pathological videogaming?
Pam Sorooshian
A new study - once again the big caveat is that this study is NOT done on
unschoolers. It is presented as a negative - the big point seems to be that
for about 10 percent of players playing videogames in some way leads to,
"...some serious problems -- including depression, anxiety, social phobias
and lower school performance -- seemed to be outcomes of their pathological
play."
However, it is interesting that they aren't claiming that it is a lot of
play time that is the problem, it is something about those kids...that's
about as far as they go in the article, I don't know if the actual study
looks more careful at the characteristics of the kids who develop problems.
They seem to be making the claim that it is definitely the videogame
playing that is the cause of the problems for about 1 out of 10 players,
but I don't see how they can tell that from the study unless they have
controlled for things like the kind of relationship they have with their
parents, how accessible and supportive are the parents, the kind of home
life they have, and so on.
Unschoolers are close enough to our kids so that we will know if a kid is
happily playing a lot of videogames because they LOVE playing videogames
versus a kid who is depressed, withdrawn, anxious, or socially phobic. The
same applies to a kid who watches a lot of television.
I think what they are probably finding is that a kid who is dealing with
family, school, peer, or identity issues that seem overwhelming to him,
might withdraw from parent and peer relationships and that withdrawal might
mean he plays a lot of videogames. The withdrawal from relationships might
mean he isn't getting the help and support he needs and problems get worse
and worse. I don't think the research can legitimately conclude that there
is anything about the games, themselves, that cause the problems, or else
they are going to have to explain why 90 percent of the players are not
affected.
They use a lot of strong language about videogame playing and it is wrapped
up in scientific justification (pathological, addiction). I doubt it is the
games that are the problem for these kids any more than razors or knives
are the problem for kids who cut themselves.
<http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/jan/addiction>
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
unschoolers. It is presented as a negative - the big point seems to be that
for about 10 percent of players playing videogames in some way leads to,
"...some serious problems -- including depression, anxiety, social phobias
and lower school performance -- seemed to be outcomes of their pathological
play."
However, it is interesting that they aren't claiming that it is a lot of
play time that is the problem, it is something about those kids...that's
about as far as they go in the article, I don't know if the actual study
looks more careful at the characteristics of the kids who develop problems.
They seem to be making the claim that it is definitely the videogame
playing that is the cause of the problems for about 1 out of 10 players,
but I don't see how they can tell that from the study unless they have
controlled for things like the kind of relationship they have with their
parents, how accessible and supportive are the parents, the kind of home
life they have, and so on.
Unschoolers are close enough to our kids so that we will know if a kid is
happily playing a lot of videogames because they LOVE playing videogames
versus a kid who is depressed, withdrawn, anxious, or socially phobic. The
same applies to a kid who watches a lot of television.
I think what they are probably finding is that a kid who is dealing with
family, school, peer, or identity issues that seem overwhelming to him,
might withdraw from parent and peer relationships and that withdrawal might
mean he plays a lot of videogames. The withdrawal from relationships might
mean he isn't getting the help and support he needs and problems get worse
and worse. I don't think the research can legitimately conclude that there
is anything about the games, themselves, that cause the problems, or else
they are going to have to explain why 90 percent of the players are not
affected.
They use a lot of strong language about videogame playing and it is wrapped
up in scientific justification (pathological, addiction). I doubt it is the
games that are the problem for these kids any more than razors or knives
are the problem for kids who cut themselves.
<http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/jan/addiction>
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Claire Darbaud
2012/2/13 Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
And I totally agree with that. And actually, I had reached the same
conclusion about alcohol and pot smoking when I was a teenager.
When I was in my late teens, partying always looked like drinking a lot and
smoking pot. A lot of kids were drunk every week-end. Some, actually very
few, developped a problem with their consumption. And right at that time, I
wondered what was different with those kids. Why did they get hooked? Some
of them I new quite well and liked a lot. And all the kids that went
downhill came from a troubled home. Sometimes a "quietly" troubled home, a
place where you have to pretend everything is fine. And they all had a
terrible relationship with their parents either in a full blown war, or a
very distanced very cold relationship...
I am not a scientist and I have not done extensive research on the matter.
But I have yet to meet someone who uses something in a "pathological or
obsessive" way, may it be reading books, drinking alcohol, watching TV,
playing role playing games, video games, smoking pot... and who is not
trying to escape a real life that sucks. And in my experience videogames is
probably one of the healthiest of those escapes.
Claire
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I doubt it is theThat's a very very interesting way to put it! :-)
> games that are the problem for these kids any more than razors or knives
> are the problem for kids who cut themselves.
>
And I totally agree with that. And actually, I had reached the same
conclusion about alcohol and pot smoking when I was a teenager.
When I was in my late teens, partying always looked like drinking a lot and
smoking pot. A lot of kids were drunk every week-end. Some, actually very
few, developped a problem with their consumption. And right at that time, I
wondered what was different with those kids. Why did they get hooked? Some
of them I new quite well and liked a lot. And all the kids that went
downhill came from a troubled home. Sometimes a "quietly" troubled home, a
place where you have to pretend everything is fine. And they all had a
terrible relationship with their parents either in a full blown war, or a
very distanced very cold relationship...
I am not a scientist and I have not done extensive research on the matter.
But I have yet to meet someone who uses something in a "pathological or
obsessive" way, may it be reading books, drinking alcohol, watching TV,
playing role playing games, video games, smoking pot... and who is not
trying to escape a real life that sucks. And in my experience videogames is
probably one of the healthiest of those escapes.
Claire
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ftb2_ss
Scientific justification is how one presents the results of studies because it is devoid of any opinion or how the presenter "feels". Just because most people can't understand the language does not invalidate the results.
Razors and knives may well not be the problem for children who cut themselves; they are the tool they use to satisfy their compulsion. Just as alcohol, cigarettes and gambling are for others. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them (cigarettes are dangerous anyway, but still legal). Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.
Greg
Razors and knives may well not be the problem for children who cut themselves; they are the tool they use to satisfy their compulsion. Just as alcohol, cigarettes and gambling are for others. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them (cigarettes are dangerous anyway, but still legal). Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.
Greg
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>...............
>
> They use a lot of strong language about videogame playing and it is wrapped
> up in scientific justification (pathological, addiction). I doubt it is the
> games that are the problem for these kids any more than razors or knives
> are the problem for kids who cut themselves.
>
> <http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/jan/addiction>
>
> -pam
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:44 AM, ftb2_ss wrote:
Before those were invented, there were cliffs and rocks and fighting.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, orI'd say there's nothing wrong with any of those. What's wrong is what's causing the need to escape.
> knives and razors, until someone abuses them
Before those were invented, there were cliffs and rocks and fighting.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sheeboo2
----Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.-----
Addiction is a mired term, one that often gets used to point toward biologically-based powerlessness. What's interesting though is that addiction doesn't happen as readily when people are content and fulfilled, and not already experiencing a sense of deep lack. There are studies (written in perfect scientific language) that show that environment causes addiction, not substances.
You may find the work of Gabor Mate interesting as well as that of Bruce Alexander, an addictions researcher who discovered that if rats were given a glorious rat-heaven environment, you couldn't keep them from NOT detoxing from otherwise addictive substances. In the Rat Park study, rats who were housed in fulfilling habitats, with lots of fun rat things to do and other rats to socialize with, willingly left alone sugar and heroin laced water in favor of plain H2O--even the rats who had previously addicted to the drug!
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.12-health-rat-trap/
Peter Gray recently pointed out that many people make the mistake off relating gambling to playing video games when talking about psychological addictions--the two acts are nothing at all alike though, and that is exactly where the argument falls short. Gambling is playing on chance. Video gaming is based on skill. Here's an excerpt from his article, the rest of which can be found here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201202/video-game-addiction-does-it-occur-if-so-why
""""The flawed analogy between gambling addiction and "video game addiction"
Addiction is a word that is used in a variety of ways, but generally it refers to a compulsive (hard-to-resist) drive to take some substance or engage in some activity that is clearly not good for us and may even be ruining our lives. The clearest examples of addiction, of course, are chemical addictions, where people become physiologically dependent on some chemical--such as alcohol, nicotine, or heroine--and experience painful or debilitating withdrawal symptoms without it. But increasingly, and with some good reason, psychologists have begun to apply the term addiction to harmful behaviors that seem to become compulsive even though no chemical is consumed. Perhaps the best example of this is addictive gambling.
Many people suffer--and their families do too--because they can't seem to stop gambling. They gamble away all of their money, and then they borrow and gamble more and go deeply into debt; and then, when they can't borrow any more, they might steal and gamble that away, too, in a desperate, doomed attempt to get out of debt and save themselves and their families from ruin. People who feel compelled to gamble may do it because they see no other possible route out of their debts and/or because of the thrill that comes whenever they win, which motivates them to seek that thrill again. Compulsive gambling is a very serious and prevalent problem, although this hasn't prevented state legislatures from promoting gambling (in the form of casinos as well as state lotteries) in order to add to state coffers and reduce the taxes that non-gamblers have to pay.
