4 ms·

The very nature of addiction is that he's not completely free to make the choice, though.

by euyyn 9y ago

terminalcommand 9y ago
The question is, is it really an addiction? Can we specify it as a lifestyle choice? The individual in question thinks, has goals, becomes sad, happy and most importantly his intelligence is intact. He is not like an advanced heroine addict playing the same tape over and over again.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Coffee and tobacco are addictions that let your intelligence intact. It's a choice only as long as he's able to chose not to; otherwise it's an addiction.
  - bdamm 9y ago
    Not so. Addiction has a medical definition; it is the experience of craving. Thus, if the gamer in GP stops playing games, then experiences intense overwhelming craving for the game, he is addicted, and his thought processes are compromised as a result.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      Isn't that pretty much what I said?
      - svachalek 9y ago
        having a craving !== having no choice
        bdamm 9y ago
        Yes but I think the fine distinction is being lost. "having no choice" (such as social collapse) is not the same as "having a craving." But, psychotic obsession on the same outcome (to execute the addictive behavior), endlessly and for days, is effectively no choice. The suffering is real, and the suffering is temporarily relieved by satisfying the addiction. This is not the same as having no choice, but I don't want to marginalize the experience of addiction as merely "having a craving".
- prodmerc 9y ago
  It is if deep down he knows the Internet has fucked him. Maybe he looks back and thinks about all of that colossal waste of time he wanted to use for something else. And then he gets into the games and on Reddit and forgets everything. It's exactly like heroin (not the Wonder Woman type), the cycles are just longer.
harshreality 9y ago
What choices are any of us free to make? How long are we going to continue the probable charade of the existence of some ethereal "free will"? Ordinary choices we make are different from addictions not because we lack choice only in the narrow realm of addictions, but because addictions are harmful to normative human goals like self-sufficiency (job), relationships, and such. But relationships and self-sufficiency are both a matter of degree, and there's fuzziness about where something is harmful enough to justify psychological/pharma intervention. (Not that that's the only characteristic of addictions; they also seem to be very strong single-inputs (will this make me happy or be pleasurable now?) that are able to drive decision-making... short-circuiting all the other more normal evaluations, from a more balanced network of inputs: economic constraints, past experience, outcome prediction, social judgment... with immediate happiness normally only one factor, and often not even a very strong one.) There are other behaviors besides addictions that are harmful to self-sufficiency and relationships. Many of them are treated as mental health problems, especially when they're severe enough. Some aren't, though, and are considered just someone being quirky or eccentric. We (should) want to encourage diversity, while reducing the misery of people on the fringes who are engaged in truly self-destructive behaviors. But plenty of people we all know are only functioning in modern life because of medication—whether it's opiates, amphetamines, neurotransmitter modulators, marijuana, or whatever. Trying to improve people who are self-destructive is a noble goal, but when self-destruction seems closer and closer to the norm every day, intervention may make those people happier but it begins to reek of Brave New World. If the world is so fucked up that most people are either too addictable or too depressed (or too something) to function without assistance, what does it say about personal happiness or a functioning society if that can only exist with enough drugs to coerce people into doing "standard" things: maintain a job, a home, some relationships, etc? It seems to me that either we have to accept BNW's dystopia as more of a judgment-neutral prophecy than a cautionary tale, or we have to start politically outlawing things that are causing people to be so addicted or so distressed that they can't maintain reasonable productivity and happiness without medication. Unfortunately, the second option would involve wreaking havoc on the conservative and libertarian ideal of free markets (and maybe parts of the 1st amendment too), so we as a society seem hellbent on sleepwalking our way down the rabbit hole to the BNW "drug-everyone" scenario.
- 9y ago

The very nature of addiction is that he's not completely free to make the choice, though.

by euyyn 9y ago

The very nature of addiction is that he's not completely free to make the choice, though.

The question is, is it really an addiction? Can we specify it as a lifestyle choice? The individual in question thinks, has goals, becomes sad, happy and most importantly his intelligence is intact. He is not like an advanced heroine addict playing the same tape over and over again.

euyyn 9y ago
Coffee and tobacco are addictions that let your intelligence intact. It's a choice only as long as he's able to chose not to; otherwise it's an addiction.
- bdamm 9y ago
  Not so. Addiction has a medical definition; it is the experience of craving. Thus, if the gamer in GP stops playing games, then experiences intense overwhelming craving for the game, he is addicted, and his thought processes are compromised as a result.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Isn't that pretty much what I said?
    - svachalek 9y ago
      having a craving !== having no choice
      - bdamm 9y ago
        Yes but I think the fine distinction is being lost. "having no choice" (such as social collapse) is not the same as "having a craving." But, psychotic obsession on the same outcome (to execute the addictive behavior), endlessly and for days, is effectively no choice. The suffering is real, and the suffering is temporarily relieved by satisfying the addiction. This is not the same as having no choice, but I don't want to marginalize the experience of addiction as merely "having a craving".
prodmerc 9y ago
It is if deep down he knows the Internet has fucked him. Maybe he looks back and thinks about all of that colossal waste of time he wanted to use for something else. And then he gets into the games and on Reddit and forgets everything. It's exactly like heroin (not the Wonder Woman type), the cycles are just longer.

harshreality 9y ago

What choices are any of us free to make? How long are we going to continue the probable charade of the existence of some ethereal "free will"? Ordinary choices we make are different from addictions not because we lack choice only in the narrow realm of addictions, but because addictions are harmful to normative human goals like self-sufficiency (job), relationships, and such. But relationships and self-sufficiency are both a matter of degree, and there's fuzziness about where something is harmful enough to justify psychological/pharma intervention. (Not that that's the only characteristic of addictions; they also seem to be very strong single-inputs (will this make me happy or be pleasurable now?) that are able to drive decision-making... short-circuiting all the other more normal evaluations, from a more balanced network of inputs: economic constraints, past experience, outcome prediction, social judgment... with immediate happiness normally only one factor, and often not even a very strong one.) There are other behaviors besides addictions that are harmful to self-sufficiency and relationships. Many of them are treated as mental health problems, especially when they're severe enough. Some aren't, though, and are considered just someone being quirky or eccentric. We (should) want to encourage diversity, while reducing the misery of people on the fringes who are engaged in truly self-destructive behaviors. But plenty of people we all know are only functioning in modern life because of medication—whether it's opiates, amphetamines, neurotransmitter modulators, marijuana, or whatever. Trying to improve people who are self-destructive is a noble goal, but when self-destruction seems closer and closer to the norm every day, intervention may make those people happier but it begins to reek of Brave New World. If the world is so fucked up that most people are either too addictable or too depressed (or too something) to function without assistance, what does it say about personal happiness or a functioning society if that can only exist with enough drugs to coerce people into doing "standard" things: maintain a job, a home, some relationships, etc? It seems to me that either we have to accept BNW's dystopia as more of a judgment-neutral prophecy than a cautionary tale, or we have to start politically outlawing things that are causing people to be so addicted or so distressed that they can't maintain reasonable productivity and happiness without medication. Unfortunately, the second option would involve wreaking havoc on the conservative and libertarian ideal of free markets (and maybe parts of the 1st amendment too), so we as a society seem hellbent on sleepwalking our way down the rabbit hole to the BNW "drug-everyone" scenario.

9y ago