Have you ever heard of an addict who was cured of his or her addiction because someone limited, but did not eliminate, their access to the substance or behavior in question? No, you have not. Is an addiction to gambling less harmful if the addict is only allowed to gamble five hours a week? No, it is not. The proposition is absurd.
Before I continue, a digression: I am allowed, by law, to call myself a psychologist; therefore, I am a psychologist. However, I am ever-increasingly aware that I do not have much in common with most people in my nominal profession. In this regard, I am of the experienced opinion (38 years) that clinical psychology is more ideology than science, more fad-driven than fact-driven, and that the facts are not impressive. Does several years of graduate school make one a better advice-giver? Is any form of psychological therapy reliably effective? These questions, and many more, remain unanswered to a satisfying degree.
My digression underscores a story recently passed along to me by a highly reliable witness. A psychologist, speaking to a group of North Carolina parents, recommended against taking video game controllers away from pre-teen and teen boys who are obviously obsessed with video games for the very reason that they are obsessed. To be clear: Because playing video games is, according to said psychologist, supposedly harmless and “so very important” to these boys and gaming is their main social activity to boot, the controllers should not be taken away. Again, the proposition is absurd.
In the early 1980s, I publicly asserted (in this column) on the basis of observation alone that video games were addictive. I was generally dismissed, even ridiculed. The ridicule, by the way, came primarily from — you may have guessed it — other psychologists. A growing body of research now…