"Symptoms included spending increasing amounts of time and money on video games to feel the same level of excitement; irritability or restlessness when play is scaled back; escaping problems through play; skipping chores or homework to spend more time at the controller; lying about the length of playing time; and stealing games or money to play more."
Joystiq summed up my general reaction pretty well: if that's how addiction is measured, it's just as easy to be addicted to things like "Pokémon cards, Pogs, Skittles, Spelling Bees, laser tag, gardening, dating, Lego bricks, Frisbee golf and blogging."
What bothers me the most about the way addiction is quantified is the care given to the idea of "escaping problems through play." Isn't that a function of childhood in general? When being a child means being virtually powerless to manipulate your environment, why should video games be dragged through the mud when they offer children otherwise unmatched control? Gentile at least delicately sidesteps actively blaming games or gaming culture ("It's not that games are bad," he is quoted as saying in the Washington Post article). But if its not that games are bad, why-oh-why are they continually made scapegoats for child development concerns?
For that matter, don't we herald books for their ability to spirit the imagination away to some mystical in-between world? Isn't the magic of a good book supposed to be that even if you're a child living in a destitute or problem-ridden home, you can escape for a while into a made-up space?
Now obviously I'm no expert, but I think the fear about video games and the lack of fear over books has a lot to do with the cultural tension surrounding ADHD. Parents and sociologists alike seem to be more afraid of the image of an overactive child who's tuned in to some hyper-active world, than the idea of the calm, introspective child reading quietly in the corner.
0 comments:
Post a Comment