Addiction

[deleted_user]

The phenomenon of addictive behavior is very human. Because it's very human we know not much about it.

Seemingly a product of the mind the concept and concern of addiction has not escaped philosophical discussion and dates as far back as the (tentative) genesis of western philosophy: Socrates. His ideas are expressed in Plato’s dialogue Protagoras. The concept of addictive behavior is represented by the word akrasia, meaning, “lack of self-control, acting against one’s best interests.”

Socrates denounces akrasia on the whole. He argues there is no such thing as acting against one’s best interests, for if a man is presented two choices, of doing what he perceives as good for himself and as bad for himself, he will always choose that which he perceives as good. Addictive actions pursued to harmful ends entails a lack of wisdom, he might say, and a possession of ignorance and inability to assess the true facts of a situation. He likens an analogy, an optical illusion: like a child who holds his thumb before the moon and mistakes it as larger, we tend to overestimate immediate pleasures and underestimate their long-term consequences. Therefore, addictive behavior appears to be a moral or intellectual failure.

This is in direct contradiction with perhaps the world’s largest addictive rehabilitation "institute" today, Alcoholics Anonymous. (Note: Narcotics Anonymous, and similar orgs, operate on the same 12-step, non-hierarchical pretense). AA presents a model of addiction as a “disease” in which an afflicted individual quite literally lacks any control to moderate use (compulsion). AA’s program is religious in nature but not necessarily in entirety. AA requires a high level of commitment for success, psychologists have found, as the program offers an idea of transcendence, a “spiritual awakening,” a complete change of world view as one accepts one’s faults, uncontrollability, and place under god. This surrendering of individual power is said to be an inheritor of “Counter-Enlightenment” thought -- that man cannot be made to be a perfect manifestation of his will, or so.

Perhaps addiction lies somewhere between the two? In that it is not a purely compulsive act and not an utter fabrication to justify mans’ failings -- in that one can be understood as both a non moral failure and as an agent of accountability.

Plato takes this sort of middle ground. In a later dialogue he argues the soul is like a chariot: reason and intellect the driver, with one horse being of noble breed, being the spirit, and the other the appetite, stubborn, “deaf as a post,” and wanting to gallop off at any moment. Maneuvering life is an inevitably difficult process. This is Plato's famous tripartite soul.

Modern philosophers might agree on this idea of distinction. Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman presents a model of the mind which consists of two parts, one of immediate, intuitive, unconscious judgment, and the other which thinks slower, more rational, and more conscious. Such a model is widely accepted in psychology today.

One idea is that addictive behavior tends to “hijack” the quicker thought process to take complete control over an individual’s decision-making process. Such an idea is stated in DSM IV, which, while referring to addictive use as a disorder rather than a disease, uses compulsive behavior and wording in line with 12-step programs.

There is real evidence addicted individuals undergo bioneurological changes which manipulate dopamine release and receptors to increase cravings, this is true. However there is not evidence that such neurological changes make an individual utterly helpless. In fact, there is evidence which suggests otherwise.

Studies have found that completely untreated addicts tend to “mature out” of use around late 20s, early 30s. The exception are individuals who suffer from additional psychological disorders. Various phenomena support this. Vietnam opiate addicts which were also psychiatric patients were 5x more likely to relapse than their non-patient counterparts. The notorious and corroborated “Rat Park” study found that rats in caged isolation drank drug-infused water in large quantities, but the same rats, when placed in a co-sex enclosure complete with proper recreation, drank the un-tainted water (even through withdrawls). And many human addicts, when given relatively modest compensation for periods of abstaining, do so (in fact there are rehabilitation efforts which provide rewards for in-patient abstinence, to good effect). How can compulsion be argued from this?

One such philosopher, Hanna Pickard, instead presents five factors which all contribute to addictive behavior, but which do not imply compulsion: 1) habitual desire (bionuerology), 2) willpower (it is like a muscle, easy to exhaust but able to be built), 3) [sufficient] motivation (for abstinence) 4) function (to self medicate), and 5) resolve (cannot help someone unless they wish to help themselves). Such factors can explain the phenomenon of “maturing out” and why one may use substances in the first place, as a sort of quasi-rational choice to ease pain, deepend by neurobiological changes in the brain. It argues to achieve addictive rehabilitation psychological treatment of comorbid disorders must first be resolved, or chronic use will persist.

If this is true, which there seems to be large evidence that it is very nearly true, addiction is not something one can be merely held unaccountable for. The five factors provide enormous understanding behind an addict's actions. But does it imply moral failing?

