This is an ongoing debate that comes up from time-to-time, and I think it’s a nuance that both has merit but also potentially detracts from the efforts of peopl

This is an ongoing debate that comes up from time-to-time, and I think it’s a nuance that both has merit but also potentially detracts from the efforts of people who want to change. Most commonly I’ve heard it come up in the context of “sex addiction” or “porn addiction”. For me, I’m on the side of “compulsive behaviours that have a negative effect on your life, and yet you continue to do them consistently” is the definition of “practical addiction” for me, and the “negative effect” part is critical, not the distinction between “chemical/physiological” and “psychological”. Does the person who spends 6 hours/day refreshing HN have an addiction? Maybe, maybe not! Are they underperforming at work because they can’t stop themselves? Maybe it is a problem they should get help addressing. Does someone who must take an anti-depressant every day, lest they go into withdrawal, have an addiction? Probably not, even though they’re chemically dependent on it, it likely makes their life better not worse. For me, the mechanism of action matters significantly less than the effects and outcomes when you define addiction.