neils clark

Sure, sure, by now we all know that Lindsay Lohan was busted for driving under the influence (with a suspended license, but that’s fashionable right now) and for felony cocaine possession, all less than two weeks after completing her second trip to rehab. What really caught my eye wasn’t the scandalousiness of it all, it was how the morning news people all seemed supremely accepting and understanding of Lohan’s heartbreaking tribulations. They even got on Leno for cracking jokes about the thing (though to be fair they were coming from another network).

Ultimately, I think it all comes down to the ankle bracelet. Lohan was wearing an ankle bracelet which detected through her skin whether or not she had been drinking. And she had been drinking. We see that and think, “ok, well maybe she does have a serious problem.” I feel so bad for her awe!

We’re accepting of it because it seems obvious that she’s drinking against her will, and there’s at least some science to back that up. Game addiction research isn’t about “discovering the science,” or understanding a game. Most people don’t want to understand. The researchers just take games, and compare them against a simple scale for addiction. The results: 8.5% of your children are addicted! That doesn’t tell us how we can help.

This can be incredibly illuminating for people who want to look at (what we call) game addictions. There are no ankle bracelets. There are no researchers or research quite so deeply identifying the chemicals or processes at work with game addiction. Most of the researchers don’t care to. They don’t have to. The public wants to know how afraid they should be (rather than what might actually help), and so certain researchers fill a demand. There’s little to no sympathy, and rarely any respect. In the absence of ankle-bracelet-level-understanding (or at least some consensus that it can be beyond one’s control), most of the people are using grossly reductionist criteria for “game addiction,” which doesn’t reflect what’s happening with people whom we call game addicts. Continually using that criteria, rather than understand what’s going on, just means that detailed understanding is getting further out of reach.

What’s really frightening is what might happen if big pharm suggests using anti-addiction treatments — when there’s obviously more than just addiction here.

To end on a silly note, I don’t think that there’d be any shortage of “game addict” volunteers for longitudinal experiments…

But good luck convincing grantors that it’s serious data collection…

I have a lot of thoughts on Lohan’s loutishness. I’ll just say that I’ve been “off the sauce” about as long as her (prior to her most recent heartbreaking incident anyway), and that the book has been wrapping itself up very nicely. We’re on schedule to start shopping for publishers by mid-August.

Neils Clark :: Jul.25.2007 :: Game Addiction, General ::

Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed