parent won't cut their kid off even though the kid fights to do their homework, lies, loses sleep, is eating poorly, is irritable, and so forth. I am shocked at how many people believe that list is just a "typical teen" and while yes, teens do cycle through some of those, I see almost none of those traits in boys who aren't allowed to game or girls who don't have social media. Speaking of social media...Parents who brought their kids to therapy would come back week after week wanting me to magically talk their child out of addiction while not even considering cold turkey. When a kid is this far gone all that works is total abstinence. Sometimes if caught early enough a child can detox for 3 to 6 months and then slowly get reintroduced and regulate. Especially if the parent equips them with the signs to look for when it is becoming too much. However, some kids go back and slide right back into it as if they never left.

And this, I agree with 100%. If any of my children had shown trouble managing game time, the system would have been gone.  We had very limited TV at our house when the kids were growing up (less than 5 hours a week and we didn't have cable) and when they were 12, 9 and 6 we got a DVR, overnight they felt like they "had to watch" all the shows that we were recording. Instead of reading they were asking to watch TV. I got rid of the DVR that week.  No one needs to feel compelled to watch Good Eats, Mythbusters and Cyber Chase.

[nixpix5]

27 minutes ago, retiredHSmom said:

While agree with most everything you say and definitely bow to your greater experience, I have trouble with this statement. My parents bought an Atari for our family in the late 70's, early 80's. A psychologist who IQ tested me told them that I had a deficit in spatial relations and that playing video games would help.  My four siblings and I always had a video game system. We played weekly but by high school only one played at all and in adulthood no one plays video games.  My children have all had access to a game system for their entire lives and they definitely do not have issues with gaming. One doesn't game at all, one does a few hours a month and one plays a few hours a week and often goes weeks with no game time at all. Obviously this is anecdotal but I cannot believe that we are the only people in America with this experience.  There has to be something more to the equation.

And this, I agree with 100%. If any of my children had shown trouble managing game time, the system would have been gone.  We had very limited TV at our house when the kids were growing up (less than 5 hours a week and we didn't have cable) and when they were 12, 9 and 6 we got a DVR, overnight they felt like they "had to watch" all the shows that we were recording. Instead of reading they were asking to watch TV. I got rid of the DVR that week.  No one needs to feel compelled to watch Good Eats, Mythbusters and Cyber Chase.

You are not the only family. I was specifically referring to, and I probably wasn't clear, kids that have a predisposition to become compulsive with it. My wording was poor. I was typing fast on my phone and being unclear with my wording. I am always typing with the assumption that I am speaking about the group of kids, typically male, who fall into addictive patterns. Families don't always know if their child will be part of that group though so I typical err on the side of caution. 

Some teens drink, smoke weed, watch a ton of TV and still regulate. These kids have robust neurotransmitter systems, healthy family limits, good relationships, strong self esteem and so forth. Kids with any aces stacked against them (boys, history of addiction in the family, learning challenges, ASD, AD/HD, etc) have a higher chance of addiction. 

I agree that video games can be great for spatial development. Atari and Nintendo are just not as addictive as current RPGs though. There is just a line parents need to pay attention to. Parents know their kids and they can monitor the warning signs. My goal is not to kill joy and rob kids of a fun pass time. I just want parents with kids who fall in the vulnerable population to have their radars out ?

[BeachGal]

I agree that boys (and girls) need to get outside more. My kids went to a b&m school and it was difficult to get any of the classmates to do anything outdoors. Playtime centered around video games in someone’s basement even in elementary school.

Many boys grow up socializing with friends while playing video games. My youngest wears a headset that he can talk into and he’ll chat the night away when he does occasionally play with buddies.

Ds is not that fond of gaming but he loves playing poker which concerns me a lot despite his insisting that it’s the strategy he likes. He is a theoretical math and comp sci major, though, and is interning as a trader so a part of me can see how the strategy might be appealing but on the other hand I worry, too.

[nixpix5]

4 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

I agree that boys (and girls) need to get outside more. My kids went to a b&m school and it was difficult to get any of the classmates to do anything outdoors. Playtime centered around video games in someone’s basement even in elementary school.

Many boys grow up socializing with friends while playing video games. My youngest wears a headset that he can talk into and he’ll chat the night away when he does occasionally play with buddies.

