[ad_1]
A few weeks ago, and after having announced and discussed for a long time, the World Health Organization
He recognized "video game disorder" as a mental health disorder. The WHO included it in the
the final version of his reference book on recognized and diagnosed diseases, which serves not only to facilitate diagnoses but also to produce global statistics.
This project, which
Removes transbaduality from the list of mental illnesses, integrates the "video game disorder" as one of the disorders produced by addictive behaviors. Diagnostic criteria include the inability to control when, where and how long it is played, the priority given to video games over other social activities and the continuation or exacerbation of behavior despite its negative consequences.
video games
for other problems is almost a cliché. Almost like "do not watch TV closely or you will be blind" or "do not listen to rock music or you will become violent", now it comes "do not play video games or you will become addicted". It is this bbad character that many psychiatrists and health professionals denounce facing the decision of the WHO: we do not have enough evidence that a "video game disorder" even exists.
The main arguments against this are that neither the criteria nor the suggested symptoms for diagnosis are clear.
As Anthony Bean points out, one of the clinical psychologists who criticizes the decision, according to the study we rely on, the disorder would affect from 0.8 percent of players to 50 percent. Yes in itself
there are some problems to consider that certain behaviors can be addictive, to do it with criteria when the least lazy one only makes up the ground.
What critics point out is that the basis of this "video game disorder" could be
the old and familiar confusion between correlation and causality. It's not that video games cause depression and anxiety, but that their compulsive use might indicate – or hide – an underlying cause that triggers it. If this cause is not identified, it can not be treated either, which creates a risk of confusion. In stages such as adolescence, compulsive behaviors can be linked to all kinds of factors. Sometimes, too, with video games.
Perhaps one of the biggest hurdles for those who pathologize the use of video games is that they almost completely ignore the culture that's nurtured around them. . Diagnostic criteria include antisocial behavior, but the social aspect of video games is left out. The ignorance of the player's culture by mental health professionals is precisely one of the reasons why the diagnostic criteria should be much clearer.
As Jane McGonigal summed up so well in
The reality is broken: why games make us better and how can they change the world (2011), video games,
It has been proven time and time again, not only are they a great way to alleviate the difficulties we face, but they can also contribute to our resilience. Given the epidemic of bullying it is not at all surprising that many are seeking refuge in the video game worlds.
It is true that there are some problematic mechanisms,
as evidenced by the recent controversy over "box boxes", but proposing this disorder under diffuse criteria and with so little evidence in favor could trigger a dangerous overdiagnosis. One of the risks of pathologization is precisely the negative impact that self-esteem can have on the label of an addict, which can lead to depression or to l & # 39; anxiety.
It is possible to speculate that the identification of "video game disorder"
he is more motivated by collective hysteria than by scientific evidence. What is usually emphasized, is that it is more likely to spend excessive time playing more because of the inability to manage time or in symptomatic response to the underlying problems that exist. ############################################################################ Because of the addictive features of the games themselves. One of the complaints against the WHO decision, although perhaps the most debatable, is that
They are acting in response to pressure from Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan, known to have social problems related to video games.
Do not panic: the warning of a mental disorder in advance can be terribly risky especially when it seems to confirm the suspicions of parents concerned about the use of video games of their children. Faced with the fashion of sending teens who spend a lot of time playing in rehabilitation, one expects them to go in search of a diagnosis justifying their prejudices. This is why video game disorder has all the fleas to be the next attention deficit disorder.
As a possible benefit of the inclusion of this disorder by the WHO is the expansion of scientific interest in the link between video games and mental health. The paradox is that we lack sufficient evidence to qualify a video game use as a disorder, but without the clbadification of the WHO, it is much less likely that researchers could justify their investigation of the phenomenon and access the scholarships or institutional support.
It is clear that it is much easier to blame the video games than to try to take care of everything that drives to take refuge there. But the suspicion of many professionals is well founded: rushing to pathologize the use of video games is nothing but cheating.
subjects in this note
Did you like this note?
Source link