Many if not most researchers who support the concept of video game addiction draw an analogy between video game playing and gambling. In fact, much of the research purporting to assess the prevalence of video game addiction--including the much-touted recent study conducted in Singapore [2]--has employed the same questionnaire that is used to assess the prevalence of gambling addiction, changing only the word "gambling" to "video gaming." The analogy may be tempting to people who don't know much about video gaming. From a distance, playing a video game looks a little like gambling at a video screen in a casino. But think of the differences!
First of all, most gambling games--especially the ones that people become addicted to--are pure games of chance (for all except the very few who figure out some way to cheat). They are rigged in such a way that over the long run you will always lose, but in the short run you will sometimes win. There is excellent research indicating that the random, unpredictable nature of these rewards operates on the brains of some people to promote behavior that might reasonably be called addictive.[3 ] The irrational "thinking" that accompanies the behavior and cannot be refuted is this: "The very next time I pull the lever I could hit the jackpot, so I'll pull it one more time." ... and then one more time, and one more time, and one more time, and so on.
In contrast, video games are games of skill. They are like chess or any other game in which success depends on perseverance, intelligence, practice, and learning, not chance. The rewards are not random; they are earned. To move up to the next level you have to work hard. Moreover, the rewards in video games, as in chess, are purely in-game rewards (unless you are competing in a tournament for prize money). They are rewarding only because they signal mastery. Winning in these games doesn't produce real-world riches; and, more to the point, failing in these games doesn't lead to debt. This is why video games and chess are truly play, while gambling is not.
It's hard to imagine why anyone with a grain of intelligence would spend lots of time gambling unless something irrational was driving him or her to it. Considered as a game, gambling is just dumb. It requires no skill or intelligence whatsoever. You just keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again and sometimes you win and usually you don't. There's no legitimate sense of mastery. I can imagine some healthy people--who have extra cash to throw away and can't think of anything better to do with it--gambling occasionally, just as a lark; but to spend hours a week at gambling is almost by definition pathological. So, it is reasonable to posit that otherwise intelligent people who spend lots of time gambling must have some sort of irrational compulsion to do it, for which the term "addiction" may be an appropriate label.
Not so for video games or chess or other games that depend on skill and knowledge. The more you play these the more skill and knowledge you gain and the better you get at the game (and at anything else that uses similar skills or knowledge). You learn from your mistakes, and the more you play the better you get. So, playing these games a lot does not necessarily imply addiction; it just means that you are really into the game and enjoy it and are trying to get better at it. If you don't think that video gaming involves knowledge and intelligence, take a look at the online compendium of information associated with just one game, World of Warcraft--WoWwike. It's the second largest compendium of knowledge that can be found online! The first largest is Wikipedia. (I thank my colleague Mike Langlois for this bit of information.)
Some researchers who should know better have based their claim for the addictive nature of video gaming on brain research. If you do a little tooling around the Psychology Today blogs, you will find that one or more of my fellow bloggers are among those who have made this claim. Yes, indeed, functional brain imaging studies have shown that certain so-called "pleasure pathways" in the brain light up when gamblers hit the jackpot, and these same pathways also light up when video gamers achieve some goal within the game. Well, of course they do! If they didn't, that would just mean that hitting the jackpot or achieving success in a game isn't pleasurable. Everything that is pleasurable is pleasurable because of activity in pleasure centers of the brain."""""""
Brie
Addiction is a mired term, one that often gets used to point toward biologically-based powerlessness. What's interesting though is that addiction doesn't happen as readily when people are content and fulfilled, and not already experiencing a sense of deep lack. There are studies (written in perfect scientific language) that show that environment causes addiction, not substances.
You may find the work of Gabor Mate interesting as well as that of Bruce Alexander, an addictions researcher who discovered that if rats were given a glorious rat-heaven environment, you couldn't keep them from NOT detoxing from otherwise addictive substances. In the Rat Park study, rats who were housed in fulfilling habitats, with lots of fun rat things to do and other rats to socialize with, willingly left alone sugar and heroin laced water in favor of plain H2O--even the rats who had previously addicted to the drug!
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.12-health-rat-trap/
Peter Gray recently pointed out that many people make the mistake off relating gambling to playing video games when talking about psychological addictions--the two acts are nothing at all alike though, and that is exactly where the argument falls short. Gambling is playing on chance. Video gaming is based on skill. Here's an excerpt from his article, the rest of which can be found here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201202/video-game-addiction-does-it-occur-if-so-why
""""The flawed analogy between gambling addiction and "video game addiction"
Addiction is a word that is used in a variety of ways, but generally it refers to a compulsive (hard-to-resist) drive to take some substance or engage in some activity that is clearly not good for us and may even be ruining our lives. The clearest examples of addiction, of course, are chemical addictions, where people become physiologically dependent on some chemical--such as alcohol, nicotine, or heroine--and experience painful or debilitating withdrawal symptoms without it. But increasingly, and with some good reason, psychologists have begun to apply the term addiction to harmful behaviors that seem to become compulsive even though no chemical is consumed. Perhaps the best example of this is addictive gambling.
Many people suffer--and their families do too--because they can't seem to stop gambling. They gamble away all of their money, and then they borrow and gamble more and go deeply into debt; and then, when they can't borrow any more, they might steal and gamble that away, too, in a desperate, doomed attempt to get out of debt and save themselves and their families from ruin. People who feel compelled to gamble may do it because they see no other possible route out of their debts and/or because of the thrill that comes whenever they win, which motivates them to seek that thrill again. Compulsive gambling is a very serious and prevalent problem, although this hasn't prevented state legislatures from promoting gambling (in the form of casinos as well as state lotteries) in order to add to state coffers and reduce the taxes that non-gamblers have to pay.
Many if not most researchers who support the concept of video game addiction draw an analogy between video game playing and gambling. In fact, much of the research purporting to assess the prevalence of video game addiction--including the much-touted recent study conducted in Singapore [2]--has employed the same questionnaire that is used to assess the prevalence of gambling addiction, changing only the word "gambling" to "video gaming." The analogy may be tempting to people who don't know much about video gaming. From a distance, playing a video game looks a little like gambling at a video screen in a casino. But think of the differences!
First of all, most gambling games--especially the ones that people become addicted to--are pure games of chance (for all except the very few who figure out some way to cheat). They are rigged in such a way that over the long run you will always lose, but in the short run you will sometimes win. There is excellent research indicating that the random, unpredictable nature of these rewards operates on the brains of some people to promote behavior that might reasonably be called addictive.[3 ] The irrational "thinking" that accompanies the behavior and cannot be refuted is this: "The very next time I pull the lever I could hit the jackpot, so I'll pull it one more time." ... and then one more time, and one more time, and one more time, and so on.
In contrast, video games are games of skill. They are like chess or any other game in which success depends on perseverance, intelligence, practice, and learning, not chance. The rewards are not random; they are earned. To move up to the next level you have to work hard. Moreover, the rewards in video games, as in chess, are purely in-game rewards (unless you are competing in a tournament for prize money). They are rewarding only because they signal mastery. Winning in these games doesn't produce real-world riches; and, more to the point, failing in these games doesn't lead to debt. This is why video games and chess are truly play, while gambling is not.
It's hard to imagine why anyone with a grain of intelligence would spend lots of time gambling unless something irrational was driving him or her to it. Considered as a game, gambling is just dumb. It requires no skill or intelligence whatsoever. You just keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again and sometimes you win and usually you don't. There's no legitimate sense of mastery. I can imagine some healthy people--who have extra cash to throw away and can't think of anything better to do with it--gambling occasionally, just as a lark; but to spend hours a week at gambling is almost by definition pathological. So, it is reasonable to posit that otherwise intelligent people who spend lots of time gambling must have some sort of irrational compulsion to do it, for which the term "addiction" may be an appropriate label.
Not so for video games or chess or other games that depend on skill and knowledge. The more you play these the more skill and knowledge you gain and the better you get at the game (and at anything else that uses similar skills or knowledge). You learn from your mistakes, and the more you play the better you get. So, playing these games a lot does not necessarily imply addiction; it just means that you are really into the game and enjoy it and are trying to get better at it. If you don't think that video gaming involves knowledge and intelligence, take a look at the online compendium of information associated with just one game, World of Warcraft--WoWwike. It's the second largest compendium of knowledge that can be found online! The first largest is Wikipedia. (I thank my colleague Mike Langlois for this bit of information.)