Ds is not that fond of gaming but he loves playing poker which concerns me a lot despite his insisting that it’s the strategy he likes. He is a theoretical math and comp sci major, though, and is interning as a trader so a part of me can see how the strategy might be appealing but on the other hand I worry, too.

Poker strategy is totally fascinating in terms of probability and statistics. I could see the appeal. 

[Lecka]

There’s a lot of food for thought here. 

I think just one of our kid me has some warning signs.  We don’t do too much to set limits but my husband has said he will not have an rpg while he lives at home.  My son had one for about a month and it was obviously all he thought about and my husband deleted it.  

A factor here is that this is one of the only pieces of leverage we have with my son.  There isn’t a lot of leverage with him.  

Then at the same time, when he IS showing that he can be responsible then it seems fair for him to have the privilege of playing video games.

He also plays video games on a family tv in a family room where he has to take turns with siblings or let my husband and I watch a show when we want. 

I think we need to keep a closer eye on him though.  

[nixpix5]

4 minutes ago, Lecka said:

There’s a lot of food for thought here. 

I think just one of our kid me has some warning signs.  We don’t do too much to set limits but my husband has said he will not have an rpg while he lives at home.  My son had one for about a month and it was obviously all he thought about and my husband deleted it.  

A factor here is that this is one of the only pieces of leverage we have with my son.  There isn’t a lot of leverage with him.  

Then at the same time, when he IS showing that he can be responsible then it seems fair for him to have the privilege of playing video games.

He also plays video games on a family tv in a family room where he has to take turns with siblings or let my husband and I watch a show when we want. 

I think we need to keep a closer eye on him though.  

It sounds like you have your finger on the pulse of it and are wise parents. That will go a long way and you are doing a lot to provide balance.

My only thought, and this is generally speaking for anyone, I have heard parents say quite often that the only leverage they have is video game time. Does that mean leverage for getting work done, doing chores and so forth? If so, did the child always give push back in some of these domains or only after he began playing video games? 

I only ask because my oldest two were gamers who often would slack on work or chores. I thought it was normal for kids. Then I had more kids with no screen exposure and I have never once had this issue. They do their chores without asking, they do and love their work and so forth. Over the years I see the same general pattern in families. Families with next to no screens have kids who do not slack. I find it immensely interesting from a neurobiology stand point. Especially having raised two sepaate sets of kids with different parenting choices. It just makes me think.

[Targhee]

8 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

Yes it is different for a couple of reasons.  

1.  Young people’s brains are still in formation. Neural pathways still open and bring established.   When all a young person does is gaming, those are the pathways that get established.  In addition, addictive gaming delays development of and even damages the prefrontal cortex — the executive function.  Damage can be repaired if caught early enough—but after age 25–not so much.  

2.  Adults who start gaming have established other patterns and are much less likely to get addicted.  In a similar vein, research shows that the chances of alcoholism are greatly reduced if one doesn’t imbibe until age 25.  Almost zero chance of becoming an alcoholic.  

So it is not a bad thing at all to set limits—if one is prone to addiction, this may be part of the best help they can get—that, anc introduction of healthier dopamine-producing activities.  

This one is hard. We have tried lots of physical activities, but they’re all too impatient to persist to the point of “runners high” and one has low tone and an akward gait.  We have them in parkour right now which I think is good, but they don’t ask to go to the park and practice (they *might* if I tell them that’s what we’re going to do). We go hiking as a family average 1-2 times a month, taking plenty of time to climb and look under rocks. Nature is great.

I think music is ok too. They all like to listen and each plays, but DS gravitates now to super busy electronica and I worry that it might deaden the positive effect of less “stimulating” genres. Like explained above there’s no physical limit on the stimulation from listening.

What other activities are high dopamine producing? Especially for adhd kids who have low dopamine levels to begin with?

[Lecka]

As far as video games being leverage, the main thing right now is how he treats his sister.  We will take it away as a privilege that is only for those who are civil to other family members.  

Other than that he is doing well right now!

We unfortunately had a lot of stress and turmoil while my older son was younger, and as a result he had a lot of stress and spent a lot of time watching tv while I was busy with other things.  I think we have dug out of that hole now, but it has had some effect on my son.  

