> This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be spending their time.
Sure, that's true, but only for some kids - while for others, games, esp. non-skill ones (say, 100th hour of slashing monsters in Diablo) truly are a distraction and bring nothing in, while they fill the time in child's development that is normally devoted to activities which develop the child in some way. The same thing can be said about other activities, like TV, but I feel like video games may have even less to offer than those. I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
Diablo is orders of magnitude less successful than Fortnite (or even Overwatch, by the same company), and I'd argue the reason is exactly what you are talking about: it's just not a very good game and the things you can get out of it just aren't that valuable. Overwhelmingly people choose more teamwork based, deeply social games. This is what the numbers say.
A second premise I want to address is the idea that using games (or movies or books or whatever) as a mind numbing distraction is a waste of time or the fault of the escape itself. Tons of people are dealing with really intense trauma, and it's not really clear that there really is a better short term alternative for stress management. I think if people are doing things like slashing monsters for 100 hours in Diablo don't look at Diablo, look at what's going on in the rest of their life. Because you can take away Diablo, but you if you aren't fixing what makes them play a shitty game as a distraction for 100 hours you haven't really helped them at all.
Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.
I lost around 2.5 years to World of Warcraft, I'm talking 12-14 hours per day over that period. This is over a decade ago and my mum still talks about the wasted time and she hates the name of that game. She doesn't realise that without that escape I wasn't far off suicide. That addiction gave me enough time to sort out my life and figure things out. I'm in my 30's now and I truly love my life and I have for a number of years.
No worries, I feel it's important to talk about mental health issues. You never know what others are dealing with and sharing might make them see that things can get better.
> Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.
Speaking as someone who runs quite a lot, I would be very interested in seeing you quantify this point and cite supporting research.
In particular, I am skeptical you can find a peer reviewed study which suggests there exists a causal link between running n miles per day and requiring hip replacements later in life. Likewise, what is the "optimal amount" of running you speak of? And for what purpose is that amount optimal?
To put it bluntly I think you're choosing the wrong activity for the "you can get addicted to anything" argument. I don't have an issue with that idea in the abstract, but I think you'll have a very difficult time mounting a persuasive argument using the idea that most serious runners are "pathological" - unless, of course, you presuppose the idea that doing things pathologically isn't unhealthy.
EDIT: Here is a study which directly contradicts your claim about excessive running and hip replacement[1]. The ~75,000 respondents under study demonstrated a reduced risk for osteoarthritis and hip replacement.
I mean pathological from a death avoidance stand point. For instance, if you are a marathon runner you are running far more than is necessary to contribute to a longer life span. I'm not a runner, but as a weight lifter I lift far more weight than is necessary to contribute to injury or death avoidance. That is the nature of sport. I don't know any old athletes who don't have pretty banged up bodies.
I don't have peer reviewed research about hip replacement and number of miles per day, that comment was a bit more rhetorical than the way you are engaging with it, but I can give you peer reviewed evidence for heart damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119133/
That's a fair citation, however it comes with a caveat: while myocardial fibrosis (MF) is traditionally associated with an increased risk for arrhythmia and cardiac arrest due to muscle stiffness, this association is less clear in runners. The overall relationship between running and cardiac health is extremely positive, and more recent[1] research from the Mayo Clinic does not make the claim that MF incidence in high endurance athletes specifically indicates the same danger it does in non-active individuals. It treats it as an under-studied phenomenon to be sure, but calling it "damage" is not nuanced enough given the available data.
Sure I can buy all that, but It's Complicated, and I'm sure you know some runners who are running when they shouldn't be. For instance, I know of someone who had both hips replaced at the age of 25. This was probably primarily due to a genetic predisposition to developing OA, but the earliness and extremity of the onset were obviously impacted by excessive (5-10 miles 2x a day) running, which she continued against doctors orders. I'm not trying to damn an entire hobby: my point is exactly the opposite. People cope with being alive in a variety of ways, and most of those ways hurt you if not kept in balance. We shouldn't vilify video games just like we shouldn't vilify running.
I have a hard time thinking of anything you can do for 16 hours a day without having detriments to your health. If you think about it this is probably at least one big contributing factor to the evolutionary benefit of sleeping 1/3 of our lives.
How many people can run for 16 hours a day? What % of the population? .00000000000000001%?
What % of the population can play video games for 16 hours a day?
So again, video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction, for the vast majority of people and in far worse ways. You all can play games as you please, the facts are plain.
