6 ms·
> What isn't so well understood is why some people are so much more vulnerable to that process, and others so resistant, not to mention the continuum between th
by irishcoffee 10y ago
> What isn't so well understood is why some people are so much more vulnerable to that process, and others so resistant, not to mention the continuum between them. Unfortunately as far as I can read, this article doesn't offer any new information on that critical issue.
"Like most addictions, Townsend-Lyon’s gambling problem didn’t come out of nowhere. Similar to most women with addiction, she’d had a traumatic childhood—including emotional and physical abuse and ongoing sexual abuse by a close family member and another perpetrator. Also, like most women with addiction, she had pre-existing psychiatric problems; in her case, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder.
Studies of addicts show that trauma and certain genetic vulnerabilities—especially the two in combination—increase risk for a wide range of mental illnesses and a bewildering spectrum of addictions that include gambling, sex, alcohol, and opioids. The availability of escapist drugs and activities help determine what form the problem takes. But gambling and drugs themselves don’t cause addiction, a myth that often interferes with getting to the personal root of the problem."
- M_Grey 10y agoThat's more of a list of potential causes rather than working theories to explain them. After all, it's really boiling down to, "Well it's something to do with nature, nurture, or a combination of the two." We know that, what isn't so well known is just how that works and why some people with those risk factors don't seem to have the same problems as others who do.
- astazangasta 10y ago>what isn't so well known is just how that works What isn't well-known to me is what you'd accept as an explanation of "just how that works" - are you looking for a psychological explanation? A biochemical one? An anthropological one?
- M_Grey 10y agoA complete theory which can predict behavior and the correct responses to behavior, and which stands the test of time. I'm not sure how to label that... scientific?
- tremon 10y agoI hope we never achieve that level of proficiency in psychology (and in a way, we already do -- look at ads, and in-game purchasing strategies). I'm not at all interested in a world where individuals can be reduced to automatons for whom we can "predict and elicit the correct responses to behaviour".
- M_Grey 10y agoA complete theory of the dopamine reward system and its role in addiction, not a complete theory of every human being's psyche... is what I was pretty clearly talking about in context. No need to go all "future crime" on me and drag this so far off topic into the realm of speculation.
- posterboy 10y agoinstead of awareness about the limbic system I suppose gamblers, smokers, etc just lack statistical reasoning and other abilities that would inhibit the dream of winning. With the limbic system, maybe the strength varies and some are literally weak. Or, they underestimate the strength, perhaps because of statistical reasoning again. Most likely the effects vary individually. On the other hand, because of the limbic system everyone can become addicted. some people just take their chances and others are weary.
- astazangasta 10y agoSure, let's call it "scientific", but let's not imagine this will ever be "complete". Here's another question: what's a "complete" catalogue of behavior? What are the "correct" responses to behavior? These things don't exist; your attempt to produce a complete theory describing them is a doomed effort. Science is a liminal enterprise. Wriggle your little forearms in frustration all you like, you'll never have a "complete" understanding.
- crpatino 10y ago"Nature, nurture, or a combination of the two" is a gross mischaracterization. You have been given specific risk factors, of course you have to explore the specific mechanisms, but you have got a starting point. It is like saying that because some smokers don't get chronic respiratory disease, all observations of correlation are meaningless until someone proves the exact biochemical effects that link tobaco with such diseases.
- M_Grey 10y agoI said nothing even remotely like that.
- lexhaynes 10y agoI would have liked to know more about those "certain genetic vulnerabilities". Detailing THOSE would have made this article much more interesting. I'm disinclined to read the writer's book because of how rehashed her theory is.