Some researchers who should know better have based their claim for the addictive nature of video gaming on brain research. If you do a little tooling around the Psychology Today blogs, you will find that one or more of my fellow bloggers are among those who have made this claim. Yes, indeed, functional brain imaging studies have shown that certain so-called "pleasure pathways" in the brain light up when gamblers hit the jackpot, and these same pathways also light up when video gamers achieve some goal within the game. Well, of course they do! If they didn't, that would just mean that hitting the jackpot or achieving success in a game isn't pleasurable. Everything that is pleasurable is pleasurable because of activity in pleasure centers of the brain."""""""
Brie
Sandra Dodd
-=-Scientific justification is how one presents the results of studies because it is devoid of any opinion or how the presenter "feels".-=-
Are you explaining to us the definition of science? Or is "scientific justification" a term I just don't know?
-=- Just because most people can't understand the language does not invalidate the results. -=-
I'm also not sure whether you're suggesting that most people *here* don't "understand the language."
I hope you're not suggesting that Pam Sorooshian didn't understand the study.
-=Razors and knives may well not be the problem for children who cut themselves; they are the tool they use to satisfy their compulsion. Just as alcohol, cigarettes and gambling are for others. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them (cigarettes are dangerous anyway, but still legal). Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.-=-
Yeah. Still don't get your point.
-=- There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them -=-
It's not "abuse" of a knife to cut one's arm, or to murder a neighbor.
It's self abuse when one is an alcoholic. They're not abusing the alcohol itself.
It doesn't abuse a video game to play it. If a teen is playing more than seems healthy, it's very likely that it's because of his environment and the relationship he has with his parents or others, and he's using the game as an escape.
This unschooling discussion list consists mostly of mothers discussing what they know of natural learning. Sometimes dads are here. When we're writing about relationships and how we "feel," it's real. Not everyone can make good use of this resource, and that's fine. It will continue to exist for a while, even though some people prefer badly designed studies to well maintained discussions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Are you explaining to us the definition of science? Or is "scientific justification" a term I just don't know?
-=- Just because most people can't understand the language does not invalidate the results. -=-
I'm also not sure whether you're suggesting that most people *here* don't "understand the language."
I hope you're not suggesting that Pam Sorooshian didn't understand the study.
-=Razors and knives may well not be the problem for children who cut themselves; they are the tool they use to satisfy their compulsion. Just as alcohol, cigarettes and gambling are for others. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them (cigarettes are dangerous anyway, but still legal). Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.-=-
Yeah. Still don't get your point.
-=- There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them -=-
It's not "abuse" of a knife to cut one's arm, or to murder a neighbor.
It's self abuse when one is an alcoholic. They're not abusing the alcohol itself.
It doesn't abuse a video game to play it. If a teen is playing more than seems healthy, it's very likely that it's because of his environment and the relationship he has with his parents or others, and he's using the game as an escape.
This unschooling discussion list consists mostly of mothers discussing what they know of natural learning. Sometimes dads are here. When we're writing about relationships and how we "feel," it's real. Not everyone can make good use of this resource, and that's fine. It will continue to exist for a while, even though some people prefer badly designed studies to well maintained discussions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], "ftb2_ss" <gregandrene@...> wrote:
Sometimes a psychological addiction to the idea of addiction is stronger than the alleged "addiction".
This is somebody I always mention when this topic comes up - Phil "The Power" Taylor, 15 times World Darts Champion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESg0kQArzy0
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever described throwing little pointy things at a wall for hours on end as an addiction. That's rather curious, isn't it?
Bob
>A few years ago, I read an article in which a former US national chess champion (maybe current, I'm not sure) was railing mightily against children who were "addicted" to playing videogames for hours on end every day. I think he meant that they should be doing something morally uplifting instead, like playing chess. I asked him how many hours he sat at a chess board every day on the way to becoming a national champion and suggested that, had I been his dad, I might have told him it would be healthier for him to get outside in the fresh air and kick a soccer ball about. Especially since that had done such wonders for David Beckham. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have got that joke but he didn't reply. I didn't expect him to.
> Scientific justification is how one presents the results of studies because it is devoid of any opinion or how the presenter "feels". Just because most people can't understand the language does not invalidate the results.
>
> Razors and knives may well not be the problem for children who cut themselves; they are the tool they use to satisfy their compulsion. Just as alcohol, cigarettes and gambling are for others. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them (cigarettes are dangerous anyway, but still legal). Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.
>
> Greg
>
>
Sometimes a psychological addiction to the idea of addiction is stronger than the alleged "addiction".
This is somebody I always mention when this topic comes up - Phil "The Power" Taylor, 15 times World Darts Champion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESg0kQArzy0
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever described throwing little pointy things at a wall for hours on end as an addiction. That's rather curious, isn't it?
Bob
Jenny Cyphers
***Scientific justification is how one presents the results of studies because it is devoid of any opinion or how the presenter "feels". Just because most people can't understand the language does not invalidate the results.***
BUT..... All scientific studies are done by humans who feel. All scientific studies are done with a purpose based on a feeling or instinct or thought. Very often that DOES invalidate the results, or at the very least, bias them.
***Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.***
BUT..... Does it make it real? The studies of addiction generally miss a big part of the whole picture, the overall environment of the "addicted" person.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BUT..... All scientific studies are done by humans who feel. All scientific studies are done with a purpose based on a feeling or instinct or thought. Very often that DOES invalidate the results, or at the very least, bias them.
***Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.***
BUT..... Does it make it real? The studies of addiction generally miss a big part of the whole picture, the overall environment of the "addicted" person.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-A few years ago, I read an article in which a former US national chess champion (maybe current, I'm not sure) was railing mightily against children who were "addicted" to playing videogames for hours on end every day. I think he meant that they should be doing something morally uplifting instead, like playing chess. -=-
A friend of mine Went OFF on facebook about the STUPID guitar hero and rock band games and said kids should learn to play a REAL guitar and not waste their time doing something STUPID.
It was a crazed rant. :-)
He plays guitar. I play guitar. I can play rock band. He can't.
I'm going to add that he's a childless friend of mine.
I defended rock band, as did some others on his page. He unfriended me. :-)
Rock band is a game based on music. It's a game of skill, not of chance. Each player can set his or her own level of play, so one player can be on "easy" and one can be on "expert," and they're still playing together, with the game keeping a group tally AND individual scores. It's really great.
It's something that can be done socially, by groups of kids, and those in the room who aren't playing are still hearing music, and watching their friends have fun. there aren't many things in the world that provide that so quickly. It's not cheap, but it's worth the money it costs.
My kids were talking recently about how there are songs and artists that young kids would never have known if it weren't for Guitar Hero and Rock Band. My son, Marty, can play real drums because he learned to play the drums on rock band and it transferred directly to a drump kit, though he had to learn to use the high-hat cymbals.
The Beatles Rock Band game has harmonies. Short of joining a choir, most people don't get a chance to learn to harmonize.
If someone spent a lot of time playing Guitar Hero, I wouldn't even begin to consider it "an addiction." There are lots of songs in there, and they're not all the same.
Kirby (my oldest) was in a Guitar Hero "band" that joined the battle of the bands at the Blizzard Entertainment Christmas party a couple of years. All that involved costumes and smack talk and there were fans and back stories. :-) There were prizes, too, thought it still wasn't gambling. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A friend of mine Went OFF on facebook about the STUPID guitar hero and rock band games and said kids should learn to play a REAL guitar and not waste their time doing something STUPID.
It was a crazed rant. :-)
He plays guitar. I play guitar. I can play rock band. He can't.
I'm going to add that he's a childless friend of mine.
I defended rock band, as did some others on his page. He unfriended me. :-)
Rock band is a game based on music. It's a game of skill, not of chance. Each player can set his or her own level of play, so one player can be on "easy" and one can be on "expert," and they're still playing together, with the game keeping a group tally AND individual scores. It's really great.
It's something that can be done socially, by groups of kids, and those in the room who aren't playing are still hearing music, and watching their friends have fun. there aren't many things in the world that provide that so quickly. It's not cheap, but it's worth the money it costs.
My kids were talking recently about how there are songs and artists that young kids would never have known if it weren't for Guitar Hero and Rock Band. My son, Marty, can play real drums because he learned to play the drums on rock band and it transferred directly to a drump kit, though he had to learn to use the high-hat cymbals.
The Beatles Rock Band game has harmonies. Short of joining a choir, most people don't get a chance to learn to harmonize.
If someone spent a lot of time playing Guitar Hero, I wouldn't even begin to consider it "an addiction." There are lots of songs in there, and they're not all the same.
