4 ms·

> Addictions are a way to deal with deep-seated and excessive shame, guilt, fears, hopelessness, despair, and loneliness. Has this link been established? I hav

> Addictions are a way to deal with deep-seated and excessive shame, guilt, fears, hopelessness, despair, and loneliness. Has this link been established? I haven't got the impression that these things have such a causative link. People can be perfectly normal but have addictive tendencies where they can't touch things like alcohol or gambling, and then some people may be fairly miserable but not get addicted to things. Addictiveness always seemed like its own trait, and the claim that people who get addicted to things must be miserable better have some solid evidence behind it. Really not a fan of the whole trend of trying to tell people they have "deep seated problems".

crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
I used to think the same way. As an addict of 20+ years who's been in recovery for about a year, I hated hearing that my family system was something I needed to work on, as opposed to what seemed to me like more relevant/prescient issues of not being able to develop basic self-care behaviors/routines for myself. Then I came out of denial about being sexually traumatized numerous times by someone close to as a kid in March. The changes I've undergone since have been dramatic as hell & I became a completely different person within a week. I started learning to: speak my fears, say what's on my mind, abandon seeking the approval of others, let go of my anxieties, allow myself to feel my feelings, identify emotions I hadn't felt before or at least not since I was a kid, and more. I now think we need to tell people the most thorough approach to dealing with addiction starts with assuming there's a deep seated problem until another cause has been proven because that mindset helps break through any denial the addict may not be aware of. I was certain my experiences hadn't traumatized me & it was only after I developed the habit of questioning everything I thought about myself that I challenged the assumption it wasn't traumatic. The problem I foresee is people taking a less-than-compassionate approach or not educating the addict on the reasons for THE ADDICT to adopt that line of thinking. Once an addict is willing to admit they have a problem & to work on it, then we can ask the questions of how thorough they want to be with their recovery & whether or not they're willing to take a scientific approach for the sake of being thorough.
- projektir 10y ago
  This seems like you are talking your situation and trying to apply it to everyone else. This is exactly the kind of thing we must not do, because that's a lot of people to convince of deep-seated problems and a horrible thing to imply if we're wrong. I am not convinced even from your description that the causality is as you say. Addictions are often associated with substances or activities that are pleasant. It is not at all surprising that people who are in pain want to engage with pleasant substances or activities. So it is, again, not surprising, that some of those people may get addicted. Yet, many people don't. Many people successfully "self-medicate" with such substances in the worst of times and don't become hopelessly addicted to them, easily dropping them once the aggravating factor goes away, and sometimes the substance even helps. And then there are people on the other side, where their life is completely normal and can instantly go off the rails if they have even one beer. People for whom addiction isn't a solution for a problem, but the cause.
  - crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
    I'm not looking to convince anyone of having deep-seated problems. Here's a reframing of my argument. I think: - two sources of addiction that are the most difficult to identify are undiagnosed/unknown physical causes and undiagnosed/unknown psychological causes. - belief impacts the brain's ability to recognize or ignore patterns - medical professionals usually better able to diagnose/discover physical causes than patients because they've received a lot of training & have access to good tools for examining the patients - medical professionals need to practice assuming (ie. TEMPORARILY choosing to believe) something's physically wrong with the patient (especially since addictions has physical effects on the brain!) in order to reduce the incidents where a patient's issues are easily dismissed as psychosomatic - mental health professionals lack good tools for diagnosing/discovering mental issues & can't directly inspect a patient's psyche - patients can help mental health professionals diagnose/discover mental issues, as well as confirm the absence of any, by assuming (again...temporarily & only during the time when with the professional) they do have deep seated issues & they simply aren't aware of them Once someone's willing to explore their own psyche with curiosity and if they're willing to share w/the professional whatever comes to mind, they can start making a list of things in their past that seem questionable, including the things they normally wouldn't consider. If there's anything I'd like to convince people of, it's the benefits of learning how to temporarily challenge one's own standard patterns of thought, ie. having an open mind.
zasz 10y ago
Addiction is very much a function of the interplay between a person, their history, and their current environment, in addition to the addictive substance or activity. Many soldiers, while deployed to Vietnam, ended up addicted to cocaine. Yet when they returned home, the vast majority kicked the habit. Why? War is about a billion times more stressful than being home. They needed a coping mechanism, and they found one, albeit an unhealthy one. Removal of the environmental stressor removed the need for a drug addiction. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/05/371894919/what-heroin-addiction-tells-us-about-changing-bad-habits http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/05/37189491... In addition, addiction is often the result of sheer psychological immaturity: www.substance.com/most-people-with-addiction-simply-grow-out-of-it-why-is-this-widely-denied/13017/ Certainly, there are genetic factors that play into addiction. It is a complex phenomenon. But to say that someone developed an addiction because they have addictive traits is far too reductive.
- projektir 10y ago
  > Many soldiers, while deployed to Vietnam, ended up addicted to cocaine. Yet when they returned home, the vast majority kicked the habit. Why? War is about a billion times more stressful than being home. They needed a coping mechanism, and they found one, albeit an unhealthy one. Removal of the environmental stressor removed the need for a drug addiction. This doesn't seem a deep seated problem with the person, but a problem with their environment, like you said. That seems very different from what concinds is talking about. War is also a bad example in general because it tends to rearrange priorities. Can we even say that they were addicted? If I was in a war, I'd probably do a lot of unhealthy things, too, because a war is far more unhealthy than most of them. This doesn't really imply I would be addicted.
  - crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
    I disagree: war's a great example! War is traumatizing. I think self-medicating in the face of trauma is a natural response when other resources aren't available & it's not possible to escape the source of trauma. It's a survival mechanism that's no longer needed when the trauma's removed, or as you said, the person's no longer in the traumatic environment. While the drugs allow for survival, though, I don't think they prevent the sufferer from being traumatized. The drugs numb the pain, but not the effects, so PTSD could've still occurred, which can essentially bring the environment (and sometimes addiction) back home. I'm not certain "addicted" is accurate to describe we the soldiers who kicked the drugs because addiction has physical changes in the brain that come along with it.