There exists discussion between what might be considered as one’s “true self” and what may not. As Plato and other philosophers agree, there is some separation of ourselves, of our mind/soul, desires/goals. Which then is our most “true self?” Varying theories exist, but most are expressed like so: “the desires that I want myself to have, the desires that align with my judgments of what is valuable , the desires that cohere with my stable life plans, or the desires that are supported by rational deliberation.”

It appears it possible one may indulge in harmful, addictive behavior and not necessarily be a piece of shit at their core. People make choices relative their psychological and environmental circumstances.

This all then arrives at the very interesting and pertinent question of what should the legal approach to drug use, addicts, and addictive behavior be?

The “war on drugs” uses a very Socratic philosophy on the whole -- it treats the activity itself as a criminal offense and punishes accordingly. It alleges: if the law can show users the heinous consequences of their actions, they will be absolved of ignorance, gain knowledge, and pursue the actions that are instead, nearly unequivocally, “better” for them. This approach is empirically uneffective. Instead, what occurs is a worsening of most of the five factors for addiction.

This is why programs such as needle exchange and decriminalizing legislation are providing promising data on addict rehabilitation. While perhaps counter-intuitive, it is based off that notion that the self and mind is not necessarily a singular, thinking, wishing thing, which leads to the paradox of akrasia. At the root of it, addicts understand the negative consequences of their behavior, for which there are many. They seldom wish to remain in such a rut, recognizing the opportunities and rational benefits of sobriety.

Therefore providing public resources for addicts to assist in the resolution of comorbid psychological disorders, providing resources to eliminate the poor safety which accompanies illegal behavior, and understanding such measures are not “enabling” immoral behavior, but rather providing resources to allow the individual to lessen the pull on his chariot from the appetites, and instead give him more control over the other beast, their reason -- their true self.

Addiction is a societal dilemma. Society’s perception of addiction is integral in societal reclamation.

THOUGHTS?

Sources: too lazy to cite in-text

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/3 ... philosophy

https://www.hannapickard.com/uploads/3/ ... 41/pca.pdf

many wikipedias

[gibson]

dumb post

[fightinfrenchman]

This is why programs such as needle exchange and decriminalizing legislation are providing promising data on addict rehabilitation. While perhaps counter-intuitive, it is based off that notion that the self and mind is not necessarily a singular, thinking, wishing thing, which leads to the paradox of akrasia. At the root of it, addicts understand the negative consequences of their behavior. They seldom wish to remain in such a rut, recognizing the opportunities and rational benefits of sobriety.

This is so hugely important. The war on drugs, and by extension opposition to things like needle exchanges are based on pointless moral judgments, and have no basis in actually solving any sort of problem. People just want to punish those who engage in self-destructive behavior (although I will admit that purchasing and consuming certain illegal drugs has other negative effects beyond yourself), and even if you show them that these programs actually reduce illegal drug use they will still oppose them. But at a base level that is just how people perceive the justice system: is it meant to reduce criminal activities that are bad for society (good) or simply punish those who commit them (dumb and bad).

The "war on drugs" is easily the most damaging and counterproductive domestic program the US has engaged in, at least in modern times. However I am somewhat optimistic that things might change regarding people's views on addiction in the coming years, even if that is for a pretty shitty reason (opioid addiction being more likely to affect white people).

[deleted_user]

Hanna Pickard's work on addiction is something else! I really admire her.

https://www.hannapickard.com/uploads/3/ ... ickard.pdf

https://www.hannapickard.com/uploads/3/ ... ickard.pdf

[rsy]

I am addicted to chewing gum at work and in class

[Snuden]

Good topic. Addiction ruins many lives all over the world.

I might revisit this thread at a later time, but now I REALLY want some coffee.

[deleted_user]

Good topic. Addiction ruins many lives all over the world.

I might revisit this thread at a later time, but now I REALLY want some coffee.

Good thing the worst effects of a coffee addiction are likely just a hurty-head and snarkier-than-normal morning remarks.

I could use a cup too... not because it makes me poop, but because it excites me and the fact it makes me poop is just an acceptable side effect.

[Googol]

I am addicted to Στέφανος Χίος’s opinions and statements, I’m watching him too much.

[deleted_user]

#ModTheEar

[AraGun]

What do you expect? You basically covered everything on the psychological and mechanical aspects of addiction.