Kirby (my oldest) was in a Guitar Hero "band" that joined the battle of the bands at the Blizzard Entertainment Christmas party a couple of years. All that involved costumes and smack talk and there were fans and back stories. :-) There were prizes, too, thought it still wasn't gambling. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
--- In [email protected], "sheeboo2" <brmino@...> wrote:
I began to really understand math playing black-jack in a 6th grade math class. But that's not the reason I'm posting this. What is important is bringing the focus of a conversation like this back to the reasons that a person pursues any interest. Addiction includes behaviors like perfectionist grade/approval-seeking and compulsion to participate in all sorts of activities that are emotionally painful. Some behaviors have big financial or health costs others appear, at least on the surface, to be indications of social, academic and financial success.
I think what we're looking for here (back to video games and whether they are 'addictive') is to return our focus to our real children and how their activities and experiences feed their interests and growth as full human beings in a positive way or not.
Tori
>Although you qualified this statement later, I think it's still worth re-stating that some gambling is based upon chance (roulette wheels, slot machines and lottery tickets for example) but that many other popular forms of gambling are actually skill-based like black-jack and poker. I'm guessing that folks knowledgeable about horse-racing might even argue that skill (and knowledge of the animals and sport), and not just chance, is involved.
> Gambling is playing on chance. Video gaming is based on skill.
>
I began to really understand math playing black-jack in a 6th grade math class. But that's not the reason I'm posting this. What is important is bringing the focus of a conversation like this back to the reasons that a person pursues any interest. Addiction includes behaviors like perfectionist grade/approval-seeking and compulsion to participate in all sorts of activities that are emotionally painful. Some behaviors have big financial or health costs others appear, at least on the surface, to be indications of social, academic and financial success.
I think what we're looking for here (back to video games and whether they are 'addictive') is to return our focus to our real children and how their activities and experiences feed their interests and growth as full human beings in a positive way or not.
Tori
sheeboo2
-----Addiction includes behaviors like perfectionist grade/approval-seeking
and compulsion to participate in all sorts of activities that are emotionally
painful.-------
I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying here, so if I muddle it, I apologize ahead of time.
I think you're saying that some behaviors cause pain when the reasons for the actions are misplaced, like seeking acceptance in some form or another. Is that correct? And that these kinds of behaviors are addictions?
I think, if that's what you're saying, that this is a misuse of the word addiction. And that's part of the problem with people throwing the word addiction around at all kinds of unpleasantness and seeing where it sticks. It's a lot like using the word "rape" to describe being charged too much for a haircut. It is an emotionally-charged form of speech that doesn't help clear communication.
------I think what we're looking for here (back to video games and whether they are
'addictive') is to return our focus to our real children and how their
activities and experiences feed their interests and growth as full human beings
in a positive way or not.--------
I agree with the first part, that it is highly beneficial, always, to turn our attention as parents back to our own real children. But the second part: "how their activities and experiences feed their interests and growth as full human beings in a positive way or not" can be problematic. Who decides what being a "full human being" is? Who decides what a "positive way or not" looks like?
If the child gets to decide, then okay. But if the criteria comes from the parent, that can and does create all kinds of problems. What happens if the parent believes, like Sandra's friend, that playing Guitar Hero isn't a "positive" form of growth? What if a parent believes that playing in the woods makes "fuller human beings" than playing video games does? Where does that leave our real children and their interests? It leaves them feeling guilty and misunderstood about loving something we find meaningless or detrimental.
Brie
and compulsion to participate in all sorts of activities that are emotionally
painful.-------
I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying here, so if I muddle it, I apologize ahead of time.
I think you're saying that some behaviors cause pain when the reasons for the actions are misplaced, like seeking acceptance in some form or another. Is that correct? And that these kinds of behaviors are addictions?
I think, if that's what you're saying, that this is a misuse of the word addiction. And that's part of the problem with people throwing the word addiction around at all kinds of unpleasantness and seeing where it sticks. It's a lot like using the word "rape" to describe being charged too much for a haircut. It is an emotionally-charged form of speech that doesn't help clear communication.
------I think what we're looking for here (back to video games and whether they are
'addictive') is to return our focus to our real children and how their
activities and experiences feed their interests and growth as full human beings
in a positive way or not.--------
I agree with the first part, that it is highly beneficial, always, to turn our attention as parents back to our own real children. But the second part: "how their activities and experiences feed their interests and growth as full human beings in a positive way or not" can be problematic. Who decides what being a "full human being" is? Who decides what a "positive way or not" looks like?
If the child gets to decide, then okay. But if the criteria comes from the parent, that can and does create all kinds of problems. What happens if the parent believes, like Sandra's friend, that playing Guitar Hero isn't a "positive" form of growth? What if a parent believes that playing in the woods makes "fuller human beings" than playing video games does? Where does that leave our real children and their interests? It leaves them feeling guilty and misunderstood about loving something we find meaningless or detrimental.
Brie
chris ester
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM, ftb2_ss <gregandrene@...> wrote:
that science has yet to completely explain addiction and why two people
from the same family (sometimes even identical twins) can use the same
substance and one ends up an addict and the other doesn't. I have seen
addiction described in purely psychosocial terms which makes no mention of
the biochemical component and then I have seen it described in purely
medical terms as a disorder of the central nervous system (like cerebral
palsy?!!).
Our brain is altered by our experience and our experience is altered by our
brains. So, in fact, when you really examine it, there is no actual
separation of "physical" and "psychological" addiction.
Addiction is an extremely complex issue and an overused term. The fact is
that the brain changes and behavioral consequences that occur in drug
addiction is also seen in other forms of addiction, such as gambling. The
interesting thing is that these same brain changes are seen in artists
while creating as well. Something that a person who is trying to get
something regulated seldom mentions.
In my experience, addiction is more of a symptom of pathology that
progresses into it's own pathological complex. So, a person is unhappy,
wants to fit in with friends, wants an escape, wants to have fun....
whatever else would cause a first use of a potentially addictive
substance/behavior (gambling, gaming, cocaine, etc), and it helps for at
least a while. Then the person proceeds to either stop or escalate use and
develop other non-adaptive behaviors (lying, isolation) and so the
addiction becomes the problem instead of the reason for first use.
In unschooling, at least as it is discussed here, relationships, connection
and happiness are given as much priority as learning. So, most unschooling
children become better equipped to self regulate than school attending
children, because they have the freedom to explore limits and consequences
(eg--I gamed all day and now I feel all stiff because I didn't get any
exercise today) without punishment or shame or isolation.
chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> **suggests that there are two separate mechanisms for addiction. The fact is
>
>
> >>>>> Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but
> psychological addiction is just as strong.
>
> Greg<<<<<<
>
> *U*sing the terms "physical addiction" and "psychological addiction"
that science has yet to completely explain addiction and why two people
from the same family (sometimes even identical twins) can use the same
substance and one ends up an addict and the other doesn't. I have seen
addiction described in purely psychosocial terms which makes no mention of
the biochemical component and then I have seen it described in purely
medical terms as a disorder of the central nervous system (like cerebral
palsy?!!).
Our brain is altered by our experience and our experience is altered by our
brains. So, in fact, when you really examine it, there is no actual
separation of "physical" and "psychological" addiction.
Addiction is an extremely complex issue and an overused term. The fact is
that the brain changes and behavioral consequences that occur in drug
addiction is also seen in other forms of addiction, such as gambling. The
interesting thing is that these same brain changes are seen in artists
while creating as well. Something that a person who is trying to get
something regulated seldom mentions.
In my experience, addiction is more of a symptom of pathology that
progresses into it's own pathological complex. So, a person is unhappy,
wants to fit in with friends, wants an escape, wants to have fun....
whatever else would cause a first use of a potentially addictive
substance/behavior (gambling, gaming, cocaine, etc), and it helps for at
least a while. Then the person proceeds to either stop or escalate use and
develop other non-adaptive behaviors (lying, isolation) and so the
addiction becomes the problem instead of the reason for first use.
In unschooling, at least as it is discussed here, relationships, connection
and happiness are given as much priority as learning. So, most unschooling
children become better equipped to self regulate than school attending
children, because they have the freedom to explore limits and consequences
(eg--I gamed all day and now I feel all stiff because I didn't get any
exercise today) without punishment or shame or isolation.
chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Our brain is altered by our experience and our experience is altered by our
brains. So, in fact, when you really examine it, there is no actual
separation of "physical" and "psychological" addiction.-=-
I think that is going too far, though.
My mother's family is full of alcoholism.
My dad's family had none; zero.
I can drink and get drunk easily and just not like it.
My sister (full, only sister, three years younger) can drink a long time, not get drunk, and once took an infant out in an unheated car in the snow to get more. So she quit drinking. She hadn't been drinking out of sorrow or depression, though, at all. In that way it didn't have a psychological trigger or feedback loop involving her emotional needs.
My sister looks more like my mom's relatives, and I look more like my dad's. There are many physical traits, medical kinds of things, where I'm more like my paternal grandmother, and my sister is more like my mom.
