Psychiatrist (and GP reader) Takes Issue with Grand Theft Childhood

Here's the final paragraph from the article:

"Overall, the book is well-written, engaging, and interesting. It is unfortunate that in an effort to make an all-inclusive text that is accessible to a wide audience, the authors’ reasoning often becomes flippant and simplistic."

Elsewhere in the article he lists three specific issues with the conclusions made in the book. I hardly see that as dismissing the entire book. Rather he has issues with the book being too common-mannish for a research publication. I'd say that was a conscious choice by Kutner and Olson.

I think the overall theme of the book is still very much valid. I had some similar concerns about some of the stuff in the book. Some of the conclusions did seem a little biased, or at least unsubstantiated with any real data.

-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

This topic has been emerging much more lately, and its unlikely the rate of "addiction" has been climbing at the same rate.  The Addiction angle is already the next big thing for anti-games activists. 

They have failed to peg gamers as being killers-in-training, and too many gamers are now parents, business owners, and otherwise active members of society.  Hence, this is becoming the last thing they can turn to as a way of getting games banned/regulated. 

I am sure they are salivating at the prospect of getting games legally lumped in with alcohol, gambling, and tobacco.  Should that happen, the videogames industry is going to be pretty much dead- it would be like making "AO" the only rating any game can obtain.

Dr. Block, I encourage you to submit a peer-reviewed study that debunks the ides put forth by Kutner and Olson.  Until you do that, your thoughts, opinions and ideas are just thoughts, opinions and ideas.

I also take issue with some of what you stated in your article.

"The computer use is often an early defense against despair, but it can also socially isolate, perpetuate false feelings of power, and socially de-skill people; it can become its own source of pain and isolation..."

I agree that use of a computer can defend against dispair however it does not always socially isolate, etc.  Your wording is very misleading unless dissected.  I can offer a perfect counterstatement to the above that would also be true for a large group of people.  In fact, here it is:

"The computer use is often an early defense against despair, however it can also enlarge your social group, train people to manage power in a virtual setting, and grant people social skills; it can become its own source of pleasure and social acceptance."

Note how the second statement, though agreeing with your initial point, states why it can be a defense against despair and has the potential to remove the person's despair.  Spin is a very powerful tool Dr. Block.  In the position of an educator you should know that just because an object CAN do something does not mean that it WILL do as such.

I guess my concern is...

What does this have to do with the conclusions of the book? It seems like Block is criticising elements that are branching from the core statement, but this reads like he's disputing the whole book. Does he really have an issue with Grand Theft Childhood, or merely with its authors' understanding of game addicition?

"The obsessive video game play was much more likely a symptom than the root cause."

Case closed.

“Clearly, the young man had some major problems. The obsessive video game play was much more likely a symptom than the root cause.” Kutner and Olson do not seem to understand that while the computer use can often be a symptom of other disorders, it can also be a serious, self-perpetuating problem in its own right. The computer use is often an early defense against despair, but it can also socially isolate, perpetuate false feelings of power, and socially de-skill people; it can become its own source of pain and isolation..."

He's right. Specifically, "The computer use is often an early defense against despair." I remember the year I graduated highschool. Parents had moved to a small town in Mississippi that had a very small population of young adults (18 to 21.) I had nothing to do, no one to hang out with. When you're that age you normally have established friends where you live. All I had to do was fuck around on my computer and play with this new fangled thing called the internet. I sat in front of it for days at a time. Only stopping to eat (barely. If it took to long I sat in front of the pc with the food.) and shower. I'd get two hours of sleep at a time. Anytime I'd stop I would realize how much it sucked to live in a place I didn't know anyone and couldn't find anyone. Granted, I did gain some skills that help me in the job market today but when the only people you talk to are on IRC while you're busy writing back door scripts to automate trojans (sub 7 anyone? Yeah..) Then there's something wrong with that.

God save us from psychiatrists: they all believe to have the ring of power over our brains and that's up to them to decide who's crazy and who's not!
away psychiatrists!

I can't help but see a man with extensive knowledge of an extremely limited subject, picking out a single element of a much larger work for criticism.

I heard Olsen and Kutner speak recently in Boston. They're smart people who did a lot of research and freely admit that their study is incomplete - that they found MANY more questions than answers. However, I've yet to see any researchers debunk any of their conclusions; all of the "games are bad" claims still focus on the very studies that Olsen & Kutner investigated and (usually) found lacking. I'm still waiting for any evidence at all that their own studies are faulty. Granted their conclusions jive with my own worldview (games are entertainment; their potential to sow good/bad is far more dependent on the individual situation), but maybe that's just because they did a better job on their homework.

And the flame war starts anew...

It's not an "ethical breach" to publish Shawn Wooley's name, considering the Shawn Wooley case was publicized by his very own mother and the Metropolitian Moron of Miami.

I think Dr. Block is just pitching sour grapes that Olson and Kutner told the truth.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

 Olson and Kutner did extensive research, comparing several different "studies" throughout the decades. They didn't stop at speculation.

Also, the book isn't so much about proving video games one way or another. It's about really thinking about the problem from both sides. No, I didn't agree with everything they said, but it helped to consider things from different perspectives. That's a good sign of non-bias: if you totally agree or totally disagree, it's probably biased. It's good when somethings you didn't even consider come to mind. 

But discussing it with his mother isn't the same as discussing it with him, and she seems... well let's say she made her own diagnosis of the problem, and anyone asking her will get her own diagnosis. Does that mean the book is correct? No, it means that there really isn't any way of knowing.

I also take exception to the part about being socially withdrawn. A lot of these games are socially engaging. The majority of games are played online and multiplayer. In addition, the ones that aren't often have robust communities online.

Since the social aspect are two of the three problems he claims, wouldn't that just leave False Feelings of Power? I'm not sure on this one, but I guess it's like delusions of granduer. Shoot, something like that wcould lead someone to politics and public office. That COULD be a problem...