I can add that addiction started before Adam and Eve ate the apple from the forbidden tree and will forever be a part of humanity, until the end of this current system of things at least.
I dont like to talk about religion but since you started this topic I can go ahead and say this at least: Addiction is a product of the lack of self control or better judgement thus meaning humans are not perfect creatures as god intended for us to be.
There is no way around it for the time being so I dont know what you hope to accomplish having a discussion about this.

[XeeleeFlower]

Here's a really great article

Anything that gives one pleasure, has the potential to be an addiction. More people have access to things that give us pleasure - drugs, alcohol, gaming, etc. Combine that with the fact that so many people feel lonely, depressed, etc. in our ever connected, yet so very disconnected world, and one can clearly understand why addictions are far more prevalent now than in prior years.

I feel that escapism is at the very core of addictions. In the past, people could escape in healthy ways, such as by daydreaming and/or engaging in the arts - reading, writing, painting, etc. None of these things cause physical harm. Think of how you were as a child and what gave you pleasure then - playing with a new toy, using your imagination as you played in different worlds, coloring pictures, etc. Over time, one does not gain the same amount of joy from the same things. As you grow, the realities of the world grow heavier, thus you crave a deeper escape, something that will give you more pleasure. Some people are able to moderate themselves, others are not. This has a lot to do with their genetic makeup.

Just some quick thoughts.

[deleted_user]

Here's a really great article

Anything that gives one pleasure, has the potential to be an addiction. More people have access to things that give us pleasure - drugs, alcohol, gaming, etc. Combine that with the fact that so many people feel lonely, depressed, etc. in our ever connected, yet so very disconnected word, and one can clearly understand why addictions are far more prevalent now than in prior years.

I feel that escapism is at the very core of addictions. In the past, people could escape in healthy ways, such as by daydreaming and/or engaging in the arts - reading, writing, painting, etc. None of these things cause physical harm. Think of how you were as a child and what gave you pleasure then - playing with a new toy, using your imagination as you played in different worlds, coloring pictures, etc. Over time, one does not gain the same amount of joy from the same things. As you grow, the realities of the world grow heavier, thus you crave a deeper escape, something that will give you more pleasure. Some people are able to moderate themselves, others are not. This has a lot to do with their genetic makeup.

Just some quick thoughts.

Interesting remark: in that article the man says, "It was either the cliff or Dr. ______."

Hanna Pickard mentions how addict-patients frequently have what she calls a "suicide card" in their back pocket. They go about day to day life with the consolation that at any moment it becomes too great they can just end it. She goes on to explain how detrimental this mindset is for recovery, it represents a discarding of any short-term suffering for long-term benefit, a process which must occur for rehabilitation.

Comorbid psychological disorders are a real dampener to the hopeful recoverer.

[lejend]

-

[deleted_user]

From what I've heard former addicts say, there's truth to both sides.

There are metaphysical dimensions to this that a lot of people prefer not to confront. Put simply, humans are heavily attracted by evil and can't defeat it by relying wholly on ourselves.

But at the same time, addiction is not something that just "happens" to you. It is not just a "disease", it is a moral failing, and recognizing this is an important step toward recovery. Telling people that it's not their fault, while seemingly a kind thing to say, sometimes does more harm than good. Depriving people of agency ironically functions very much like a drug; it provides a brief and ultimately empty stress-relief or pleasure boost, but it won't lead to happiness. It might make addicts feel accepted and not judged temporarily, but inevitably they'll succumb to despondency and continue dipping into addiction. People should learn that they have a will and the ability to choose good over bad. They are not helpless products of their circumstances. They gotta snap out of it, and get mad about the fact that they don't have the life they want. Passion is, "love and anger combined"; dreams rarely go unachieved when you have these two things working for you. It's kind of like this song, to be honest:

phpBB [video]

#ModTheEar

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Jam]

This is what I think, it's conceptual and probably incomplete. Socrates does not recognize that there are both unconscious and conscious aspects of the mind and so a compulsion does not necessarily reflect what one wants to do or thinks is the best thing to do. Instead we can ignore the imaginary distinction between the body and brain as separate from the environment, and recognize that the conscious experience is created by the brain and therefore by the environment. So then the self is attempts to control the environment of its own brain in the same way that we try control the world around us. Because the self is created by the environment, it serves as a regulatory feedback loop of the environment that is contained within the brain and processes interactions between the brain and the rest of the environment. This can result in maintenance function manifesting as repeated patterns of thought, perception, and emotions. In this case, addiction is a recurring pattern of thoughts resulting in behaviors that regulate a negative environment through the use of substances to augment regulation or compensate for the ineffective regulation of the self. Since the substances change the environment they can change the regulatory mechanism, causing addiction. The ability of psychedelic drugs to disrupt ingrained patterns of thought, connect activities within the brain, and cause a meaningful experience
may be a reason that they are able to treat addiction. The underlying problem is then the negative environment. The regulatory mechanism attempts to maintain in the face of environmental change and is able to buffer against small changes. This also means that when the environment changes then the self can also change. However, when it fails the regulatory mechanism breaks down, and new mechanisms are formed. This means that changes to the self result from large changes in the environment that we call meaningful experiences. However in the case of mental illness, the self is unable to correctly regulate due to serious defects in the brain which produces the self. So a person may turn to substance abuse as a substitute.

