[watwut]

You was addicted if those things negatively affected your life by those standards. I dunno why that would be controversial or argument against this diagnosis. If you seen negative impact on your life and could not stop despite trying, there is zero controversy.

Just about only difference is that such addiction on books happens less often to neurotypical people. And since you was negatively affected by pretty much everything that went around, it seems to be of personality prone to addiction thing.

That being said, playing games is not labeled anything. As the material itself says, only minority of players are diagnozable as majority of players dont have those symptoms.

[asddddd]

> I dunno why that would be controversial or argument against this diagnosis

Because I don't think it's a meaningful diagnosis or disorder, and that it is inherently a puritanical value judgement. How many people have their lives negatively affected by working excessive hours, by focusing on sports instead of academics, or any number of other things that will never get their own label?

[watwut]

"Disorder" is not value judgement. It is more about whether you can describe common symptoms and eventually steps to help (if possible).

The things you mention have derogative terms in culture. And focusing on sport instead of academic is not nearly at level of symptoms described here.

Frabkly, the discussion whether x is meaningful diagnoses makes sense only if you bother to read actual diagnosis - and surrounding text to see whether there are similar diagnoses nearby.

[yifanl]

Almost any fairly common obsession has a related derogatory term in standard lexicon, i.e. "workaholic", "meathead"/"jock" etc.