You Probably Don't Have Gaming Disorder

On June 18, 2018, the World Health Organization stated that they would be including "Gaming Disorder" as an official mental condition in the 11th edition of their International Classification of Diseases (ICD), a standard of diagnosis which is used for research and study, as well as determinations of reimbursement by organizations like insurance companies.

The world reacted as expected.
"Storm crows" rushed to tell all of their social media feeds about how once again, gaming has been unmasked as the villain, and how they have someone in their family who is most certainly afflicted with this new condition.
Arm-chair psychiatrists sprang into action diagnosing every gamer they knew in their favorite chat forums.
Just as many critics began flinging their customary retorts, to varying levels of maturity.

It seems that very few of them actually read the details of the condition. The WHO's definition sounds pretty fair to me, and I've had some exposure to this kind of thing. They use terms similar to those that they use when classifying gambling or substance addiction, and let's be fair, this isn't a new thing.
Here's a scary story from 2014 about how Candy Crush changes lives for the worse, where they state that even back then, internet and gaming addiction was already being acknowledged by science.

The problem with this WHO announcement is that the 3-minute coverage that most news shows are giving the topic is often geared towards delivering only the basic information, just enough to scare you with the new reality, and give viewers something else to worry about (which is, I'm convinced, an addictive disorder of its own.)

Since the ICD is used a standard, the official definition of the disorder is arguably the most important element of this story, so let's take a moment to review it, shall we?

In order to be diagnosed with Gaming Disorder, you must fit these criteria:
1) Gaming behavior takes precedence over other activities to the extent that other activities are taken to the periphery.
2) A persistent or recurrent behavior pattern of sufficient severity, displaying impaired control of gaming behaviors (addictive behavior). When the negative consequences occur (loss of job, health, apartment), this behavior continues or escalates.
3) The condition leads to significant distress and impairment in personal, family, social, educational or occupational functioning.

It's also been stated that this cannot apply to brief stints, the effects must be observed for a year or more before diagnosis in most cases, unless the diagnostic criteria are sufficiently severe.

So what does that mean?

Basically, gaming has to affect you in a way that causes you to compulsively choose it over the execution of duties which are important to your life, family, and health, and when those losses occur, you have to continue to choose gaming rather than stop to fix them.
This is pretty basic logic, right? We can all agree that this level of compulsion with regards to anything is bad, right?
So if you game every night for hours at a time, but you still go to bed, get up in the morning and go to work, and don't spend your rent money on game stuff, you don't have Gaming Disorder any more than someone who spends football season glued to every game at night has "football disorder". You just like games.
This is a "1% of heavy gamers" kind of thing. All that's being stated here is that the WHO has gathered enough scientific evidence to officially declare it "a thing".

I highly encourage you to read this article from CNN.. The second half of it contains a pretty great counter-argument from Anthony Bean, a licensed psychologist and executive director at The Telos Project, a nonprofit mental health clinic in Fort Worth, Texas.
Bean's argument contains no swearing, shots at one's mom, or wild accusations, so it's a nice change of pace from most internet comment sections on this matter.

So nothing's changed?

Well...yes and no.
Yes, in that the WHO's decision doesn't tell us anything that's really all that new. It gives an official science-community nod to the fact that sometimes people play games compulsively.

No, in that by including this definition in the ICD, the WHO has provided a standard for groups such as health care companies and insurers to act upon. Really, it will be up to those special interests to define how Gaming Disorder will be treated, going forward.

So are video games evil? Should I burn my console?

Nah. Chaotic neutral, at worst.
For my two cents, I think that gaming's worst crime is that it can be a very comfortable enabler for various kinds of escapism.
For example, to those who are fighting to overcome social anxiety, online communities might sate the driving element of disconnection and loneliness, making the fight to get out and meet people in the physical world exponentially more difficult. If social anxiety is a problem, and something takes away one's motivation to overcome the problem, then it's enabling the problem.

I don't have any source for that, other than my own observations. And don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks that online communities and connections aren't "real" just because they exist in cyberspace, but if we're being honest, we all know that there is a profound chemical, biological difference between hanging out with people online and hanging out with them in a room. You can't throw popcorn at internet friends. You can't ditch a plan and go swimming with them, or take a road trip and experience kitschy tourist traps, or hold hands with them, or a thousand other human-level things. Sufferers of social anxiety might fight a daily battle attempting to enjoy those things....unless they no longer see the point of it.

But that's a whole other can-o-worms.

Don't forget to read that CNN article I linked. It always pays to be informed.

~~~~~

TL;DR - Moderation, once again, is key.