addiction Game lobbyists and some mental health experts expressed disagreement with the WHO on the definition of "gaming disorder'

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you do this studies to get published. If someone is throwing money at it is either a parent whose kid had a problem or some company that wants to derail the discussion.

You can seek funding but that shouldn't come from parts that have an interest in the study, it's an ethical issue and whoever is doing the study should know that.

So i have to disagree with you, who pays for it is relevant.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tobacco-industry-smoking-isnt-bad-for-your-health-404524.html

A trillion dollars won't get a study published in a well respected journal, if it doesn't meet the requirements it doesn't get in.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Maybe a definition in the DSM-5 which some people treat like a bible.   

Well the rest of the scientific world has a rather dim view of psychiatry and are rather dismissive of it lol. It's very much like the PlayStation/Xbox vs Wii debate "Pfff that's just waiving a stupid plastic stick around, who gives a crap it's a not a real console" 

[captain_to_fire]

29 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If the general public was more aware of this and knew which journals where the respected ones then we could all spot the bad science, politically motivated, corporate influenced ones that bring bias in to them. A company funding research is not a problem, just know how to spot it when it is.

I confess that I probably had been hasty casting a doubt on the counter paper by scientists from Oxford, Hopkins, and Sydney by being funded by game lobbyists but what irks me the most is that these people from world renowned institutions will release a draft paper which is quite sloppy and fallacious. 

[captain_to_fire]

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: and I should add that majority of the studies carried out in universities and in medicine are paid for by industry, not goivernment or public fundraising. If we were reliant on government or independent funding we would still be int he medical dark ages.

I don't know how it is in Australia [I guess it's probably better] but when I worked as a research scientist for one year for a state sponsored university, I can eye roll and criticize everything they've funded from out of date computers to out of date research methodologies to arrogant supervisors.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

I confess that I probably had been hasty casting a doubt on the counter paper by scientists from Oxford, Hopkins, and Sydney by being funded by game lobbyists but what irks me the most is that these people from world renowned institutions will release a draft paper which is quite sloppy and fallacious. 

Was that actually funded by game lobbyists? Not really looked in to it much, my comment was more in general and a response to a comment that I found interesting.

 

I'm not sure if this is a case of counter research or a collection of experts not wanting something that they consider substandard research being accepted in to the medical practice, kind of fells more like a turf war to me than anything else.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, leadeater said:

Was that actually funded by game lobbyists? Not really looked in to it much, my comment was more in general and a response to a comment that I found interesting.

 

I'm not sure if this is a case of country research or a collection of experts not wanting something that they consider substandard research being accepted in to the medical practice, kind of fells more like a turf war to me than anything else.

Looks like it. But yes it looks like a turf war.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Not everyone is an A student.

Why not? These researchers they present are not people making their college thesis as a partial fulfillment for the degree Bachelor of Science in whatever. They present people in their post graduate studies and it's not even the typical grammar errors but rather sloppy arguments which is easy to spot on.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not everyone is an A student.

I got an R grade once, basically that's a "Wow you bombed the final test epic hard but you were extremely good in the assignments and lab experiments so we gave you a pass" lol. Actually studying for an exam is wise .

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I got an R grade once, basically that's a "Wow you bombed the final test epic hard but you were extremely good in the assignments and lab experiments so we gave you a pass" lol. Actually studying for an exam is wise .

I got a failing grade in 3rd year of college in one course to the point me and my classmates tried to conspire against the professor who failed us by placing spikes in his car tires or stuff his car with gay porn so that his fiance will find out he's a closeted gay man. We never did that and looking back now, I was never proud of it. 

 

 

[mr moose]

27 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Even psychiatrists question the DSM-5 and the WHO.    So, I wouldn't blame actual professionals.  It's more big pharm and the government.

My experience is most professionals use the DSM as a guide for diagnosis and a bible for avoiding law suits.  I think I raised a similar point in the last thread on this very topic.

pointing to the DSM in a court is like have nearly every professional as your expert witness.

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

I don't know how it is in Australia [I guess it's probably better] but when I worked as a research scientist for one year for a state sponsored university, I can eye roll and criticize everything they've funded from out of date computers to out of date research methodologies to arrogant supervisors.

Oh dear.  Arrogance is everywhere, especially when you get to upper echelons of sociology and psychology.  We have an in joke about needing to be mental as a prerequisite for being a psychiatrist.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

About half of them do is the sad thing while the "actual" professionals do not.  They constantly update the thing because they were wrong.  FFS Aspergers isn't a mental disorder now it's a developmental disorder called high functioning autism.  The entire point of the DSM-5 is to be a dictionary, not a bible.  But, people using it as a bible remind me of this psychiatrist who reads off charts then says you have bipolar.  I have high functioning autism, but he was so sure because of his charts that I was bipolar.  One of my dad's clients has PTSD due to a couple of tours.  The guy also claimed he was bipolar, not PTSD.   

I am autistic too, although technically Asperger discovered the traits first so it should just be called Aspergers and not autism (but I really don't care that much). I also have a lot of experience with disorders like bipolar, adhd,  BPD etc.  It's almost scary how many times bipolar  gets misdiagnosed.  It shares traits with many other conditions that specialists really need to be on their toes and looking hard a the individual, environment and family history.  

 

 

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, people using it as a bible remind me of this psychiatrist who reads off charts then says you have bipolar.

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's almost scary how many times bipolar  gets misdiagnosed.  It shares traits with many other conditions that specialists really need to be on their toes and looking hard a the individual, environment and family history.  

Bipolar is basically the catch all diagnosis, "I have no idea what it is so bipolar it is".

