The World Health Organization has just added an unusual disorder to its list of mental health conditions. People who play an excessive amount of video games could be diagnosed with a “gaming disorder.”

Of course, they aren’t saying that anyone who lives to play video games has this mental disorder. But they do set out some criteria to identify people with a gaming disorder. First, they show impaired control over gaming. This includes such things as frequency, intensity, and duration.

Second, a person with this disorder shows an increasing priority to gaming, to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities. Third, there usually is a continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.

Video gaming is no longer just for the young. It has become increasingly popular with people of all ages. The Entertainment Software Association estimates that more than 150 million Americans play video games. So it is not surprising that psychologists also have been able to document video game addiction.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders defined “internet gaming disorder” as a “condition for further study.” It also said the disorder was most common among male adolescents. But we are seeing problems surfacing in every age group.

Video games can be a safe way of improving hand-eye coordination, enhancing problem-solving abilities and relieving stress. But the concerns about addiction and gaming disorder should concern youth and adults. Video games can be addicting, and apparently take over the lives of many who find them too enticing to moderate.

Someone who tuned into Point of View for the first time left a comment on the Facebook page criticizing what one of my guests said and concluded by instructing us that Christians should embrace socialism. It’s the type of comment I usually ignore, but I thought it might deserve a response since I have heard it so often.

Over the last few months, I have been teaching through the book of Acts. When you get to Acts 4, you find a statement that the believers “had all things in common.” It also says that those who possessed land or houses sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles’ feet. They distributed these gifts to anyone in need.

It is worth noting that: (1) this practice was apparently only done in Jerusalem and (2) the practice was a voluntary act. This is hardly a mandate for socialism. Many Christian writers have devoted whole chapters in their books on this subject, so there is more than I can possibly say here.

The believers in Jerusalem owned the property before they voluntarily gave the proceeds to the apostles. The next chapter clearly teaches that. When Peter confronted Ananias, he clearly stated this: “While it remained, was it not your own? After it was sold, was it not in your own control?”

Owning property contradicts one of the fundamental principles of socialism. In the Communist Manifesto, “the abolition of property” is a major item in the plan for moving from capitalism to socialism and eventually to communism.

The Ten Commandments assume private property. The eighth commandment forbidding stealing and the tenth commandment about coveting both assume that people have private property rights. In the New Testament, Paul writes, “Let him who stole, steal no longer.”

Socialism is incompatible with Christianity. That’s why Christians should not embrace socialism.

Although the concept of a free enterprise system developed primarily in Europe, it has become the most successful in the United States. Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, has a possible explanation.

The founders promoted a free market where Americans were able to truly live their liberty. Thomas Jefferson famously said this in his first inaugural address. “A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

People from other countries began to realize how exceptional America’s culture of free enterprise was. French nobleman Alexis deTocqueville called Americans ‘”the freest people in the world.” He was struck by the fact that Americans pursued their interests under the supervision of limited government and banded together in voluntary associations.

This is true to this day. According to Arthur Brooks, Europeans are half as likely as Americans to attribute success in their own life to their own efforts. He even suggests that some of this might even be genetic: it is part of the American DNA. We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants tend to be entrepreneurs and willing to take risks for the possibility of prosperity.

Arthur Brooks contends that we live in a 70-30 nation. A Pew Research Center poll asked a broad range of Americans this question: “Generally, do you think people are better off in a free market economy?” Almost 70 percent of respondents agree that they are better off in a free market economy.

The good news is that 70 percent of Americans believe in free enterprise. The bad news is that the other 30 percent are in control of important arenas in our society such as the academy, media, and government. This will be our challenge for the years to come.

When President Trump set forth his national security strategy, he omitted global climate change as a threat. Two years earlier, President Obama elevated climate change to the top “strategic risk” in his strategy. The ongoing debate about the significance of climate change will continue for years to come.

