I think people get addicted to all sorts of things. I have defiantly been addicted to MMOs in the past. However I also have been addicted to programming.  I remember on a few occasions my boss walked in and found me still working at my desk in the morning and said "GO HOME!". This wasn't a project that was late or anything like that. It was just something I got engrossed by.  If you class everything people spend in inordinate amount of time doing as a  "disorder" then possible 20 or 30 percent of people in modern societies have some sort of disorder.

I was afraid that might happen.  At the risk of being overly pedantic, let's get some of the standard definitions out of the way.  (My wife is in psychology, several relatives are in the medical field, and I've had plenty of discussions about these topics over the decades.)  It seems we need some definitions.

These behaviors are called compulsions, the thoughts are obsessions, neither one is an addiction like you get by putting a chemical in your body.

Disorder means that it actually impairs their life.  Everybody has compulsive behavior and obsessive thoughts, they only become a disorder when it harms life, such as preventing the person from attending events, preventing them from enjoying vacations, or otherwise blocking living life to the fullest. 

Binge watching a show so you're sleep deprived in the morning as a choice is not a disorder. Even when it is an mindlessly hitting "play next episode" is still not a disorder. The same binge watching because you cannot stop yourself, where you feel compelled to hit the button and you experience anxiety about it if you don't watch the next show or aren't watching a show, then it can become a disorder.

This can mean someone has a strong obsession or strong compulsion yet it still isn't a disorder because their quality of life is not diminished.

Again: everybody has obsessions and compulsions. And as I wrote in my earlier reply they can be tied to quite literally any behavior or any thought. They are a disorder only for a small percent of people.  

And finally, what changed is that it is specifically listed. The diagnostic code for most obsessions and compulsions does not specify the obsession or compulsion. The APA and WHO have added some named classifications because some people and groups -- notably insurance companies -- refuse to accept that certain thoughts or behaviors are harmful. There was a major outcry when gambling was specifically named where insurance companies hated that they were forced to pay for treatment. That's the big reason for this change.

I also want to make clear that the studies have proven it is a real Disorder. It's not like they just decided this in a moment.

It actually took a long time, because first they discovered it had the same effect as Cocaine on the brain (that is why Brad Huddleston book is named as it is). The argument was that the effects where only visible for short burst during a long game session.

A 5-6 hour session showed roughly a 8% similarity to cocaine use; people argued this was too small of a similarity to brand games a addiction.

The study happened in 2015. Now 2018 other studies have been launched and finished; some to prove it wrong and others to prove it right.

Right now there is still a argument over how much of a drug games are, however addiction is real and the extra studies have proven it is a Disorder.  Even the ones who aimed to prove games do no harm, found that it does cause disorders amongst a lot of people.

51 minutes ago, frob said:

This can mean someone has a strong obsession or strong compulsion yet it still isn't a disorder because their quality of life is not diminished.

I personalty think quality of life is in fact diminished in most cases where people are obsessed with something.

30 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

A 5-6 hour session showed roughly a 8% similarity to cocaine use; people argued this was too small of a similarity to brand games a addiction.

Right, that's another area where some of the naming gets confusing. For some people the compulsive behavior is cemented because initially it triggers a chemical response. The behavior triggers the brain to emit addiction chemicals, some become desensitized and they seek the same high by doing more of the compulsion or obsession, others continue to get the brain's chemical component that reinforces the compulsion or obsession.   Too many people equate the thoughts, the behaviors, and the chemicals. Each are different, each have different treatments.

Either way, when it becomes a disorder people continue with the compulsion or with the obsession even though they are aware of the damage it is doing. Many want to stop, they simply cannot do it.  Strong actions like completely removing game systems triggers incredible anxiety and other issues, just like removing all the sinks from an OCD handwasher. The obsessions continue, but being unable to fill the compulsion causes all kinds of negative actions.

3 minutes ago, Gnollrunner said:

I personalty think quality of life is in fact diminished in most cases where people are obsessed with something.

It depends.  A student who has obsessive thoughts about school can become a better student. Up to a certain point it can be useful in driving the student to study more, or to mentally review subjects and topics covered in the courses. But beyond that point it interferes with life.  Exactly where that line is depends on the individual. 

25 minutes ago, frob said:

It depends.  A student who has obsessive thoughts about school can become a better student. Up to a certain point it can be useful in driving the student to study more, or to mentally review subjects and topics covered in the courses. But beyond that point it interferes with life.  Exactly where that line is depends on the individual. 

frob, I really enjoyed how well you laid it all out in your previous posts and I think you're spot on.  The last part of this post is where I think the crux of the problem lie.  We need people to be able to hammer away on computers for hours and hours a day doing monotonous choirs.  It is fundamental to our economy.  The problem is, as I see it, is this; if your contributing to the economy by working  then those very behaviours are encouraged/needed.  However; if it's outside of work that these behaviours are causing disruptions to your work life, then it's a disorder.  I caution though, the dichotomy that I'm attempting to illustrate isn't as black and white as I make it seem.  I hope not to have to go through all the cases in support and against.  But I think in-between these two extremes there is truth.