 

My sister's diagnosis has changed 3 times, has it made any difference to the prescribed medication.... nope. Don't get me started on the medication thing, that's literally just random guessing until something works then never trying anything else because "this one is working" regardless of side effects.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

In my state, they can actually get sued for calling it Aspergers when talking about your disorder. Gotta love America.  

fuck me, no kinder surprises and law suits for calling autism aspergers.   

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

 

Bipolar is basically the catch all diagnosis, "I have no idea what it is so bipolar it is".

 

My sister's diagnosis has changed 3 times, has it made any difference to the prescribed medication.... nope. Don't get me started on the medication thing, that's literally just random guessing until something works then never trying anything else because "this one is working" regardless of side effects.

Medication usually has known effect sizes,  Meaning out of every 100 people who take drug A, they know that X percentage (might only be 60%) will respond favorably.  It may seem like a shit figure, but because everyone is different there is no way to guarantee the same outcome unless you get into more generic analgesic/sedative type medications. A good specialist will have an arsenal of medication and should be methodically trialing them starting from those with least know side effects and the most effective outcomes. 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's because to my state we're fragile little snowflakes of emotions and it's the PC thing to do.  Well calling us high functioning autistic over saying we have aspergers is pc.

I tell people to call me autistic, rather than saying I have autism (it is not a disability I have, it is who I am ).  I am a big proponent of identity first language.  Primarily because it makes the PC activist types confused and I like making idealists think about why they promote a certain cause, but also because autism is a large part of me, I would not be me without it.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Medication usually has known effect sizes,  Meaning out of every 100 people who take drug A, they know that X percentage (might only be 60%) will respond favorably.  It may seem like a shit figure, but because everyone is different there is no way to guarantee the same outcome unless you get into more generic analgesic/sedative type medications. A good specialist will have an arsenal of medication and should be methodically trialing them starting from those with least know side effects and the most effective outcomes. 

True but they value the treatment effect over the negative side effects, so if something is working medically speaking but is also causing adverse side effects but to a limited extent they are very reluctant to try something else.

 

Also medication like Lithium is given out rather readily even though it has guaranteed dangers with it's use because it's actually toxic and the other side effects are fairly common, they use it because it's extremely effective and fast acting.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You can be emotionally stable, but there's also a good chance you will get fat, have trouble breathing, sweat a lot, seizure out, develop heart disease, and die.  Personally, I stopped taking my meds because I'd rather be an asshole than have all that fun.

If you can manage without it then why bother with the medication.  The thing with all this is, unlike diabetes or epilepsy medication, you have a choice and if you can cope without it then there are no losses.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

I tend to tell the PC type to fuck off and stop crutching me because I'm not exactly a fragile little snowflake.  I don't really care too much about labels because they're just words to me.  But, I do like to use them back at people to make a point such as irony.

It's more fun watching them squirm in their conflicted ideals when I ask them not to address me as "having autism" but rather to say I am "autistic". I tell them it's not a disability like a broken leg, it's as much a part of me as my genetic heritage.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

My parents put me on medication like mood stabilizers that also help with epilepsy.  The medication they put me on for that gives me epileptic seizures and is known for making people 20+ pounds overweight.  Getting into ridiculous shape/losing 50 plus pounds got rid of my apnea, controls my seizures, but I'm still an asshole.     And honestly, I stopped taking them because I can control myself better than they can with no side effects other than the asshole part.

I know someone who is on effexor, it is doing exactly that minus the seizures, they were on valproate, but that wasn't working out too well.   

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

The one I was one is pretty famous, Depakote.

That's sodium valproate.   It didn't really work for this gentlemen either.

[leadeater]

Think we should put this under off topic now, kinda filled a page or more 

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

A trillion dollars won't get a study published in a well respected journal, if it doesn't meet the requirements it doesn't get in.

read this article:

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding

 

i think it covers most of the issues facing science. I will just quote this:

 

"Last summer, an investigation by the San Jose Mercury News found that one-third of Stanford University’s medical school administrators and department heads now have reported financial conflicts of interest related to their own research. These included stock options, consulting fees, and patents."

 

Unfortunately money can either get a dumb student into a top school or a dubious study published. Money makes the world go round.

I'm not saying this is the case, just that it can be and it's really convenient they got this studies just coming out as WHO just announced it was a disorder. The timing is really, really convenient. 

Unfortunately they (schools, researchers) got themselves into this mess, it's not just a "social media publications studies". Now we all have to face it. 

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, asus killer said:

Unfortunately money can either get a dumb student into a top school or a dubious study published

True, but they won't end up being published in one of the top tier journals which is the key to look out for. It's not that money isn't an issue but the bigger issue is people knowing they can exploit the notion of science, research and published journals itself because they know people really don't know the difference between a trash publication and one that isn't. The 'all science is equal problem', because it isn't.

 

Thing is science doesn't happen without money and now with better auditing capabilities self declaration of conflicts of interest is much more common, while private money has taken over as the larger source of funding it's still not completely unbalanced but something to keep an eye on. Private money as always been part of science and you can't expect scientists to get nothing out of it be it money or patents, without incentive science wouldn't happen.

 

Also fud science and academic infighting has always been a thing too, in fact it was far worse 100-200 years ago than it is now. Some academics value their reputation more than the truth, also many examples of this through history.

[Brooksie359]

I think game addiction is a thing but I also think most people who do suffer from the need to game have other issues causing it. I myself have had issues with having to game but it was entirely the result of severe depression and anxiety. Playing games made the feeling of depression and anxiety go away while I was playing so I became addicted to that relief. The problem is that once I fixed my anxiety and depression issues the need stopped and I no longer felt the need. This is just my experience and is by no means the case for everyone but I do feel like it explains some people's issues with playing games too much. But at the same time I also think video games aren't the only coping mechanisms people use to self medicate depression and anxiety and that any of those coping mechanisms could also end up having a medical diagnosis.