4 ms·

> As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction. Isn't denying an addiction when told one has an addiction also the first sign of not having an

by messe 3y ago

> As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction. Isn't denying an addiction when told one has an addiction also the first sign of not having an addiction? "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" works well and good for a play, but doesn't really meet the traditional standards for evidence.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 3y ago
Yeah, this sounds like a Catch-22 of substance use: If you deny you have a problem, that proves the problem exists. If you affirm you have a problem, that's also proof the problem exists. > There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. -- Catch-22 by Joseph Heller Or if you prefer the Monty Python version [0]: > "Will you please listen!? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? HONESTLY!" > "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!" [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7zqP9QNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7zqP9QNo
omginternets 3y ago
I think we can agree that using a substance every waking moment is a major red flag.
- messe 3y ago
  Of course (well, there's some arguments to be made here with regard to prescribed drugs, but let's leave them aside for the minute). The only gripe I was addressing here was the idea that denial = guilt.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    That’s not quite how I read it. My guess is that the OP meant something closer to “constant consumption paired with the denial that it could perhaps be unhealthy is a strong predictor of addiction.” Going by that charitable interpretation, I think his point stands.
  - caddemon 3y ago
    I don't think the denial relates to the guilt so much as it relates to the probability the person will be able to ditch this habit when they need to. Given that someone has an addiction problem, they're far more likely to overcome it if they acknowledge it is a problem. If they don't currently acknowledge, then things will probably get worse before they can get better. So perhaps OPs statement should be framed moreso as "realization is the first step to recovery", but I get where they are coming from.
havblue 3y ago
I'd think their specific behavior is the sign of the problem. Is this a non sequential fallacy? I think the worst offender of this argument that I see on the internet is, "if this offends you, it proves that I'm right".

by messe 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Terr_ 3y ago

Yeah, this sounds like a Catch-22 of substance use: If you deny you have a problem, that proves the problem exists. If you affirm you have a problem, that's also proof the problem exists. > There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. -- Catch-22 by Joseph Heller Or if you prefer the Monty Python version [0]: > "Will you please listen!? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? HONESTLY!" > "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!" [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7zqP9QNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7zqP9QNo

omginternets 3y ago

I think we can agree that using a substance every waking moment is a major red flag.

messe 3y ago
Of course (well, there's some arguments to be made here with regard to prescribed drugs, but let's leave them aside for the minute). The only gripe I was addressing here was the idea that denial = guilt.
- omginternets 3y ago
  That’s not quite how I read it. My guess is that the OP meant something closer to “constant consumption paired with the denial that it could perhaps be unhealthy is a strong predictor of addiction.” Going by that charitable interpretation, I think his point stands.
- caddemon 3y ago
  I don't think the denial relates to the guilt so much as it relates to the probability the person will be able to ditch this habit when they need to. Given that someone has an addiction problem, they're far more likely to overcome it if they acknowledge it is a problem. If they don't currently acknowledge, then things will probably get worse before they can get better. So perhaps OPs statement should be framed moreso as "realization is the first step to recovery", but I get where they are coming from.

havblue 3y ago

I'd think their specific behavior is the sign of the problem. Is this a non sequential fallacy? I think the worst offender of this argument that I see on the internet is, "if this offends you, it proves that I'm right".