Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
banana

Addiction - medical reality vs. willpower?

Recommended Posts

banana    1,660

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/02/the-fantasy-of-addiction

Quote

The chief difficulty with the word “addiction” is the idea that it describes a power greater than the will. If it exists in the way we use it and in the way our legal and medical systems assume it exists, then free will has been abolished. I know there are people who think and argue this is so. But this is not one of those things that can be demonstrated by falsifiable experiment. In the end, the idea that humans do not really have free will is a contentious opinion, not an objective fact.

So to use the word “addiction” is to embrace one side in one of those ancient unresolved debates that cannot be settled this side of the grave.

-

...conscious choice plays little or no role in the actual state of addiction; as a result, a person cannot choose not to be addicted. The most an addict can do is choose not to use the substance or engage in the behavior that reinforces the entire self-destructive reward-circuitry loop. So even if the supposed “addict” ceases (as many do) to be “addicted” in practice to the addictive substance or activity, he remains “addicted” in some spiritual, subjective way, which cannot actually be seen in his behavior.

Is there any excuse for addiction other than lack of willpower, poor choices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
banana    1,660
6 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Can you give me a similar article from the lancet and I'll come to a view.

It's a philosophical question trying to put some of the medical view in some kind of perspective. For example, how do placebos rate in addiction treatment? - post something up!

6 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Largely a willpower guy IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy Giles    2,354

Erm... no. And anyone who thinks that something that not only destroys lives but takes them is simply down to willpower isn't worth listening to.

Neither are sexist bigot sympathisers tbh, so I'm not sure why I'm giving you the time of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
invergowrie arab    2,648
4 minutes ago, banana said:

It's a philosophical question trying to put some of the medical view in some kind of perspective. For example, how do placebos rate in addiction treatment? - post something up!

 

A back and forth with a reactionary bigot discussing something they dont understand , based upon an article that dismisses medical evidence on the basis that it doesn't fit with their world view?

Do you mind if I don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanMc99    36

you are a bemused,crackbrained,flipped out, in the ozone, unbalanced,unhinged, non compos mentis whacked out beheamoth 

#nooffence

Edited by DanMc99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
welshbairn    5,444

Peter Hitchens, who spent his life trying creep out from under the shadow of his older and far wiser brother Christopher, is now trying to compete with Katie Hopkins.

Edited by welshbairn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigFatTabbyDave    2,051

Best of luck to the OP in sorting out whatever real life problem has driven him back to the land of internet trolling. Fingers crossed that the inevitable angry responses provide the required short-term emotional crutch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smpar    1,757

banana probably thinks that mental health is a myth and racism should be seen as a positive thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NotThePars    1,578
Peter Hitchens, who spent his life trying creep out from under the shadow of his older and far wiser brother Christopher, is now trying to emulate Katie Hopkins.


I like Peter Hitchens (despite disagreeing with 90% of his world view) and I find him to be less of an insufferable arse than his brother. Also you have to consider him outlasting his brother as a victory for the religious minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ICTChris    5,295

It's fairly obvious that certain chemicals are habit-forming and can be extremely harmful in the long run.

I think when people say that addiction is a disease it can be a simplificiation - some people give up taking drugs entirely on their own, other people are unable to do so.  I read this article about it a few years back, it has some interesting details -http://www.peele.net/lib/hungry.html.  The points one of the studies that the article quotes are instructive

Quote

 1) identifying a problem with the agreement of the addict, 2) believing change is possible, 3) placing primary responsibility on the addict for carrying out the change, 4) accepting reductions in use as well as abstinence, and 5) following up to let addicts know someone cares and wants to make sure they stay on course.

It kind of reminds me of the Hearing Voices Movement, if anyone is interested in mental health treatment.  That tries to support people who hear voices to work through the reasons why they hear voices rather than adopt the blunt approach of "hearing voices = mental, get on these drugs for the rest of your life".  http://www.intervoiceonline.org/ is the main organisation.

It's an interesting subject, it's sad that one of the forum's biggest bores has started this thread.  Peter Hitchens makes a good living out of the same sort of thing as well.   He is right about skimmed milk though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Menzel    686

You could have stopped after the other thread OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweeperDee    1,213

Don't think the OP knows much about the BIS/BAS model,  the numerous approaches to risk-taking behaviour, and an individuals propensity to engage in risk-taking behaviour. 

Probably think individuals who punt their wages on gambling every day of the week just can't help themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
banana    1,660
42 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I think when people say that addiction is a disease it can be a simplificiation - some people give up taking drugs entirely on their own, other people are unable to do so.  I read this article about it a few years back, it has some interesting details -http://www.peele.net/lib/hungry.html.

Great read at that link, there seems to be a lot of conflicting/camps of evidence/thought. As well as the bit you quoted, this jumped out at me:

Quote

The main factor in successful resolution of a drug or alcohol problem is the ability to find rewards in ordinary existence and to form caring relationships with people who are not addicts. By looking instead for a magical elixir just over the horizon, NIDA and the NIAAA give short shrift to the individual circumstances that are crucial to understanding why some people abuse drugs.

Those two bits get at Hitchens argument. That is habit-forming 'addiction' of whatever kind (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, food, ...) is nested inside wider personal situations/issues - fixing the root issues has greater impact, and these fixes require taking responsibility for and control of your life. The deeper point being that to submit to "It's a disease, stupid!" is to shy from the existence of free will, your own agency, which is pretty fucking bleak. That the choice is there to go to the pub or not, to buy the pint or not, to leave after two or not, to get help or not, to take the prescribed medicine/course of action or not.

Edited by banana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×