3 ms·

Your link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction Now lets go through each of

Your link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction Now lets go through each of them cited in the bad wikipedia write up. Sexual addiction: Not in the DSMV or even the updated DSM-5-TR. Not in the ICD-10 or ICD-11 (pre-release). Gambling addiction: The only one grandfathered in to the DSM. It's in DSMV. Probably to be removed in later versions "The DSM-V has since reclassified pathological gambling as gambling disorder..." ref: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9449-2 https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9449-2 . Also not in ICD-10 or ICD-11. Internet addiction: "Excessive Internet use has not been recognized as a disorder by the World Health Organization, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)." "The American Psychiatric Association (APA), while stating there is insufficient evidence for the inclusion of Internet gaming disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013, considered it worthy of further study." And now lets go back to sugar and accepting your moving the goalposts to "food addiction" (another unsupported concept): You say that it is a purely psychological "addiction" with no physiological aspect and I agree. It's not an addiction. Those are called habits. Read more at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179181/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179181/ "Food Addiction in the Light of DSM-5" to understand how this societal fear meme fails to fulfill the requirements of an actual addition disorder.

mandmandam 3y ago
This pedantry isn't appropriate. Sugar is addictive, in the sense that people understand the term: "It hacks your brain and makes you want more, despite it being real bad for you". That's millions of years of evolution at work. OP never claimed any of what you're straw-manning. Btw, the APA colluded to torture people [0]. That's not something a credible or reputable organization does. I know, they fired four people and said sorry - it's not enough. I don't care about their view on what addiction is in the slightest, and nor should any of us. 0 - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/almost-addicted/201507/how-psychologists-and-the-apa-colluded-in-torture https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/almost-addicted/2015...
jstarfish 3y ago
The APA and DSM-V will be credible resources when anybody in the entire institution of psychiatry manages to reliably correct a single psychiatric disorder they've identified. CBT is just dog training applied to humans. Beyond that neat little trick they're just a pill-pushing standards committee. Where they don't succeed, or get taken for suckers too many times, they take to reclassifying disorders to pave over their failures. You don't need to have corrected multiple personality disorder or Munchausen syndrome when you can quietly rename them and obfuscate just how often you get it catastrophically wrong. When your failures end up committing suicide, they won't be testifying against you later. That they're denying excessive internet use outs them as either incompetent-- or complicit. FAANG hires psychologists to help in algorithm design to engineer these specific ends. You can't identify gambling addiction is a problem while your own people are the ones consulting on development of gambling algorithms. That would be unethical, and look very bad for you. #mentalhealthawareness! We won't acknowledge sex addiction as real, but we're totally qualified to treat it! Notice how doctors quietly stopped advocating for circumcision of all male infants. When we look at what they've been recommending for generations--and their rationalizations--it makes them look like savages ("They don't feel the pain! They don't remember the pain! Women prefer it! It prevents HIV, maybe! You don't speak English? No problem, just sign here."). They have no skin in the game (and now, neither do you) beyond adding an additional line item to mom's invoice. (I'm not anti-medicine, just disillusioned in how little these institutions ever acknowledge wrongdoing or complicity.)
nonethewiser 3y ago
How can you call it a psychological addiction then say its not an addiction? Remember you claimed he was spreading disinformation, not that you disagree about how to split hairs in terms of defining addiction.

mandmandam 3y ago

This pedantry isn't appropriate. Sugar is addictive, in the sense that people understand the term: "It hacks your brain and makes you want more, despite it being real bad for you". That's millions of years of evolution at work. OP never claimed any of what you're straw-manning. Btw, the APA colluded to torture people [0]. That's not something a credible or reputable organization does. I know, they fired four people and said sorry - it's not enough. I don't care about their view on what addiction is in the slightest, and nor should any of us. 0 - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/almost-addicted/201507/how-psychologists-and-the-apa-colluded-in-torture https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/almost-addicted/2015...

jstarfish 3y ago

The APA and DSM-V will be credible resources when anybody in the entire institution of psychiatry manages to reliably correct a single psychiatric disorder they've identified. CBT is just dog training applied to humans. Beyond that neat little trick they're just a pill-pushing standards committee. Where they don't succeed, or get taken for suckers too many times, they take to reclassifying disorders to pave over their failures. You don't need to have corrected multiple personality disorder or Munchausen syndrome when you can quietly rename them and obfuscate just how often you get it catastrophically wrong. When your failures end up committing suicide, they won't be testifying against you later. That they're denying excessive internet use outs them as either incompetent-- or complicit. FAANG hires psychologists to help in algorithm design to engineer these specific ends. You can't identify gambling addiction is a problem while your own people are the ones consulting on development of gambling algorithms. That would be unethical, and look very bad for you. #mentalhealthawareness! We won't acknowledge sex addiction as real, but we're totally qualified to treat it! Notice how doctors quietly stopped advocating for circumcision of all male infants. When we look at what they've been recommending for generations--and their rationalizations--it makes them look like savages ("They don't feel the pain! They don't remember the pain! Women prefer it! It prevents HIV, maybe! You don't speak English? No problem, just sign here."). They have no skin in the game (and now, neither do you) beyond adding an additional line item to mom's invoice. (I'm not anti-medicine, just disillusioned in how little these institutions ever acknowledge wrongdoing or complicity.)

nonethewiser 3y ago

How can you call it a psychological addiction then say its not an addiction? Remember you claimed he was spreading disinformation, not that you disagree about how to split hairs in terms of defining addiction.