I think we have an issue also where..... about half of the stress and turmoil was that my younger son was diagnosed with autism and also had serious behavior issues for about two years.  Now his behavior issues are fine, but he does still have autism and can be aggravating here and there.  My older son will not allow himself to ever feel aggravated with his brother, though, he just blames everything on his sister.  I don't know what to do about that.  

[Liz CA]

3 hours ago, nixpix5 said:

Parents who brought their kids to therapy would come back week after week wanting me to magically talk their child out of addiction while not even considering cold turkey. When a kid is this far gone all that works is total abstinence. Sometimes if caught early enough a child can detox for 3 to 6 months and then slowly get reintroduced and regulate. Especially if the parent equips them with the signs to look for when it is becoming too much. However, some kids go back and slide right back into it as if they never left.

 

 

And this is best done while they are young enough so computer use is not unavoidable. With older teens and adults, so much of work / school is done on the computer. It is virtually impossible to ask an adult to avoid using a computer / cell phone / ipad etc. 

For some older teens the "cold turkey" method may still have to include computer use for school / work but needs to be monitored for surreptitiously slipping into game mode.

My ds recently cut out several apps on his phone and minimized phone usage all together. His Dad jokingly asked him if he forgot to pay the bill but he said he noticed how his endorphins reacted to all that social media stuff and didn't like it. At his age, he is what some people term a borderline "digital native" meaning computer and other digital devices were already in use when he grew up but not to the extent they are today - versus those of us who can remember a time without any computers / cell phones etc. He still remembers spending his days outside playing with our animals because "Game Boy" was restricted at our house and other stuff didn't exist yet.

Those kids who are younger and cell phones / ipads were around from the time they can remember, it is even more of a struggle to find a balance I think. These devices have become so ingrained in our lives that we find we cannot work / live without them. In my job, it is simply expected you have a cell phone with picture and texting capacity. We cannot just cut those things off easily anymore - that ship has sailed. Now it's all about self-regulating and this poses a problem for many people because instead of self-regulating some use it to self-medicate.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Targhee said:

This one is hard. We have tried lots of physical activities, but they’re all too impatient to persist to the point of “runners high” and one has low tone and an akward gait.  We have them in parkour right now which I think is good, but they don’t ask to go to the park and practice (they *might* if I tell them that’s what we’re going to do). We go hiking as a family average 1-2 times a month, taking plenty of time to climb and look under rocks. Nature is great.

I think music is ok too. They all like to listen and each plays, but DS gravitates now to super busy electronica and I worry that it might deaden the positive effect of less “stimulating” genres. Like explained above there’s no physical limit on the stimulation from listening.

What other activities are high dopamine producing? Especially for adhd kids who have low dopamine levels to begin with?

 

This is something I see.  I've really restricted gaming, they don't have any kind of system so hey are limited in terms of what they can do from the outset, but it is really difficult o get the kids to put the effort in to find many activities rewarding.  Dd10 and ds8 are in a sewing class right now, and while I am sure they will like the finished product, it just doesn't seem to complete with an activity they can master much more easily and quickly. And the satisfaction seems in a way even more endless, even though it isn't actually doing anything real.

[Bluegoat]

20 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

And this is best done while they are young enough so computer use is not unavoidable. With older teens and adults, so much of work / school is done on the computer. It is virtually impossible to ask an adult to avoid using a computer / cell phone / ipad etc. 

For some older teens the "cold turkey" method may still have to include computer use for school / work but needs to be monitored for surreptitiously slipping into game mode.

My ds recently cut out several apps on his phone and minimized phone usage all together. His Dad jokingly asked him if he forgot to pay the bill but he said he noticed how his endorphins reacted to all that social media stuff and didn't like it. At his age, he is what some people term a borderline "digital native" meaning computer and other digital devices were already in use when he grew up but not to the extent they are today - versus those of us who can remember a time without any computers / cell phones etc. He still remembers spending his days outside playing with our animals because "Game Boy" was restricted at our house and other stuff didn't exist yet.

Those kids who are younger and cell phones / ipads were around from the time they can remember, it is even more of a struggle to find a balance I think. These devices have become so ingrained in our lives that we find we cannot work / live without them. In my job, it is simply expected you have a cell phone with picture and texting capacity. We cannot just cut those things off easily anymore - that ship has sailed. Now it's all about self-regulating and this poses a problem for many people because instead of self-regulating some use it to self-medicate.