There is a genetic component I've seen my whole life in kids who had alcoholic parents and grandparents. When I was involved in Adult Children of Alcoholics, it seemed clear that even though there were adults who were not themselves alcoholics, they could end up acting like alcoholics because that's the way they had been treated growing up and it came to seem to be normal or acceptable or loving behavior. Still, they weren't drunks, just inconsistent and thoughtless, unless and until they started looking around at other, clearer families and made a conscious effort to change, which most people in those meetings were doing.
I think a person whose parents and grandparents were not alcoholics can develop a physical alcoholism if he drinks long enough, even though it might have started with habitual drinking to be cool, or to self-medicate for some physical or emotional pain.
I don't think a person can become physically addicted to video games, no matter how much he plays them.
But to say a person is addicted to video games seems to be wrong anyway. No more than a person would be addicted to reading novels, or to listening to music. Some people sleep with music on, drive with music on, exercise with music on, and I've never heard that called "addiction." Because our culture worships books, even reading romance novels is seen as a worthy way to spend one's time and money.
-=-In unschooling, at least as it is discussed here, relationships, connection
and happiness are given as much priority as learning. So, most unschooling
children become better equipped to self regulate than school attending
children, because they have the freedom to explore limits and consequences
(eg--I gamed all day and now I feel all stiff because I didn't get any
exercise today) without punishment or shame or isolation.-=-
I agree with the ideas here, but I don't like the term or the idea of "self regulation" at all, not even a little bit.
http://sandradodd.com/self-regulation
Sandra Dodd:If you think of controlling yourself, and of your children controlling themselves, it's still about control. If people live by principles their choices come easily....That can all be rephrased in terms of choices. The idea of "self discipline" isn't as helpful to understanding unschooling as the idea of making mindful choices is.
Sandra
brains. So, in fact, when you really examine it, there is no actual
separation of "physical" and "psychological" addiction.-=-
I think that is going too far, though.
My mother's family is full of alcoholism.
My dad's family had none; zero.
I can drink and get drunk easily and just not like it.
My sister (full, only sister, three years younger) can drink a long time, not get drunk, and once took an infant out in an unheated car in the snow to get more. So she quit drinking. She hadn't been drinking out of sorrow or depression, though, at all. In that way it didn't have a psychological trigger or feedback loop involving her emotional needs.
My sister looks more like my mom's relatives, and I look more like my dad's. There are many physical traits, medical kinds of things, where I'm more like my paternal grandmother, and my sister is more like my mom.
There is a genetic component I've seen my whole life in kids who had alcoholic parents and grandparents. When I was involved in Adult Children of Alcoholics, it seemed clear that even though there were adults who were not themselves alcoholics, they could end up acting like alcoholics because that's the way they had been treated growing up and it came to seem to be normal or acceptable or loving behavior. Still, they weren't drunks, just inconsistent and thoughtless, unless and until they started looking around at other, clearer families and made a conscious effort to change, which most people in those meetings were doing.
I think a person whose parents and grandparents were not alcoholics can develop a physical alcoholism if he drinks long enough, even though it might have started with habitual drinking to be cool, or to self-medicate for some physical or emotional pain.
I don't think a person can become physically addicted to video games, no matter how much he plays them.
But to say a person is addicted to video games seems to be wrong anyway. No more than a person would be addicted to reading novels, or to listening to music. Some people sleep with music on, drive with music on, exercise with music on, and I've never heard that called "addiction." Because our culture worships books, even reading romance novels is seen as a worthy way to spend one's time and money.
-=-In unschooling, at least as it is discussed here, relationships, connection
and happiness are given as much priority as learning. So, most unschooling
children become better equipped to self regulate than school attending
children, because they have the freedom to explore limits and consequences
(eg--I gamed all day and now I feel all stiff because I didn't get any
exercise today) without punishment or shame or isolation.-=-
I agree with the ideas here, but I don't like the term or the idea of "self regulation" at all, not even a little bit.
http://sandradodd.com/self-regulation
Sandra Dodd:If you think of controlling yourself, and of your children controlling themselves, it's still about control. If people live by principles their choices come easily....That can all be rephrased in terms of choices. The idea of "self discipline" isn't as helpful to understanding unschooling as the idea of making mindful choices is.
Sandra
[email protected]
> If the child gets to decide, then okay. But if the criteria comes from the parent, that can and does create all kinds of problems. What happens if the parent believes, like Sandra's friend, that playing Guitar Hero isn't a "positive" form of growth? What if a parent believes that playing in the woods makes "fuller human beings" than playing video games does? Where does that leave our real children and their interests? It leaves them feeling guilty and misunderstood about loving something we find meaningless or detrimental.Yes, absolutely--thanks for clarifying what I wrote. What makes any of our lives full and rich is individual and personal. I don't think another person can decide for us. Unfortunately children are often over-ruled by adults who think they know better.
>
> Brie
>
Tori
Frantz Family
On 2/15/2012 8:16 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
about age 10-20. Its all I read (when not being forced to read other
things in school) and I read as much as I could. It was an escape.
When I was in my own safe, loving home as an adult I stopped reading a
lot of fiction. I didn't consciously choose to quit, I just didn't need
to escape any more. I am guessing that many of those so called addicted
video gamers will find other things to fill their lives with when they
no longer need the gaming for escape.
Margo
> But to say a person is addicted to video games seems to be wrong anyway. No more than a person would be addicted to reading novels, or to listening to music. Some people sleep with music on, drive with music on, exercise with music on, and I've never heard that called "addiction." Because our culture worships books, even reading romance novels is seen as a worthy way to spend one's time and money.You could say I was addicted to reading science fiction novels from
>
about age 10-20. Its all I read (when not being forced to read other
things in school) and I read as much as I could. It was an escape.
When I was in my own safe, loving home as an adult I stopped reading a
lot of fiction. I didn't consciously choose to quit, I just didn't need
to escape any more. I am guessing that many of those so called addicted
video gamers will find other things to fill their lives with when they
no longer need the gaming for escape.
Margo
chris ester
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, tandosmama@... <
tandosmama@...> wrote:
happy, successful, etc. Friends of mine and my husband's left college
before completing their degrees. They proceeded to get jobs, a career, a
house, a great marriage, kids, rich social life, and all of the stuff that
looks successful.
They have two beautiful daughters now. They are constantly checking to
see what grades the girls have earned on each assignment and asking them
what they (the girls) do to bring their already high grades up. They then
state that they don't pressure their kids....
When they discuss their hopes for their girls' futures, they constantly
talk about how their kids won't 'screw up' in college like they did. This,
in spite of the fact that they have the middle class lifestyle without the
college debt. Whereas my husband and I envy them their financial piece of
mind because they started out with less debt because they didn't pay for
college and went out and got their careers anyway. These two successful
people can't see their own success because of one perceived failure. And
their own self esteem issues are now having a major effect on their
children.
One of my goals as an unschooler is to somehow help my kids figure out
their criteria for 'success'--which to me means a happy, fulfilled life as
you perceive it, not as some other group defines it. Another of my goals
is to NOT project my own desires for life onto my children, I would have
loved to have pursued the performing arts but didn't, my daughter is an
amazing performer (more talented than her mom), but I am not pushing her to
go further, do more, she chooses her performances and classes. Lately, I
have been supporting her in cutting down on all that she is doing because
we are over scheduled--her words, not mine (though I was thinking it, I did
my best not to share my feelings)
how wise children can be when they are allowed to make their own choices
without guilt or shame. My mother would allow me choices, but if she
didn't agree, she would try to use guilt and shame to change my mind. I
hated that and it caused a lot of strife in our relationship when I was a
teen. I try to take joy in my kids' making choices even if I have
misgivings. I will share my misgivings and we will discuss the choices,
but I give them the final say. There have been a number of times now that
I have been proved wrong or over cautious (I say with just a hint of
pride...)
Chris
tandosmama@...> wrote:
> **I think it is important to keep exploring your view of what makes you
>
>
> >>>>What makes any of our lives full and rich is individual and personal.
> I don't think another person can decide for us. <<<<<<
>
happy, successful, etc. Friends of mine and my husband's left college
before completing their degrees. They proceeded to get jobs, a career, a
house, a great marriage, kids, rich social life, and all of the stuff that
looks successful.
They have two beautiful daughters now. They are constantly checking to
see what grades the girls have earned on each assignment and asking them
what they (the girls) do to bring their already high grades up. They then
state that they don't pressure their kids....
When they discuss their hopes for their girls' futures, they constantly
talk about how their kids won't 'screw up' in college like they did. This,
in spite of the fact that they have the middle class lifestyle without the
college debt. Whereas my husband and I envy them their financial piece of
mind because they started out with less debt because they didn't pay for
college and went out and got their careers anyway. These two successful
people can't see their own success because of one perceived failure. And
their own self esteem issues are now having a major effect on their
children.
