You only feel like I'm trolling when you don't want to face the true reality of gaming consuming your very own life ... 

Nothing you say will change the fact that WHO are in the right path ... 

Yes, I'm going to knock the source, because however they interpret the data will be done with a propagandist slant.

That's the average working american's schedule, but keep in mind that most Americans either work overtime, or are horrible at time management. Simple math tells us how much freetime a well managed individual has...

168 hours in the week. 

Minus 8 hours a day sleeping = 112 hours of awake time. 

Minus 40 hours of working and 5 hours of commuting = 67 hours. 

Minus 8 hours of exercise per week (which is more than most people get a month) = 59 hours. 

Now we have 19 hours left for miscellaneous things like cooking, laundry, etc. Laundry shouldn't be more than tossing your dirty clothes in, taking them out, and hanging them up. Same goes for dishes, with a dishwashing machine. Even if you spent an hour cooking each day that's only 7 hours. Then there's eating which shouldn't be more than 7 hours a week too. 

So 59 hours minus 7 to eat, and 7 to cook = 45 hours. 

Now keep in mind that I said that anybody that can't find at least 30 hours of freetime in their week has a serious problem. So I'm still allowing for another 15 hours of random crap in the week. After all, I know people have kids, or life can often just throw you curveballs. Then remember that I dedicated a whole 8 hours to exercise which is excessive. Finally most people only need 7 hours of sleep a night once they get into their 40's and 50's. So I'm giving a crapton of leeway here and still coming out with plenty of ways to get 30 hours of freetime a week. 

The simple fact of the matter is that if you don't have at least 30 hours of freetime a week you are a workaholic. Workaholics don't see relaxation and leisure as necessary components of life. Workaholics view anybody that does have that amount of freetime as lazy, and having an addiction of some sort, because it's the only way they can convince themselves that they're not slaves to the system. 

What a pile of shit, are they going to start labeling idiots who spend all day glued to a TV watching other people play Football a mental illness? or is it just those who pick up a pad and actually take control over the little characters on screen that makes it an illness?

Can be attributed to anything done in excess

I can hear the laughter coming from my health insurer at the notion of covering anyone for some sort of gaming illness lol

Gaming can be symptomatic of underlying issues and can certainly exacerbate them as well, but it's absurd to give it it's own designation. Shall we also declare the chess grandmaster who play dozens of matches a week or obsessive athletes practicing their craft mentally ill? It's merely obsession, regardless of what that obsession is, that can cause problems.

This strikes me as another instance of a misunderstood subculture being labeled by outsiders.

I wish I was addicted. Then I would actually have the motivation to constantly play instead of finding other excuses.

Makes me wonder what they think about professional gamers or streamers who can play more than 10 hours.... A day!

This "mental health condition" of gaming disorder, like many other "disorder", including love, yes - not long ago, love have been introduced by psychiatrists as a "disorder" with high risk for mental health, seems half baked and/or exaggerated. The psychiatrists search and need to create "diseases" to provide usefulness to their science by detecting problems/diseases and of course also provide "cures", otherwise, their "science" will be lost into oblivion, hence no money will given by government and so their pockets will be empty.

Who wrote the article is not the most smartest guy, he just used one "argument" and that being the a very bad one, because the guy who died dint play 24 hours for his pleasure or as a anxiety reliever, he did it for others, with the best intention of helping others. So obviously the context for an example of such a "disease" gaming is, is just not there in that example.

To say that gaming is bad and therefore a disease because one guy died because of it its puerile to say the least, because with that "logic", we should ban the streets, the cars, even the army, etc because those things makes people die.

Also, the "journalist" should know that one example could very well represent just the exception, as in statistics is useless and discarded.


In the end, Im not saying there's no truth in this gaming disorder, its just that way is put it in that article it makes it look like a amateurish as best and cannot be taken in any way serious.