[gamevideo113]

Very interesting topic, as you also say addiction is still something that is not wholly understood yet (neurophysiology and neuropathology are continuously being explored but we are far from really understanding how the brain actually works, we can only have some schematic and essential understanding of the nervous system). I haven't had the chance to dive into this matter deeply yet, so this post will contain mainly some basic scientific facts about anatomy and neurophysiology, which i find interesting. Eventually i'll also add my opinion but i don't think i have much to add to the original post which is already quite complete by itself.

So, let me start with introducing you to the limbic system, which some of you might already be familiar with, but i'll try to give a proper explaination, hopefully without conceptual mistakes (grammatical ones will definitely be there), so take everything with a grain of salt.
Basically the limbic system is a very philogenetically ancestral formation located in our brain. It does not have a specific and confined location, as many parts of the brain contribute to the operation of this system, such as the frontal lobes, the olfactory bulbs and all the olfactory circuits, as well as some other parts like the hippocampus and others that you can see in this image:

This is the part of our brain that rules over most of our instincts, conscious or unconscious homeostatic reactions (thermoregulation, seeking food, building a home, finding a partner, etc...), it is also related to our olfactory pathways (less developed animals use this system to build their relational life through smells) and it has a role in memory consolidation (a specific smell can make us remind of memories from years and years ago).
The limbic system basically is there in order to make sure that we act with the purpose of surviving and having a successful offspring. It can be found anywhere across the wide multitude of animal species (particularly mammals) that populate our planet. It has relevant role in every animal, from the most insinctive and least rational of the animals, to us humans, although we also have more developed cortical areas and our neural activity isn't limited to pursuing survival and well being. (Quoting my neurophisiology professor: "How we do things has changed a lot over the course of evolution, why we do things, on the other hand, has remained remarkably the same".)

The limbic system, as you can guess, is heavily related to other formations of the brain which are involved in motivational and gratification processes, such as the nucleus accumbens (target of many dopaminergic synapses, which are the cause of the good feeling we get in physiological situations but also in pathological circumstances, such as from addicting actions/substances), other basal ganglia and other truncal formations. In short, we are engineered to pursue our well being, and when we experience something that makes us feel good, our brain says "go for it again!" because it recognizes that "something" as a positive interaction for our successfulness as individual and species. This can sometimes result in an aberrant behaviour though, as not everything that makes us feel good is necessarily also good for us.

It's also crucial that synapses are very plastic, and our experiences can change the way neural cells connect and with each other considerably. Developing an addiction means also that our brain gets "wired" in a particular way, so we can definitely say that there is physical and objective ground for these sorts of pathology.

This is why, as you say, i think someone who develops any sort of addiction can't be simply be labelled as a "piece of shit". Addiction is an aberration of the motivation/reward system and can be considered under many points of view as an actual clinical pathology, it's not just a lack of responsibility on the part of the person.

When a major motivation is missing in our life (getting a degree, building a relationship, completing a project), some of us might tend to fall into vicious circles where we only seek short term gratification (since we are not familiar with long term gratification), forgetting the greater good we are really capable of. We tend to close ourselves to the world and the more we detach from the rest of the world, the more our addiction can become severe and intense, as it is the only thing that can make us feel good and forget about our condition, for how short the effect might last (this is purely from a psychological point of view, take for example gambling; other addictions like alcohol and drug addictions can also have a deleterious effect on our physical health and can cause other kinds of addiction, with more concrete physical addiction). Addicted people often even feel bad and frustrated and they have a very low consideration of themselves, which makes the situation even worse, because they can only find relief from these terrible feelings by running to their addiction again and again.

In the end we don't know why some people develop addictions more easily than others and why are some addictions more sever than others, the factors that come into play are probably uncountable. What we do know is that addictions are not something we can be immune to, so we need to watch out and take good care of ourselves.

P.S.:I hope i made some sense and didn't just write a bunch of obvious stuff