One of my goals as an unschooler is to somehow help my kids figure out
their criteria for 'success'--which to me means a happy, fulfilled life as
you perceive it, not as some other group defines it. Another of my goals
is to NOT project my own desires for life onto my children, I would have
loved to have pursued the performing arts but didn't, my daughter is an
amazing performer (more talented than her mom), but I am not pushing her to
go further, do more, she chooses her performances and classes. Lately, I
have been supporting her in cutting down on all that she is doing because
we are over scheduled--her words, not mine (though I was thinking it, I did
my best not to share my feelings)
> >>>>>Unfortunately children are often over-ruled by adults who think theyOne of the gifts that I have received through unschooling is to see just
> know better.
>
> Tori<<<<<<<
>
how wise children can be when they are allowed to make their own choices
without guilt or shame. My mother would allow me choices, but if she
didn't agree, she would try to use guilt and shame to change my mind. I
hated that and it caused a lot of strife in our relationship when I was a
teen. I try to take joy in my kids' making choices even if I have
misgivings. I will share my misgivings and we will discuss the choices,
but I give them the final say. There have been a number of times now that
I have been proved wrong or over cautious (I say with just a hint of
pride...)
Chris
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
ftb2_ss
--- In [email protected], chris ester <chris.homeschool@...> wrote:
Psychological addiction would be when someone is compelled to perform some activity and to cease it would cause anxiety, anger, hostility and and the need to continue, but not physical symptoms of withdrawal. Also, the activity may no longer bring pleasure, but the need to continue is born of the need to win just one more time, or the belief that one's luck is bound to change imminently. The gamer may feel that he is being wronged in some way, that everyone else is cheating, or the designers made the game to specifically defeat the player, yet he is compelled to keep playing.
The original cause of the behavior is the same, (pleasure),but the mechanism compelling continued use is not.
>I believe addiction is initially caused by the need to stimulate the pleasure center of the brain, whether through substance use (drugs, alcohol) or activity (gambling, gameing). Some substances cause the need for more use, regardless of a continued desire for the substance, BUT NOT ALWAYS (the twins for instance). When the body cries for more and the person complies even though it will cause harm without the previous pleasure, and the drive for more is just to delay the pain of withdrawal, I consider that physical addiction; when the person requires an ever increasing quantity of the substance to achieve the same results; when removal of the substance causes physical symptoms such as DT's, nervousness, heartbeat and blood pressure changes for instance. When removal of the substance can cause death before detoxification.
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM, ftb2_ss <gregandrene@...> wrote:
>.........
> *U*sing the terms "physical addiction" and "psychological addiction"
> suggests that there are two separate mechanisms for addiction. ....
Psychological addiction would be when someone is compelled to perform some activity and to cease it would cause anxiety, anger, hostility and and the need to continue, but not physical symptoms of withdrawal. Also, the activity may no longer bring pleasure, but the need to continue is born of the need to win just one more time, or the belief that one's luck is bound to change imminently. The gamer may feel that he is being wronged in some way, that everyone else is cheating, or the designers made the game to specifically defeat the player, yet he is compelled to keep playing.
The original cause of the behavior is the same, (pleasure),but the mechanism compelling continued use is not.
ftb2_ss
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
*******
I am not suggesting nor did I state either one. I am suggesting that some people simply disregard the results of studies like this because they don't understand the science, methodology or terminology, or they just don't agree with the findings. I have no idea of what Pam Sorooshian's background is, nor what she does or does not understand.
**********
Point taken. I should have said mis-uses instead of abuses. The conventional wisdom definition of abuse (as in substance abuse) claims me.
********
... or that he has become addicted to it. What is considered "unhealthy" in the unschooling community; I have come to believe in reading this board (and others) that most unschoolers do not place any limits on their children, and let them decide when enough is enough. Maybe I am taking away the wrong thing here and I've got it all wrong.
*******
"Sometimes dads are here." Makes me feel like my opinions are inconsequential.
I understand this is pretty much a matriarchal group and writing styles of men and women differ. Maybe my attitude was a bit harsh. I came here because this group was recommended from a homeschooling board. I want to learn what I need to do to ensure my kids are prepared for "real life" without subjecting them to the system anymore. Perhaps I jumped in too soon but I get riled up when someone attacks studies for, what seems to me, no other reason than they disagree with the findings. I am sorry I dragged this discussion off where it was probably never meant to go. After re-reading the Home page, I want to sincerely apologize for any discontent I may have caused.
Greg
>****I believe you all know what science is. "Scientific justification" is a term used in the original post, not something I made up.
> Are you explaining to us the definition of science? Or is "scientific justification" a term I just don't know?
>
*******
>********
> I'm also not sure whether you're suggesting that most people *here* don't "understand the language."
> I hope you're not suggesting that Pam Sorooshian didn't understand the study.
I am not suggesting nor did I state either one. I am suggesting that some people simply disregard the results of studies like this because they don't understand the science, methodology or terminology, or they just don't agree with the findings. I have no idea of what Pam Sorooshian's background is, nor what she does or does not understand.
**********
>*******
>........
>
> -=- There is nothing wrong with alcohol, gambling, video games, or knives and razors, until someone abuses them -=-
>
> It's not "abuse" of a knife to cut one's arm, or to murder a neighbor.
> It's self abuse when one is an alcoholic. They're not abusing the alcohol itself.
Point taken. I should have said mis-uses instead of abuses. The conventional wisdom definition of abuse (as in substance abuse) claims me.
********
>*******
> It doesn't abuse a video game to play it. If a teen is playing more than seems healthy, it's very likely that it's because of his environment and the relationship he has with his parents or others, and he's using the game as an escape.
... or that he has become addicted to it. What is considered "unhealthy" in the unschooling community; I have come to believe in reading this board (and others) that most unschoolers do not place any limits on their children, and let them decide when enough is enough. Maybe I am taking away the wrong thing here and I've got it all wrong.
*******
>********
> This unschooling discussion list consists mostly of mothers discussing what they know of natural learning. Sometimes dads are here. When we're writing about relationships and how we "feel," it's real. Not everyone can make good use of this resource, and that's fine. It will continue to exist for a while, even though some people prefer badly designed studies to well maintained discussions.
"Sometimes dads are here." Makes me feel like my opinions are inconsequential.
I understand this is pretty much a matriarchal group and writing styles of men and women differ. Maybe my attitude was a bit harsh. I came here because this group was recommended from a homeschooling board. I want to learn what I need to do to ensure my kids are prepared for "real life" without subjecting them to the system anymore. Perhaps I jumped in too soon but I get riled up when someone attacks studies for, what seems to me, no other reason than they disagree with the findings. I am sorry I dragged this discussion off where it was probably never meant to go. After re-reading the Home page, I want to sincerely apologize for any discontent I may have caused.
Greg
ftb2_ss
--- In [email protected], Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
Right, but the scientific method eliminates (or should) any feelings or bias. That is why all the findings and data are published, so everyone can see what was done, who was studied, what was left out etcetra. There is also the peer review process. While the feeling or thought that begins a study doesn't invalidate the results, the results may invalidate the feeling (not the feeling so much as the idea).
**********
I believe it is real (as do whomever wrote the DSM but I believe some of what goes in there is political and self serving). I think the EXISTENCE and cause of addiction is independent of environment. However, environment plays into WHO becomes addicted.
**********
>**********
> BUT..... All scientific studies are done by humans who feel. All scientific studies are done with a purpose based on a feeling or instinct or thought. Very often that DOES invalidate the results, or at the very least, bias them.
Right, but the scientific method eliminates (or should) any feelings or bias. That is why all the findings and data are published, so everyone can see what was done, who was studied, what was left out etcetra. There is also the peer review process. While the feeling or thought that begins a study doesn't invalidate the results, the results may invalidate the feeling (not the feeling so much as the idea).
**********
>**********
> ***Gambling and video game do not cause physical addiction, but psychological addiction is just as strong.***
>
> BUT..... Does it make it real? The studies of addiction generally miss a big part of the whole picture, the overall environment of the "addicted" person.
I believe it is real (as do whomever wrote the DSM but I believe some of what goes in there is political and self serving). I think the EXISTENCE and cause of addiction is independent of environment. However, environment plays into WHO becomes addicted.
**********
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Sandra Dodd
-=- I have no idea of what Pam Sorooshian's background is, nor what she does or does not understand. -=-
She teaches economics at a college. She has a thorough understanding of statistics AND of unschooling. Her three daughters are happily grown, and she has spoken at conferences for many years.
-=-"Sometimes dads are here." Makes me feel like my opinions are inconsequential.-=-
You're quite welcome to stay on the list. I hope you will. We can help with all kinds of unschooling questions.