> What % of the population can play video games for 16 hours a day?
Honestly not a ton. It's really really difficult. Even pros struggle with substantially fewer hours than this.
> video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction
I'm not really convinced that's true. I don't know anyone who has torn a meniscus or developed arthritis playing video games. While mostly people who run don't develop a pathological relationship with running I stand by my argument that it's completely possible, and the effects on your body are comparably damaging, though in different ways. People also don't usually play video games for 16 hours a day, but sure, it happens. I think balance is required no matter what you are doing, even if the raw number of hours may be different.
Let's broaden the discussion a little bit: think about how uncomfortable most adults are right now with e-sports, but glorify regular sports. That's fine, I have no problem with regular sports, but it's far from uncommon to hear something like "I just don't get it: my son actually enjoys watching other people play video games, what is the world coming to?" That same parent will then sit down and watch other people throw a ball around, and then sigh and shake their head as the announcers discuss yet another veteran of the sport who regularly forgets his wife's name or where he is. Being an elite athlete in any sport completely fucks you up, and yet we choose to ignore that and focus on the insane displays of superhuman ability.
The larger point here is that any activity can be done pathologically, even, in some ways especially, the ones we glorify the most. A lot of our choice to focus on the positives of one activity and the negatives of another largely come down to personal taste.
You are 100% right in that it is the social aspects of games is where people spend most of their time. When I decided to slow down the amount of time playing games, by restricting myself to either single player games (that once you are finished you are done with it) or multiplayer games where I wouldn't communicate with other people, I just don't have as much of an urge to play as I used to.
Even people that devote incredible amount of times to single player games, for instance, speed runners, the fact is that there is a community around doing that. Without that community, there would be way less people speedrunning.
If you made a "office space" kind of game, and it was something you could actually call a game, I wouldn't be surprised to see a community grow up around it as people discussed path prioritization, how to speed run the TPS reports level, and how the recent nerf to casual dress fridays have impacted the meta.
>> I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc.
No, you are not developing your sense of humor.
Most of the humor in the "funny dialogue" is conditioned and triggered by the laugh track.
Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM for example.
"Humor" is extremely dependent on culture, which is heavily influenced by TV. Why does every laugh-track sitcom try to model itself on Friends? Because it has the sort of characters and humor that's relatable and funny to Americans.
Because Friends is also a global hit, and popular among a generation of teens and 20s, people who weren't born when the show first aired, you can actually learn a lot about the small things about social interactions and conversational arcs watching sitcoms, than you would sitting in a social etiquette class.
I've noticed this effect is especially strong among non-native English speakers who watched English sitcoms. Their vocabulary, cadence of speech etc
are much more natural sounding compared to others who weren't familiar with any TV shows here beyond news programs.
Yes, you can train your vocabulary and improve your foreign language skills by listening to people talking it.
I am not a comedian, so I do not know how exactly you can make yourself funnier, but I have a very strong suspicion
that you do not become funnier yourself, by just listening to canned laughter, and that the fact that fake laughter is added to comedy shows is just to make the viewers like the show more. Listening to laughter causes most people to laugh too, even if they do not understand the cause for the laughter. For example https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 . It works with other emotions also - if someone watches or listens to an angry person, they will become somewhat angry too.
> I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster.
I wasted a lot of time playing Diablo II in college; but most of that was in a social context; is playing grindy games with friends that bad?
> It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
You can't / shouldn't try to schedule all of a child's time to avoid any waste. For one thing, wasting time is a skill that needs to be developed -- there is so much boredom and drudgery in life that is unavoidable, learning how to deal with that requires practice and doing boring, wasteful things. But also, having some amount of mindless time in your day or week allows you to decompress and relax. Diablo probably isn't the best way, but it's alright. Caveat: I only played a lot of Diablo 1 and 2, maybe 3 was worse; when I tried to play it in Beta, I realized I had no real desire to run around and click on everything anymore.
I think you're making a mistake comparing 100 hours of a single game (Diablo) to an entire category of TV.
A more apt comparison would be comparing 100th hour of Diablo vs 100th hour of a single sitcom, which by then you may be on your second watchthrough and have already got everything out of it that you could.
Sure, that's true, but only for some kids - while for others, games, esp. non-skill ones (say, 100th hour of slashing monsters in Diablo) truly are a distraction and bring nothing in, while they fill the time in child's development that is normally devoted to activities which develop the child in some way. The same thing can be said about other activities, like TV, but I feel like video games may have even less to offer than those. I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.