 

 

Slightly OT but this is a peeve of mine - how many times have I heard that adoption of tech is just a personal choice so there is no reason to object to the introduction of something new.  "If you don't want a smart phone, don't get one, but let others do what they want."    

[retiredHSmom]

4 hours ago, nixpix5 said:

You are not the only family. I was specifically referring to, and I probably wasn't clear, kids that have a predisposition to become compulsive with it. My wording was poor. I was typing fast on my phone and being unclear with my wording. I am always typing with the assumption that I am speaking about the group of kids, typically male, who fall into addictive patterns. Families don't always know if their child will be part of that group though so I typical err on the side of caution. ?

Ahh, now I understand.  Thank You

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

Not meaning to be argumentative...but I am going to draw a parallel here.  What happens to our thinking about gaming addiction and the way we speak about it if we substitute "alcohol addiction" as the problem.  

It's not every kid that ends up addicted.  I know plenty of people who go home from school or work, relax, play an hour of games, and then go on to do other things.  (Substitute "have a glass of wine."). No big deal.  

Interestingly, the addiction rate for process addictions and alcohol addiction and gaming addiction is roughly the same--9%.  Our counselor recently gave a presentation to our parish and she said that there is some research showing that for most people, an hour a day of games isn't a big deal.  Same with the health people, right? re: a glass of wine a day.

But for that 9%, this is not the case.  There is no such thing as "an hour of games a day."  Or "a glass of wine."  THAT is the population we are talking about.  

(I GOT RAMBLY from here on...)

Our family did everything right.  We did.  I was on to this from the start.  Our counselor said she has never seen a family that did as much as we did from the get-go to limit screen and technology time.  And yet.  

And I agree with you about the food statement.  I think food issues are among the *worst* to have to overcome, because you DO have to eat.  You don't have to have a game on your computer, you don't have to go to a casino, you don't have to go to a bar or buy alcohol.  But food issues--oy.  The thing is that computers are entering that realm--where can an intellectual person go and not have to use a computer for a job?  What about someone who wants to have a device that can call and text and have MP3 on it...but no net access.  I looked for one of those to help out...they don't exist.  

It is interesting to me that it is young people--the under-thirty crowd--who are developing the "take my life back" technology--good barrier for gaming, social media, porn built into the devices and/or software.  THEY are the ones who know how much of their lives have been lost to these things.  And they are determined that it needn't happen to their children.  And I say good for them.  

Lastly, I myself need to take back some of my own life.  It is very easy for anyone of any age to spend too much time doing things that give the dopamine rush and not contributing to the real world and real friends.  Time for a time of abstinence for me.  If I don't pull it back from time to time, I can be as immersed as anyone. 

 

 

 

 

This is all similar to my thinking.

What I am wondering - and I'd love anyone to jump in - is whether there will ever be a time we think os gaming as something not for kids in a similar way we think of alcohol?  Even people who are fairly liberal and don't mind a 16 year old having wine or a beer at home with a meal don't think it should be all the time, or 10 year olds.  If we are talking about similar levels of addiction, and of influencing brain development, why would we not go in that direction?

[Soror]

Thank you for posting. Perhaps this will put to rest those that dismiss parents concerns over gaming and the implication that all parents need to do is offer unlimited access. My son fits the profile of one that would have trouble. We've mostly kept things at bay but we've had to keep things much more locked down than we would otherwise prefer and totally banned all electronics for awhile. I see so much angst with some friends in putting in any limits, even when their kid is struggling because there is so much pressure from the kids and the outside world. When addiction is normalized it is hard to fight. Dh thought I was overprotective too but then he seen the effects (ds sneaking and lying to use it) and he realized that I was not being paranoid.

[nixpix5]

3 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

It's one more thing that might get people to stop looking at me like I have three heads when I talk about this.

Yes! Try being me haha ? I am sure I sound BS crazy to many people but it is legitimate. Just because someone doesn't understand how it happens doesn't mean they are right. Again why I wish people would get educated about brain science. There needs to be funding efforts to get programs started in school. Brain health...so critical.