China's Gaming Curfew - Tencent main enforcement

If you want to discuss logics then you first need to clarify why in the example you provided the baby is in fact addicted but not the cause of the adiction itself.

There is nothing illogical about certain genes being switched on in a dopamine deprived state, similar to how certain genes can get turned on when living in a warm or cold environment for a prolonged time.

I think it's very much established that certain genes have a strong corelation with adiction and that people born with these genes activated have a stronger tendency to manifest adiction in their life span.

I'm not even disputing the claim your making, substance abuse has biological consequences.

As for the article, it is interesting in all the wrong ways, which i assume is a notion you share.

It reminds me of the whole "video games turn kids agressive" notion that passed which as far as i am aware was never proven and spured a whole "protect the children" movement praying on the biological imperatives of mothers.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

A physical dependency isn't debatable, which is what a baby would get if you injected them with morphine. There's no abnormal chemical changes during an addiction though, just stronger normal ones.

You're the one denying logical reason. People doing something habitually can't make the brain create a new chemical. And can never cause physical symptoms. It's all in the persons head.

People generalize the term addiction to mean a lot more than it does, so you're confusing it with other things.

A disbalance of chemicals in the brain can create a new chemical pattern(order them in a new fashion resulting in effects which regular balance doesn't produce)

And obviously it can cause physical symptoms, you never used a psychedelic i presume?

And it can cause lasting brain disruption or formation if the abuse is before the age of 28.

People can literally get stuck in a psychedelic trip for the rest of their lives if they don't have the constitution to deal with it, which is rare but happens.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : anyway, long enough tangent and derail. Thx for the article darth.

"

Boem wrote:

And obviously it can cause physical symptoms, you never used a psychedelic i presume?

I did, three times, I think my brain is messed up though. Everybody around me was apparently tripping balls and feeling great. I had almost a slice of shrooms two of those times though and I just got completely blacked out eyes and felt a little nauseous.

"

"

Boem wrote:

And obviously it can cause physical symptoms, you never used a psychedelic i presume?

I did, three times, I think my brain is messed up though. Everybody around me was apparently tripping balls and feeling great. I had almost a slice of shrooms two of those times though and I just got completely blacked out eyes and felt a little nauseous.

One might say, you were experiencing physical symptons as a result of them.

Peace,

-Boem-

You guys are just jealous that your governments aren't as powerful.

"

IMSilver wrote:

You guys are just jealous that your governments aren't as powerful.

Gratefull and jealous are worlds appart.

Regulations are neceserally restrictive on freedom, it's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

And i prefer my restrictions comming from my social environment and people in my direct area rather then people who have no clue who i am or what my goals are in life and just blanket regulate on a karikature of "the average citizen".

Powerfull and big goverments only appeal to people who view the world as a struggle and fight and require a "win condition" at the end of their perceived ride.

Good copy paste bait btw, what is that like the fifth time you post that in a china related thread?

Peace,

-Boem-

This doesn't impact anyone outside of China, so why does it matter to anyone outside of China?

China could make it legal to screw goats, and I couldn't care less.

They've been under Communist rule for 70 years, and things have actually gotten a little better there, in small steps, but realistically, they're never going to be a Democracy in the foreseeable future. China is gonna do what China does, in their own way.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I'm not going to debate science and facts. It's absurd.

If you think that the psychology of addiction or the current understanding of neuroscience is complete, then you're sorely mistaken.

Please read up on the reproducibility crisis currently saddling primarily soft sciences and life sciences. My sister is a PhD Psych focusing on addiction, so I kinda love this subthread/digression and recognize a lot of these arguments.

As it pertains to the main topic, I agree with Boem that this is a science experiment on a nation-scale. It's not "proven science" at all, the results are not known or guaranteed, and it could be more harmful than helpful.

Normally in such situations I prefer a status quo approach. Knee-jerk prohibitions historically have a nearly zero success rate. I guess we'll all get to wait and see if it pans out. If the results aren't good, I expect that the evidence will be hidden and propaganda will just say that everything is going great anyway.

"

pneuma wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I'm not going to debate science and facts. It's absurd.

If you think that the psychology of addiction or the current understanding of neuroscience is complete, then you're sorely mistaken.

Please read up on the reproducibility crisis currently saddling primarily soft sciences and life sciences. My sister is a PhD Psych focusing on addiction, so I kinda love this subthread/digression and recognize a lot of these arguments.

