4 ms·

To add something here: everything is considered addiction nowadays: over-eating, sex, shopping, etc. Not to derail the discussion but isn't it too much? I'm u

To add something here: everything is considered addiction nowadays: over-eating, sex, shopping, etc. Not to derail the discussion but isn't it too much? I'm under impression that today anyone who enjoys something more than we would like them to do so in immediately labeled an addict.

shredprez 7y ago
I think I've gotten a different impression. There's definitely a casual use of the word "addict" that is well-understood to be different than clinical, destructive addiction. And that destruction is obviously where the distinction lies. One might label themselves a "coffee addict" because they spend a lot of money on coffee or find themselves more dependent on it than they might like. But I think the average person recognizes that is very different from a spending addiction that leaves you $100,000 in debt and fired from your job because you can't stop shopping online when you should be working.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  I have no problem with the distinction you presented. The problem I have is with organizations like WHO that pathologize normal behaviors. In 2018 WHO not only added "sex" to their addiction list. They also added computer games. Not to mention "toxic masculinity" "disorder". So, these are now "well understood clinical destructive addictions" too? Because, hey, this is what clinical psychologists in places like EU use to diagnose "disorders" and "addictions". ICD is the name of the diagnostic book issued by WHO and yes, stuff like this was added by them in 2018 into the latest iteration of ICD-11. So if you happen to be more conservative than WHO would like you to be, don't be surprised to be labeled "computer games addict" (targeted specifically at males, somehow there is no "social media addiction" mentioned that would target females), "toxic masculinity disordered", "homophobic" too. They should change name to "clinical liberal ideology" or more honestly "New Middle Ages Crusaders" for all I care. This is not science anymore and I think ideologist running ideologies like "psychology" are on the collision course with majority of population. Actually have been for some time. Which we know from elections results in places like US (Trump), UK (Brexit), France (Le Pen), Germany (AfD), Eastern Europe, not to mention places where I don't think anyone pays attention to their left-invented disorders like Russia and China. Wondering how it will play out for them long term. But hey, this is the risk you take when you decide to be more of an ideologist than scientist.

shredprez 7y ago

I think I've gotten a different impression. There's definitely a casual use of the word "addict" that is well-understood to be different than clinical, destructive addiction. And that destruction is obviously where the distinction lies. One might label themselves a "coffee addict" because they spend a lot of money on coffee or find themselves more dependent on it than they might like. But I think the average person recognizes that is very different from a spending addiction that leaves you $100,000 in debt and fired from your job because you can't stop shopping online when you should be working.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
I have no problem with the distinction you presented. The problem I have is with organizations like WHO that pathologize normal behaviors. In 2018 WHO not only added "sex" to their addiction list. They also added computer games. Not to mention "toxic masculinity" "disorder". So, these are now "well understood clinical destructive addictions" too? Because, hey, this is what clinical psychologists in places like EU use to diagnose "disorders" and "addictions". ICD is the name of the diagnostic book issued by WHO and yes, stuff like this was added by them in 2018 into the latest iteration of ICD-11. So if you happen to be more conservative than WHO would like you to be, don't be surprised to be labeled "computer games addict" (targeted specifically at males, somehow there is no "social media addiction" mentioned that would target females), "toxic masculinity disordered", "homophobic" too. They should change name to "clinical liberal ideology" or more honestly "New Middle Ages Crusaders" for all I care. This is not science anymore and I think ideologist running ideologies like "psychology" are on the collision course with majority of population. Actually have been for some time. Which we know from elections results in places like US (Trump), UK (Brexit), France (Le Pen), Germany (AfD), Eastern Europe, not to mention places where I don't think anyone pays attention to their left-invented disorders like Russia and China. Wondering how it will play out for them long term. But hey, this is the risk you take when you decide to be more of an ideologist than scientist.