Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

substance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 166 posts

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#121

Post by [deleted] »

tjradcliffe wrote: post #98
ugk wrote: post #50

As a sober addict I really can't comprehend the "flavor" of addiction the author describes. Most of my addict friends and acquaintances either worked at sobriety or died from using. Actually most died. If someone can just stop, most would simply say the person wasn't actually an addict.

I've seen this comment about "wasn't actually an addict" or "not really an addiction" in every discussion of this story, here and elsewhere. I'm very curious as to why people say this, because it doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion or take it in any useful direction. I'm not trolling here: I really don't get it, and it bugs me a bit because it seems to distract the discussion from things that might be usef…

[deleted]

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#122

Post by jnbiche »

tjradcliffe wrote: post #84
Dylan16807 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be different fundamental types of addiction but what the author described sure sounded like 'addiction' to me.

It is always very dangerous and misleading to argue about abstract categories as if they were real things outside of the minds that make them. "Addiction" the label we use for a category we impose on the objective reality we observe. The OP is questioning the utility of that categorization based on more extensive observation of that objective reality. In particular: there is evidence that the population we now group…

Extremely well-said. I've observed different kinds of addictions in people, and I'll be damned if I'd ever think of classifying them in the same way, even if that's what a typical psychologist would do.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#123

Post by adamtucker »

Is Addiction linked to Environment...?

Researcher Bruce Alexander of Simon Fraser University conducted an experiment called Rat Park, in 1978. From that wikipedia page:

Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself.

To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, an 8.8 m2 (95 sq ft) housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16–20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and enough space for mating and raising litters. The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. "Nothing that we tried," Alexander wrote, "... produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment." Control groups of rats isolated in small cages consumed much more morphine in this and several subsequent experiments.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#124

Post by Mz »

adamtucker wrote: post #123

Is Addiction linked to Environment...? Researcher Bruce Alexander of Simon Fraser University conducted an experiment called Rat Park, in 1978. From that wikipedia page: Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug…

In pictures:

http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/#page-1

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#125

Post by chenelson »

pessimizer wrote: post #33
sp332 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. That's why it's a metaphor and not a real demon. It's just as scary as a demon because it feels like you can't control your actions.

Demons don't exist, and their mythical properties are ascribed to real addictions. Addictions may not be incurable, they may not be uncontrollable, they may not require exorcism by an expert, they may not have been induced by sin or fed by it, Jesus may not be the answer, etc. edit: really? Happy to accept the downvotes on this one.

Agreed. Historically this "evil spirit" metaphor has been a symbol used to deny accountabilty for everything from battery to rape and murder. It also includes religious baggage.

A homunculus didn't do it; I am it and I did that.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#126

Post by ggchappell »

I wonder how much this phenomenon varies from one addictive substance to another. For example, obviously there are a lot of people who remain addicted to tobacco long past their mid 20s.

Also, is it possible that some of these people who are considered to have grown out of their addiction, simply substituted one addiction for another? I've heard that the rate of tobacco use among recovering alcoholics is very high. It's true that they're probably better off being out-of-control smokers than out-of-control drinkers. OTOH, I wouldn't say such people have really grown out of their addiction.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#127

Post by nemo »

Unfortunately 12-step dogma has persuaded a lot of people that addiction is an inescapable fate, an innate disease/magical curse that can only be managed by joining their religious program for life. The worst part of this is that the 12 step myth of powerlessness creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's so colored the popular imagination of what addiction is and how to treat it that when the fact that the majority of people who are addicted to some substance do so by spontaneous remission, it seems surprising, even though that's what's normal.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#128

Post by talles »

rickmode wrote: post #35

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…

> 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.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#129

Post by cheshire_cat »

wozniacki wrote: post #118
verisimilidude wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment resonates with me quite a bit. During my high school years, I suffered a bad accident. My right forearm was pretty much shattered, almost amputated. For about a week after all the surgeries, I was on Vicodin 24/7. Just from that, I was addicted. The withdrawal was miserable, and obviously came at the worst possible time. That one week with Vicodin continues to have profound effects on my life, even now t…

Okay, I have long wanted to know this about alcoholics and alcohol relapse sufferers: Do one-time alcoholics - functional or otherwise - who have sought treatment and then completely quit drinking for a fair number of years, ever manage to go back to moderate & responsible alcohol consumption? or Is it pretty much a life of teetotalism, for them, after that? Do you know of any friends or family who have recovered and…

Some people can do it.

But don't take my words for it. I'd like to quote from a blog post of Nic Sheff:

"Going into it, I figured that most of the stories would be like mine. But in interviewing these different addicts —addicts that have worked with some of the top addiction specialists in the country— I was surprised to find that quite a few of them have now, after an extended period of abstinence, been able to go back to drinking or smoking pot casually without spiraling out of control again.

It was a baffling revelation to me.

[...]

Take the example of the crystal meth addict I mentioned above. His drug use really skyrocketed around the time he was diagnosed with HIV.

[...]

There was a direct connection between his environmental circumstances and his using, a concept that I’d never actually experienced. I used for no reason at all. But he had a reason."

http://www.thefix.com/content/alcoholic-versus-problem-drink...

I don't think there is something like having no reason but he probably knows himself the best. You should check him out if you don't already know him, he wrote 2 books about his teenage meth addiction and his struggle for recovery.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#130

Post by rando289 »

The author equates "not seeking professional help" with "growing out of it", which I don't think is right. However, he gets a lot right, and links to studies. My personal two biggest problems with 12 step: insistence on believing in a godlike thing and it's dogmatic unchanging nature which ignores science.
Post reply on HN