crawfordcomeaux 10y ago

I used to think the same way. As an addict of 20+ years who's been in recovery for about a year, I hated hearing that my family system was something I needed to work on, as opposed to what seemed to me like more relevant/prescient issues of not being able to develop basic self-care behaviors/routines for myself. Then I came out of denial about being sexually traumatized numerous times by someone close to as a kid in March. The changes I've undergone since have been dramatic as hell & I became a completely different person within a week. I started learning to: speak my fears, say what's on my mind, abandon seeking the approval of others, let go of my anxieties, allow myself to feel my feelings, identify emotions I hadn't felt before or at least not since I was a kid, and more. I now think we need to tell people the most thorough approach to dealing with addiction starts with assuming there's a deep seated problem until another cause has been proven because that mindset helps break through any denial the addict may not be aware of. I was certain my experiences hadn't traumatized me & it was only after I developed the habit of questioning everything I thought about myself that I challenged the assumption it wasn't traumatic. The problem I foresee is people taking a less-than-compassionate approach or not educating the addict on the reasons for THE ADDICT to adopt that line of thinking. Once an addict is willing to admit they have a problem & to work on it, then we can ask the questions of how thorough they want to be with their recovery & whether or not they're willing to take a scientific approach for the sake of being thorough.

projektir 10y ago
This seems like you are talking your situation and trying to apply it to everyone else. This is exactly the kind of thing we must not do, because that's a lot of people to convince of deep-seated problems and a horrible thing to imply if we're wrong. I am not convinced even from your description that the causality is as you say. Addictions are often associated with substances or activities that are pleasant. It is not at all surprising that people who are in pain want to engage with pleasant substances or activities. So it is, again, not surprising, that some of those people may get addicted. Yet, many people don't. Many people successfully "self-medicate" with such substances in the worst of times and don't become hopelessly addicted to them, easily dropping them once the aggravating factor goes away, and sometimes the substance even helps. And then there are people on the other side, where their life is completely normal and can instantly go off the rails if they have even one beer. People for whom addiction isn't a solution for a problem, but the cause.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
  I'm not looking to convince anyone of having deep-seated problems. Here's a reframing of my argument. I think: - two sources of addiction that are the most difficult to identify are undiagnosed/unknown physical causes and undiagnosed/unknown psychological causes. - belief impacts the brain's ability to recognize or ignore patterns - medical professionals usually better able to diagnose/discover physical causes than patients because they've received a lot of training & have access to good tools for examining the patients - medical professionals need to practice assuming (ie. TEMPORARILY choosing to believe) something's physically wrong with the patient (especially since addictions has physical effects on the brain!) in order to reduce the incidents where a patient's issues are easily dismissed as psychosomatic - mental health professionals lack good tools for diagnosing/discovering mental issues & can't directly inspect a patient's psyche - patients can help mental health professionals diagnose/discover mental issues, as well as confirm the absence of any, by assuming (again...temporarily & only during the time when with the professional) they do have deep seated issues & they simply aren't aware of them Once someone's willing to explore their own psyche with curiosity and if they're willing to share w/the professional whatever comes to mind, they can start making a list of things in their past that seem questionable, including the things they normally wouldn't consider. If there's anything I'd like to convince people of, it's the benefits of learning how to temporarily challenge one's own standard patterns of thought, ie. having an open mind.

zasz 10y ago

Addiction is very much a function of the interplay between a person, their history, and their current environment, in addition to the addictive substance or activity. Many soldiers, while deployed to Vietnam, ended up addicted to cocaine. Yet when they returned home, the vast majority kicked the habit. Why? War is about a billion times more stressful than being home. They needed a coping mechanism, and they found one, albeit an unhealthy one. Removal of the environmental stressor removed the need for a drug addiction. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/05/371894919/what-heroin-addiction-tells-us-about-changing-bad-habits http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/05/37189491... In addition, addiction is often the result of sheer psychological immaturity: www.substance.com/most-people-with-addiction-simply-grow-out-of-it-why-is-this-widely-denied/13017/ Certainly, there are genetic factors that play into addiction. It is a complex phenomenon. But to say that someone developed an addiction because they have addictive traits is far too reductive.

projektir 10y ago
> Many soldiers, while deployed to Vietnam, ended up addicted to cocaine. Yet when they returned home, the vast majority kicked the habit. Why? War is about a billion times more stressful than being home. They needed a coping mechanism, and they found one, albeit an unhealthy one. Removal of the environmental stressor removed the need for a drug addiction. This doesn't seem a deep seated problem with the person, but a problem with their environment, like you said. That seems very different from what concinds is talking about. War is also a bad example in general because it tends to rearrange priorities. Can we even say that they were addicted? If I was in a war, I'd probably do a lot of unhealthy things, too, because a war is far more unhealthy than most of them. This doesn't really imply I would be addicted.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
  I disagree: war's a great example! War is traumatizing. I think self-medicating in the face of trauma is a natural response when other resources aren't available & it's not possible to escape the source of trauma. It's a survival mechanism that's no longer needed when the trauma's removed, or as you said, the person's no longer in the traumatic environment. While the drugs allow for survival, though, I don't think they prevent the sufferer from being traumatized. The drugs numb the pain, but not the effects, so PTSD could've still occurred, which can essentially bring the environment (and sometimes addiction) back home. I'm not certain "addicted" is accurate to describe we the soldiers who kicked the drugs because addiction has physical changes in the brain that come along with it.