By putting "feel" in quotation marks, it seemed you were belittling opinions. What we know about unschooling is as real as anything can be. We know. http://sandradodd.com/confidence
-=-I understand this is pretty much a matriarchal group and writing styles of men and women differ. Maybe my attitude was a bit harsh. I came here because this group was recommended from a homeschooling board. -=-
I think it's the best discussion anywhere, about unschooling, and I've been in lots of them. I built it myself. :-)
It's not so much that it's "matriarchal" as that it's dismaying for a male to come in and seem to suggest that girlies can't read science.
You probably didn't mean to do that, but within the context, it seems you effectively did so.
You might be comforted (or might not be surprised) to hear you're not the first to have done it.
-=-Perhaps I jumped in too soon but I get riled up when someone attacks studies for, what seems to me, no other reason than they disagree with the findings.-=-
I've seen people do that, but not on this list. If someone says something here that's not rational or sensible, someone else will point that out. Studies are done (I think always) with the assumption that school is normal and necessary. With that, their results are unlikely to take into consideration the differences in unschooled families, as we are not statistically significant, and many researchers doing work on children are getting PhDs in education and can't conceive of what we do, anyway.
Pam Sorooshian, Joyce Fetteroll, Schuyler Waynforth and others here are as scientific as you'll find anyone to be, and they're analytical unschoolers.
http://sandradodd.com/pamsorooshian
http://sandradodd.com/joycefetteroll
http://sandradodd.com/schuylerwaynforth
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
She teaches economics at a college. She has a thorough understanding of statistics AND of unschooling. Her three daughters are happily grown, and she has spoken at conferences for many years.
-=-"Sometimes dads are here." Makes me feel like my opinions are inconsequential.-=-
You're quite welcome to stay on the list. I hope you will. We can help with all kinds of unschooling questions.
By putting "feel" in quotation marks, it seemed you were belittling opinions. What we know about unschooling is as real as anything can be. We know. http://sandradodd.com/confidence
-=-I understand this is pretty much a matriarchal group and writing styles of men and women differ. Maybe my attitude was a bit harsh. I came here because this group was recommended from a homeschooling board. -=-
I think it's the best discussion anywhere, about unschooling, and I've been in lots of them. I built it myself. :-)
It's not so much that it's "matriarchal" as that it's dismaying for a male to come in and seem to suggest that girlies can't read science.
You probably didn't mean to do that, but within the context, it seems you effectively did so.
You might be comforted (or might not be surprised) to hear you're not the first to have done it.
-=-Perhaps I jumped in too soon but I get riled up when someone attacks studies for, what seems to me, no other reason than they disagree with the findings.-=-
I've seen people do that, but not on this list. If someone says something here that's not rational or sensible, someone else will point that out. Studies are done (I think always) with the assumption that school is normal and necessary. With that, their results are unlikely to take into consideration the differences in unschooled families, as we are not statistically significant, and many researchers doing work on children are getting PhDs in education and can't conceive of what we do, anyway.
Pam Sorooshian, Joyce Fetteroll, Schuyler Waynforth and others here are as scientific as you'll find anyone to be, and they're analytical unschoolers.
http://sandradodd.com/pamsorooshian
http://sandradodd.com/joycefetteroll
http://sandradodd.com/schuylerwaynforth
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=Right, but the scientific method eliminates (or should) any feelings or bias. That is why all the findings and data are published, so everyone can see what was done, who was studied, what was left out etcetra. -=-
That's what Pam was pointing out--what was biased and what was left out.
I think you assumed she wasn't competent to do so.
-=- I think the EXISTENCE and cause of addiction is independent of environment. However, environment plays into WHO becomes addicted.-=-
And that was at the heart of the objection. The environment of radical unschoolers is unusual. It's special.
And if "addiction to video games" itself is a questionable element of a study, and it's more the feelings about games that the researchers were basing their assumptions on, then the whole thing dissolves into nothingness.
http://sandradodd.com/unschooling
"Read a little, try a little, wait a while, watch."
Please read carefully and think a bit before jumping on someone. The discussion has been going for ten years, and from this and related discussions my site (above) continues to grow, and Joyce's, too:
http://joyfullyrejoycing.com
Sandra
That's what Pam was pointing out--what was biased and what was left out.
I think you assumed she wasn't competent to do so.
-=- I think the EXISTENCE and cause of addiction is independent of environment. However, environment plays into WHO becomes addicted.-=-
And that was at the heart of the objection. The environment of radical unschoolers is unusual. It's special.
And if "addiction to video games" itself is a questionable element of a study, and it's more the feelings about games that the researchers were basing their assumptions on, then the whole thing dissolves into nothingness.
http://sandradodd.com/unschooling
"Read a little, try a little, wait a while, watch."
Please read carefully and think a bit before jumping on someone. The discussion has been going for ten years, and from this and related discussions my site (above) continues to grow, and Joyce's, too:
http://joyfullyrejoycing.com
Sandra
Pam Sorooshian
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM, ftb2_ss <gregandrene@...> wrote:
I am not suggesting nor did I state either one. I am suggesting that some
> people simply disregard the results of studies like this because they don't
> understand the science, methodology or terminology, or they just don't
> agree with the findings. I have no idea of what Pam Sorooshian's background
> is, nor what she does or does not understand.>>
You should write more clearly, then, because it certainly came across as
you questioning MY ability to understand.
By the way, I have a pretty solid science and research background (took a
LOT of science courses in college including: physics (2 semesters),
astronomy, general biology, general chemistry, oceanography, marine
biology, organic chemistry, molecular biology, cellular biology,
evolutionary biology, psychobiology, physical anthropology and maybe others
I've forgotten. I also took quite a few psychology courses including basic
psychology, abnormal psych, human growth and development, psychology of
personality, psychology of education, child psychology, testing and
assessment, psychometrics, research methods in psychology. I worked in a
marine biology lab and in the psychobiology lab at my university assisting
professors with their research. I volunteered for years at the Cabrillo
Marine Institute helping with research and giving talks to school groups.
I finally graduated from college with a degree in economics and a minor in
environmental science and policy.
I have additional advanced degrees in economics and econometrics with
emphases in environmental and energy economics and industrial organization.
I work off and on as a consultant doing research on energy management and
conservation, and I have been a college professor for over 30 years. I have
authored or co-authored econometric research papers published in
peer-reviewed energy and economics journals. I invented and published an
article on a statistical technique for analyzing energy use data which is
still the state-of-the-art technique used in papers being published today
which generally give me credit in their citations. I worked for 8 years on
energy consumption, management, and conservation research mandated by the
California Energy Commission.
People on this list really had no reason to know any of this - some of my
friends know some or most of it. But it really wouldn't matter at all what
kind of academic background I might have if what I wrote on this list was a
load of crap. What I have learned as an unschooling mom FAR exceeds (in
quantity and quality and definitely in significance) everything I ever
learned as an academic.
AND, even with all that background, I also know there are people here on
this list whom I know well who don't have all that academic and research
background but are just as competent or even more so at grasping the
scientific method and understanding (and critiquing) research.
So I suggest you spare us the condescending tone and contribute to the
discussion in a productive manner, rather then telling us how "some people"
disregard scientific studies because they're either too ignorant to
understand them or to prejudiced to accept the results.
-pam sorooshian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 15, 2012, at 1:21 PM, ftb2_ss wrote:
It's naive to assume that the method will eliminate bias. One of the big weaknesses in scientific studies is that the factors that can't be controlled can't be studied for what impact they're having. Scientists can most effectively study what can be quantified. Since that's mostly what they then study, it seems like what's quantifiable is what is most important.
With such complex "systems" as human beings, that isn't even close to being true. Researches can't control parenting and school in the kids they study so they can't say what effect either has.
Unschoolers, though, can see the effect. The regular posters here have a philosophy in common that's guiding the nurturing of our kids' living and learning. Using our kids as the control group, we can see more clearly than researchers (and schooling parents) the effects that conventional parenting and schooling have on kids.
http://sandradodd.com/protect
The conclusions from those studies AND from what unschoolers see in their own kids is that an environment that isn't emotionally supportive and nurturing is the number one biggest factor in addiction. An environment that's deficient in what that person needs to feel whole injures them. If they have no control over what's injuring them, they can find temporary retreat from the pain or emptiness by withdrawing from the world. The withdraw might be alcohol, drugs, gambling, shopping, internet, video games, reading, exercise. Some of those are better at masking the pain and not so good at helping them cope. Some are not so good at masking but better at helping them cope. What damage they have will determine which they find most helpful. (Genetics and personality is a factor too.)
For some people, once they get out of the environment -- like the rats did -- they can let go of what they were using as an escape. But for some people, the damage is so great they end up carrying that environment with them internally -- such as messages about how worthless they are -- and they still need to escape even though they've physically escaped what initially damaged them.
