2 ms·

If you grow out of an apparently addictive behavior, doesn't that -- by definition -- mean it was not an addiction? OK, I know the definition of an addiction i

If you grow out of an apparently addictive behavior, doesn't that -- by definition -- mean it was not an addiction? OK, I know the definition of an addiction is that the behavior is having a significant negative affect, but there must be some notion of lack of control too, I would think. I know plenty of my friends in college drank quite heavily. Afterward it tapered off. And some of had quite bad grades during that time. But no off us ended up as alcoholics after college. This was 20+ years ago, so one would assume real alcoholism would become apparent in this timeframe.

gph 12y ago
Do you just read headlines and then comment? I mean the author addressed your point within the first few paragraphs, yet you don't seem to be incorporating any of that into your post.
- rickmode 12y ago
  I'm believe I'm asking a valid question. I read the article last night when it came up on /r/skeptic. The author describes a sort of adolescent addiction due to underdeveloped inhibitions of those who having reach their mid-20s. The thesis seems to say that some addictions are situational, like the distinction between a normal situational depression and a clinical depression (one that does not trace to a person's current life situation). To restate my question: is what the author describes actual an addiction? Perhaps only those addictions that don't resolve themselves are addictions. So instead of describe the situation as the author does -- some addictions resolve themselves -- perhaps the definition of addiction needs to be refined.
talles 12y ago
> If you grow out of an apparently addictive behavior, doesn't that -- by definition -- mean it was not an addiction? No, of course not. I'm far from a specialist, but I would say that the 'addiction' definition has nothing to do with the ability to grow out of it on your own. Addiction is a compulsive behavior that the individual does despite having the knowledge that is harmful for itself. If you managed to get out of it (on your own or not) you are not an addicted person anymore. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't an addiction.

gph 12y ago

Do you just read headlines and then comment? I mean the author addressed your point within the first few paragraphs, yet you don't seem to be incorporating any of that into your post.

rickmode 12y ago
I'm believe I'm asking a valid question. I read the article last night when it came up on /r/skeptic. The author describes a sort of adolescent addiction due to underdeveloped inhibitions of those who having reach their mid-20s. The thesis seems to say that some addictions are situational, like the distinction between a normal situational depression and a clinical depression (one that does not trace to a person's current life situation). To restate my question: is what the author describes actual an addiction? Perhaps only those addictions that don't resolve themselves are addictions. So instead of describe the situation as the author does -- some addictions resolve themselves -- perhaps the definition of addiction needs to be refined.

talles 12y ago

> If you grow out of an apparently addictive behavior, doesn't that -- by definition -- mean it was not an addiction? No, of course not. I'm far from a specialist, but I would say that the 'addiction' definition has nothing to do with the ability to grow out of it on your own. Addiction is a compulsive behavior that the individual does despite having the knowledge that is harmful for itself. If you managed to get out of it (on your own or not) you are not an addicted person anymore. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't an addiction.