Reply With QuoteI revel in my abnormality.
I thought about tossing this into the thread on P&R, but it's game-related, so I'll let us hash it out here.
Psychiatric testimony in the Anders Breviek trial:
Congratulations, many of you are abnormal.In response to Judge Elizabeth Arntzen inquiry whether interviews with one of Breivik’s acquaintances in WOW supported their view of a personal breakdown, psychiatrist Synne Sørheim responded: “We feel that playing a lot of computer games gives the impression of a working cognitive function. It is however, something completely different to relate to something in real life, have committed relationships to other people, arrange meetings, go to work in the morning, have a healthy relationship with a girlfriend, or having common social skills.”
When the judge asked whether Breivik’s behaviour during this period might be described as gaming addiction, Sørheim tooks the opportunity to say what she really thinks: “I would still like to point out that sitting alone in your room and playing games, no matter what the scope of the matter, call it addiction or whatnot, is not normal for a man in his 20's.”
I revel in my abnormality.
Heh. I hope he doesn't think all these games are for children. That would be much, much worse.
Substitute playing games with reading a book or watching TV. All of the sudden you're normal. :D
Ms. Sørheim is only 46, too. I expected that she would be in her late 60s.
She's probably just upset her boyfriend dumped her for video games back at that age.
Following the link to the reddit source and reading the top comment seems to indicate this was not an accurate translation of the remark?
not edgy enough?"By our evaluation[...]" ... "Is not the same as having a normal [social] function."
Of course! Everyone knows a man has to be 50+ to get to sit around alone in his room and play games!Originally Posted by Telefrog
Shit I am really screwed if I am in my 30s and playing games. :(
Thank you for telling me what I already knew.
The psychiatric testimony in this case is... weird, to say the least. I watched this discussion live, and I really found the conclusions - from someone who allegedly has treated people with gaming addiction (Husby) - rather troubling.
The quote is taken out of context, though. While I think the pair have a rather extreme opinion of what is "sick" (i.e., I feel that a lot of nerds would have serious trouble with being considered sane by their definition), they do stress that it is the combination of gaming isolation/addiction combined with extremely limited/non-existent "real-life" human social contact that they consider not normal. Reading a book or watching TV would not change their conclusion.
Luckily I'm 53. Thus perfectly AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ::snort:: I couldn't... I just couldn't...
They have sort of made up their mind he's mad, now they have to fit the shoe ... Problem is that right wing extremist violence like this is and was not unusual around the globe...
If anything, it's the other way round - the younger you are, the less ok it is to play computer games, the older, the more ok.
They are a waste of time - hence, young people growing up are better off doing sensible things instead: learning, making friends, having relationships, etc.
By the time you're old and your life is fucked, what else is there to do but play computer games?
Nonsense, sitting in a room playing games is perfectly normal for a male in his 30's. It's just that in your 20's you're supposed to be out getting drunk every night and trying to have sex with every female you encounter.
Are you friends with ibdoomed? :p
Whew ok, yeah that was my 20's for the most part (I am a very light drinker 1-2 beer max kinda person), so I am ok then! :D
I'm 6 weeks away from 60. I can't wait until I hit 65, get my social security and medicare, and spend the rest of my days gaming, a burden to society.
That seems reasonable enough, as long as they don't count that isolation as the primary factor contributing to the massacre.
In my 20s I had a Commodore 64. And I was still more interested in sex, drugs and booze. Although I do remember playing Laser Squad one Saturday while a nude female stood next to me laughing at the Wub Wub Trees.
I'm 46 and play video games for a living. I must be really f&^$ed!
Obviously this psychiatrist is a crackpot. Moving on. :)
*stuff*
Last edited by Teiman; 06-16-2012 at 09:31 AM.
I'm also 46 and I've completed more than 350 PC games since 2001. I must be a raving lunatic.
There are a lot worse things 20-year-olds could be doing than playing computer games.
Isn't that what the defense is doing though? Saying he can't tell reality from WoW or some horseshit? I mean unless he was casting fireballs and looting the bodies, I'm pretty sure that defense doesn't hold up. Its not like there is a quest in WoW where you set off a bomb in one place so you can rush off to murder a bunch of townsfolk on an island. I would've remembered that one.
I initially thought this was a stupid thing to say if there's a male in his 20's who sits in the jury, as most men I know do indeed play video games and perhaps especially so in that age range. Then I realized such a person was likely given up as a lost cause to persuade and instead this was a ploy for those with some prejudice against gaming, most likely found in older generations and more likely to be female. Stereotypically speaking, these would be the people who are more likely to have a culturally implanted knee jerk reaction to want to string up a killer of children. The effort to plant such a doubt would likely be an attempt to give them an easy out to rationalize a decision of insanity.
Clever lawyering, perhaps, but really just a display of ignorance when taken out of that context.
I think you misunderstand what the defence is trying to do. The interest of the defence is to ensure that their client is considered sane. The prosecution is trying to find him insane - itself a bit weird, considering that the roles are usually reversed.
The first set of psychiatrists (supported by the prosecution) argue that his return to his mother's home and effectively locking himself up to play WoW for a year is a symptom of his disease worsening, that he was effectively no longer capable of functioning like a normal person; i.e., maintaining normal human relationships, work, or even taking care of himself - gaming was an escape from this reality. They contend that sleeping during the day and sitting on the PC all through the night (whether playing games or writing his manifesto) in the way the accused did is a highly abnormal pattern of behavior.
The defense points out that he was active and maintained multiple social relationships over the net on facebook and WoW. They point out that he was a high-ranking member of a WoW guild with tasks that involve organizing raids and coordinating with others. They argue that these demands are not unlike those put on a normal person's working day (i.e., punctuality, cooperating with others, etc) and that his ability to participate in this indicates relatively "normal" functionality. The second set of psychiatrists (who will defend their report on monday-tuesday) agree with this and agree that the high level of social interaction and cognitive functionality required in a game such as WoW is not compatible with schizophrenia. That is really the core argument and disagreement, as it pertains to gaming.
Also, there is no jury - it is being tried in the Norwegian District Courts with two professional judges (age 52 and 49) and three lay judges (46, 37, and 71).
Wait, so why would the defense want to prove him sane? He massacred a bunch of people, wouldn't their client's welfare be better served by being declared insane?
It is a core rule that the defense has to follow the wishes of the client, unless doing so will significantly disadvantage the client. Given the circumstances of this case, there is no point in going for an insanity plea over prison; he is likely to be locked up in isolation for the rest of his life regardless of which sentence he receives.
It is interesting to note that the accused claimed to have used Call of Duty to "train" for his terrorism, but this was fairly early debunked by "experts" and I don't even think it has been brought up once during the trial.
I think it's also important to note that the maximum prison sentence in Norway, for any crime, is 21 years. That's probably a better alternative for the defendant than life in a mental institution.
Posting Permissions