So while we all may to some degree (depending on the person) carry a mechanism for addiction, it isn't triggered unless the environment triggers it.
It's like saying we all have a mechanism for coughing. But it's existence is irrelevant until our lungs get irritated and we need to clear them. It's irrelevant if we all have a mechanism for addiction if it doesn't kick in until the environment causes a need for it.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Right, but the scientific method eliminates (or should) any feelings or bias.The method is intended to help compensate for the fact that scientists are human who can be emotionally biased just like non-scientist humans.
It's naive to assume that the method will eliminate bias. One of the big weaknesses in scientific studies is that the factors that can't be controlled can't be studied for what impact they're having. Scientists can most effectively study what can be quantified. Since that's mostly what they then study, it seems like what's quantifiable is what is most important.
With such complex "systems" as human beings, that isn't even close to being true. Researches can't control parenting and school in the kids they study so they can't say what effect either has.
Unschoolers, though, can see the effect. The regular posters here have a philosophy in common that's guiding the nurturing of our kids' living and learning. Using our kids as the control group, we can see more clearly than researchers (and schooling parents) the effects that conventional parenting and schooling have on kids.
> I think the EXISTENCE and cause of addiction is independent ofDid you read the Rat Park studies that were linked?
> environment. However, environment plays into WHO becomes addicted.
http://sandradodd.com/protect
The conclusions from those studies AND from what unschoolers see in their own kids is that an environment that isn't emotionally supportive and nurturing is the number one biggest factor in addiction. An environment that's deficient in what that person needs to feel whole injures them. If they have no control over what's injuring them, they can find temporary retreat from the pain or emptiness by withdrawing from the world. The withdraw might be alcohol, drugs, gambling, shopping, internet, video games, reading, exercise. Some of those are better at masking the pain and not so good at helping them cope. Some are not so good at masking but better at helping them cope. What damage they have will determine which they find most helpful. (Genetics and personality is a factor too.)
For some people, once they get out of the environment -- like the rats did -- they can let go of what they were using as an escape. But for some people, the damage is so great they end up carrying that environment with them internally -- such as messages about how worthless they are -- and they still need to escape even though they've physically escaped what initially damaged them.
So while we all may to some degree (depending on the person) carry a mechanism for addiction, it isn't triggered unless the environment triggers it.
It's like saying we all have a mechanism for coughing. But it's existence is irrelevant until our lungs get irritated and we need to clear them. It's irrelevant if we all have a mechanism for addiction if it doesn't kick in until the environment causes a need for it.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
>First, as far as diagnoses go, DSM-IV (currently in use) does not use the
> >> I consider that physical addiction; when the person requires an ever
> increasing quantity of the substance to achieve the same results; when
> removal of the substance causes physical symptoms such as DT's,
> nervousness, heartbeat and blood pressure changes for instance. When
> removal of the substance can cause death before detoxification.>>>
>
term "addiction" at all. Instead it talks about substance dependence.
So - the term "addiction" is not currently a scientific term with a
specific defnition.
I don't think it has to be so extreme that it will necessarily cause death
before detoxification. But, this is part of the DSM definition of substance
dependency - that giving up the substance causes physical withdrawal
symptoms. However, they include both psychological AND physical withdrawal
symptoms - such as extreme anxiety when the substance is removed. Still -
they are talking about a substance dependency - it would not be applied to
other things like videogame playing or reading or even overeating or
excessive exercising, etc.
> >>>Psychological addiction would be when someone is compelled to performThe DSM does not use the term psychological addiction at all. What you are
> some activity and to cease it would cause anxiety, anger, hostility and and
> the need to continue, but not physical symptoms of withdrawal.>>
>
describing would probably fall under the classification of compulsive
disorders.
if we describe what we're talking about instead of using the term
"addiction," then we can move on and have productive discussions. But using
the term "addiction" muddies our thinking in the same way that using loaded
terminology interferes with analytical discussions in politics or
economics.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ftb2_ss
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
While typing my replies, I hadn't given a thought to the gender of anyone. Only after when I realized the sigs were nearly all women. That and what you said about the group being mostly moms. I should have realized that, since I suppose most of the dads are working, or absent. And all the homeschool and spec ed groups I frequent are mostly women. I know that sounds sexist but it wasn't meant to be.
*********
>***********
>......
> It's not so much that it's "matriarchal" as that it's dismaying for a male to come in and seem to suggest that girlies can't read science.
> You probably didn't mean to do that, but within the context, it seems you effectively did so.
> You might be comforted (or might not be surprised) to hear you're not the first to have done it.
>
> -.....
While typing my replies, I hadn't given a thought to the gender of anyone. Only after when I realized the sigs were nearly all women. That and what you said about the group being mostly moms. I should have realized that, since I suppose most of the dads are working, or absent. And all the homeschool and spec ed groups I frequent are mostly women. I know that sounds sexist but it wasn't meant to be.
*********
Pam Sorooshian
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:08 PM, ftb2_ss <gregandrene@...> wrote:
the -ists, do they?
FWIW, I took what you said as insulting, but not sexist.
It is not only men who sometimes have the attitude that we're a bunch of
silly women who need someone to inform and educate and maybe even guide us.
There are men who don't have that attitude and there are women who do,
especially those coming from careers in educational administration of some
sort!
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I know that sounds sexist but it wasn't meant to be.>>>Nobody ever admits to meaning to be sexist or racist or ageist or any of
the -ists, do they?
FWIW, I took what you said as insulting, but not sexist.
It is not only men who sometimes have the attitude that we're a bunch of
silly women who need someone to inform and educate and maybe even guide us.
There are men who don't have that attitude and there are women who do,
especially those coming from careers in educational administration of some
sort!
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
It's certainly my view that "social science" could be more accurately named "the art of the self-fulfilling prophecy or how to construct a study from what you notice not what you don't notice so that you get the outcome you always secretly knew you were going to get". All very human, but just because it has some science in it, that doesn't make it science.
Bob
>If my own experience of so called "social science" is anything to go by, I don't hesitate to suggest that it might be sensible to simply disregard the results of studies like this as a matter of principle, whether we agree with them or not.
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM, ftb2_ss <gregandrene@...> wrote:
>
> I am not suggesting nor did I state either one. I am suggesting that some
> > people simply disregard the results of studies like this because they don't
> > understand the science, methodology or terminology, or they just don't
> > agree with the findings. I have no idea of what Pam Sorooshian's background
> > is, nor what she does or does not understand.>>
>
>
>
It's certainly my view that "social science" could be more accurately named "the art of the self-fulfilling prophecy or how to construct a study from what you notice not what you don't notice so that you get the outcome you always secretly knew you were going to get". All very human, but just because it has some science in it, that doesn't make it science.
Bob
Jenny Cyphers
***Psychological addiction would be when someone is compelled to perform some activity and to cease it would cause anxiety, anger, hostility and and the need to continue, but not physical symptoms of withdrawal. ***
I think people can choose not to feel anxious, angry, and hostile, regardless of the reasons for feeling those things.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think people can choose not to feel anxious, angry, and hostile, regardless of the reasons for feeling those things.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***Perhaps I jumped in too soon but I get riled up when someone attacks studies for, what seems to me, no other reason than they disagree with the findings.***
I disagree with studies that say early childhood education creates a great start for a successful future. I will dissect that argument in the same way that I dissect of studies that I totally disagree with, especially when I can see where the study went wrong or where there is a bias!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I disagree with studies that say early childhood education creates a great start for a successful future. I will dissect that argument in the same way that I dissect of studies that I totally disagree with, especially when I can see where the study went wrong or where there is a bias!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I believe it is real (as do whomever wrote the DSM but I believe some of what goes in there is political and self serving). I think the EXISTENCE and cause of addiction is independent of environment. However, environment plays into WHO becomes addicted.***
I absolutely disagree. Environment plays a bigger role than most people, scientist included, admit to.
There are studies that agree with me. For every idea, someone could find a study somewhere that backs up their claim. It's up to each individual to decide which ones make the most sense. In my experience, addiction is very reliant on environment. Even that study that Pam brought here would suggest that is the case as well, since only 1 out of 10 people were experiencing "signs" of "addiction".
On a side not, my personal feeling is that the DSM needs to be trashed entirely.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I absolutely disagree. Environment plays a bigger role than most people, scientist included, admit to.
There are studies that agree with me. For every idea, someone could find a study somewhere that backs up their claim. It's up to each individual to decide which ones make the most sense. In my experience, addiction is very reliant on environment. Even that study that Pam brought here would suggest that is the case as well, since only 1 out of 10 people were experiencing "signs" of "addiction".
On a side not, my personal feeling is that the DSM needs to be trashed entirely.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]