I contend that the debate is really about percentages. Consider people who are often labeled “climate change deniers.” Actually, even these people believe the climate changed in the past (we’ve had an ice age, a medieval warming period). They just don’t believe that human activity is the major driver for climate change. But they will usually admit that some small percentage of human activity might be influential.

On the other side are people who are deeply concerned about climate change. But I doubt any of them believe that human activity is responsible for 100 percent of the change in climate. We have had variations in the climate long before the industrial revolution. So really the debate is between percentages. Some believe the percentage is low, others believe it is higher.

Sometimes the discussion is framed as a debate between those who believe in science (climate change) and others who are anti-science (the deniers). But consider this recent quote from geologist Ian Plimer who believes in evolution and is anything but an anti-science proponent. “Climate change has taken place for thousands of millions of years. Climate change occurred before humans evolved on Earth.” He says he cannot find any correlation between temperature change and human emissions of carbon dioxide. Therefore, he concludes that, “Without correlation, there can be no causation.”

Perhaps it is time to cool some of the rhetoric and consider what we know and don’t know about climate change.

As we get into this New Year, I hope you have thought about making a resolution or two. My suggestion would be for all of us to stop believing in the hysterics and hyperbole that surround our political culture.

Fortunately, I am noticing that more and more commentators are calling for people to bring reason and common sense into these political discussions. Let me be one more voice to join that chorus.

Of course, we can offer lots of examples. When Congress was about to pass a tax reform package, Democratic leaders proclaimed that it would usher in economic Armageddon. That is quite a claim for a tax reform bill that lowers the corporate income tax and raises the standard deduction. It is hard to take seriously the claim that it would hurt the middle class when 70 percent of Americans take the standard deduction on their taxes, and the bill doubles the standard deduction.

When the FCC decided to roll back net neutrality rules implemented two years ago, we heard apocalyptic predictions that this would be the end of the Internet as we know it. If that was the case, then how did the Internet survive more than two decades without these rules? And if we find out there is a problem, the FCC and the FTC can step in some time in the future to fix it.

The health care debate last year provided yet another example of hysterics and hyperbole. One side says, that if we keep Obamacare, we will destroy the health care market and people will die. The other side argues that if we repeal Obamacare, quality health care will disappear and people will die. No doubt we will be hearing similar claims throughout this 2018 election season.

It is time (frankly past time) for citizens and leaders in these political parties to speak out against such reckless claims and call for reason and common sense. The American people and the voters deserve a more civil and measured political discourse.

Let me begin by wishing you a Happy New Year. At the start of this New Year, I wanted to pass on some advice. In previous commentaries, I have talked about the value of using this time of year to change something in your life. There is nothing magical about using January 1 as a start date, but why not use it to improve yourself?

First, I would recommend you pick just one thing to change. If you try to change too many things at once, you are probably not going to succeed. And I would also recommend that you make it a specific, concrete goal that you write down. The more specific you are, the greater likelihood you will be successful.

Second, aim low. In previous New Year’s commentaries I have quoted from Tristan Taylor who encourages people to “strive for mediocrity.” Don’t pick something that it too big to achieve. Start small. After all, you are where you are right now due to dozens of small changes or compromises you made in the past.

I realize the motivational speakers challenge us to strive for excellence. We should pick a goal that challenges us. But also pick a reasonable goal so you can see and enjoy some level of success. Short-term success can lead to greater success.

Third, expect difficulties. It seems like the moment you start a diet, people around you start inviting you to banquets and all-you-can-eat buffets. The day after you join a fitness club, your life gets busy and you cannot find time to get to the gym. The moment you decide to do a daily quiet time, your boss asks you to come in earlier for work.

Fourth, accept failure. You might find that for every two steps forward you take one step back. Sometimes you even take two steps back. This is where dedication and perseverance come into play.

Finally, plan a reward. This gives you a goal to achieve and a reward for your dedication. This is the first day of the year, so go for it.