As it pertains to the main topic, I agree with Boem that this is a science experiment on a nation-scale. It's not "proven science" at all, the results are not known or guaranteed, and it could be more harmful than helpful.

Normally in such situations I prefer a status quo approach. Knee-jerk prohibitions historically have a nearly zero success rate. I guess we'll all get to wait and see if it pans out. If the results aren't good, I expect that the evidence will be hidden and propaganda will just say that everything is going great anyway.

Again I don't want to derail this thread based on some nuanced arguments based significantly on opinion, as it defeats from the purpose of why I posted the article in the first place. Lets provide some clarity on science and fact.

First off, there are no studies that are complete on nearly any scientific topic regarding human understanding. The ego involved in such a claim is a equally ridiculous, so I don't even know what you are trying to say. Science, in the modern age of reason is only a few hundred years old at most. The idea that a few 40-70 year old leading minds around the globe have a true understanding of the human condition(biology), the global biosphere(climate), astrophysics, among other significant scientific endeavors, is laughable at best. We may think we have advanced farther than most scientists in the 15th century telling Columbus he would fall off the earth in his travels, but in terms of scale, we are not.

That being said, all I referenced was that chemical interactions in the body (internal or external), change body chemistry, brain function, receptors, and create dependency on the body. There is no debate on this topic(that I'm aware of). This is 100% independent of any sort of external physiological factors. You can in fact, be addicted to chemicals regardless of your mental state. This is our current understanding. I'm not saying that all science is set and final on this, but merely stating that Heroin is an addictive drug that impacts body chemistry shouldn't be a source of argument.

If we are then leaping to whether mental health, is in fact "health", then what China is doing shouldn't be shocking. The are making decisions on what they think is best(certainly not best for the individual), for the country. They fear what, lets call it, "electronic addiction", could do the population at large. I'm not taking a side here, but the premise itself is debatable.

For example:

Child A - Spends 4 hours per day playing games. 1 hour for studies.
Child B - Spends 4 hours per day on studies. Spends 1 hour on games.

Knee-Jerk reaction is that Child B is going to be smarter, simply because they are studying more. Obviously this would be an absurd conclusion outside a multitude of contributing social, environmental, and economic factors. However setting all that aside, which child "should" be more prepared, or better off regarding academic endeavors? I think it's a legitimate argument, that largely on average, the child that studies more, or focuses more on academic preparation will do better in school. (and by proxy be better, on average, of helping contribute to the country as a whole.) What do you do if Child A says they want to study more, but they can't control the impulse to play more? Should adults step in to assist? The Government?

So lets say we remove the country that wanted to try this, or study further.

Would the premise that the country being concerned about it's youth population investing exponentially, in both time & resources, on entertainment or diversion, healthy for the country over a generation? Are video games, mobile phones, TV, or any other electronic diversion harmful in a measurable way (or maybe not in a way we can determine at the moment)

If from a societal point of view, public education, or even education in general, of the population at large is vitally important, why wouldn't we take effort to ensure this is as effective as possible? If this is a competition (which it is), would you do everything to ensure your country is in the best possible position?

So I know this was long to get back to the point...

Are video games addictive? We don't know(and more loosely what does "addictive" even mean in this context)

If video games are detrimental in some measurable way to children, should we do something about it? How would/should we measure this is reasonable way? Is not doing your homework because you were playing games, better than not doing it because you were vaping if the results are the same?

I tend to look at history for hints when it comes to things like this.

This is al very much alike the printing press revolution or the introduction of television.

Social media and computers follow the same pattern(exponential increase of available information) but the individual pattern also persists in relation to the older revolutions.

That is to say, the medium being utilized is irrelevant, what is relevant is the individuals connection and usage of the medium.

People were also convinced television would make people stupid and yet now we have story epochs with complexity that rival old epics produced on a regular basis.
It's all about how you utilize the medium and i think that depends entirely on the person and the examples he is given.

You can watch some dating show or a documentary, arguably both can have valuable lessons for certain people.
Similarly i think its perfectly fine for certain people to play a lot of hours gaming if it expands their skillsets.

And thats exactly why "general planning" or "generalized strategy's" dont function. They don't recognize the positive potential in individual cases and use a bulldozer approach throwing a bunch of people under the bus.

Peace,

-Boem-