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

A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#51

Post by humanrebar »

DanBC wrote: post #36
humanrebar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When doing scientific research, absolutely. When making a personal decision, it's foolish to ignore first-hand experience just as it's foolish to ignore advice from experts.

> When making a personal decision, it's foolish to ignore first-hand experience Isn't this exactly the kind of thinking that makes people believe that homeopathy works?

Good point. I think homeopath is a load of bunk, but behavior modification deserves to be in another category. Especially considering the independent variables (going to an AA program) and dependent variables (substance abuse) tend to be clear in this case.

For example, saying "I put cumin oil in a vaporizer and now I don't get colds as often" is different than saying "I joined an AA program and now I have been sober for 10 years".

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

Stronico wrote: post #40
jqm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." When you force people into a program that references some idea of God you are doing exactly that..

I think the alternative to AA meetings is usually jail time - so it probably is to some degree voluntary.

> I think the alternative to AA meetings is usually jail time - so it probably is to some degree voluntary.

"Do this or go to jail" is pretty much the definition of something which is -- legally speaking -- compulsory, not voluntary.

Its voluntary in the trivial sense that a conscious choice is involved, but not voluntary in the legal sense (or the substantive sense of a free choice made without threat of force.)

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#53

Post by voxic11 »

randomflavor wrote: post #42
silentvoice wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had this discussion before and it usually boils down to someone having a non-traditional view of the 12 steps. I read them at face value: Admitting one has no control over an addiction and relying on a higher power to address it is incompatible with my view of finding the underlying cause. Whether what you say is official canon or not doesn't seem to matter to the reality of how it's managed at the group level.…

The idea of a higher power is simply faith that life is good. many addicts have an auto response to everything in life as being shit, and this warps perception. Most non faith based people actually are quite faith based in that they believe things will work out well when they put their energy into it. That is faith. Many addicts do not have that innate understanding. The 12 steps is just a set of skills to obtain tha…

Sorry what? Have you read the 12 steps? The explictly refer to "God" and explain "his" role in "remove[ing] all these defects of character." How is that at all ambiguous?

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#54

Post by voxic11 »

humanrebar wrote: post #51
DanBC wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When making a personal decision, it's foolish to ignore first-hand experience Isn't this exactly the kind of thinking that makes people believe that homeopathy works?

Good point. I think homeopath is a load of bunk, but behavior modification deserves to be in another category. Especially considering the independent variables (going to an AA program) and dependent variables (substance abuse) tend to be clear in this case. For example, saying "I put cumin oil in a vaporizer and now I don't get colds as often" is different than saying "I joined an AA program and now I have been sober…

How is that different?

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#55

Post by MaysonL »

silentvoice wrote: post #41
paulwithap wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of AA is not to focus on the singular behavior of problem drinking, but instead to produce a complete psychic change. The central theme of the "Big Book" is that simply removing the alcohol from an alcoholic is not enough. The alcoholic must instead completely change their way of living and interacting with others. The program is designed to address the root cause of many specific issues the founders…

I've had this discussion before and it usually boils down to someone having a non-traditional view of the 12 steps. I read them at face value: Admitting one has no control over an addiction and relying on a higher power to address it is incompatible with my view of finding the underlying cause. Whether what you say is official canon or not doesn't seem to matter to the reality of how it's managed at the group level.…

What's your understanding of the inventory process? To me it's all about finding the underlying causes, and the behavioral and mental habits that underlie the addiction, and working on correcting them.

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#56

Post by DanBC »

mason55 wrote: post #39
DanBC wrote: post #2

This is a great article. It doesn't ever mention quantities. In England "binge drinking" can be a surprisingly small amount. Risky drinking can be as little as 2 glasses of wine a day. (One large glass of wine (200 ml) at 13 % would be about 2.5 units - two of those is 5 units. That over 5 days is 25 units). We use a "unit of alcohol" as a public health measure. One unit is 125 ml of drink at 8% ABV (Alcohol by Volum…

That chart seems to be missing one of the more common measures - 355mL @ 4-5% (aka a can or bottle of beer).

Yes. It was for glasses of wine because at the time public health practitioners in England were worried about people having glasses of wine at work and in the evening.

Extending both axises would be useful.

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#57

Post by humanrebar »

voxic11 wrote: post #54
humanrebar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. I think homeopath is a load of bunk, but behavior modification deserves to be in another category. Especially considering the independent variables (going to an AA program) and dependent variables (substance abuse) tend to be clear in this case. For example, saying "I put cumin oil in a vaporizer and now I don't get colds as often" is different than saying "I joined an AA program and now I have been sober…

How is that different?

In this case:

* observation is simpler (are you in AA? are you still drinking?)

* so measurement is simpler (how much blortzroot do you add to your lotion to clear up that rash? can you show your rash is 65% better than last week?)

* AA attempts to provide a permanent solution, not a remedy for symptoms, so it's more clear when AA fails.

* Also the things homeopathy "cures" tend to be in a completely different class and severity than chronic substance abuse

Re: A Different Path to Fighting Addiction

#58

Post by mercer »

yaks_hairbrush wrote: post #23
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #22

I wonder how much a nutritionally empty, low fat diet is setting kids up for the anxiety and depression that seems to drive so much alcohol and drug abuse. At a time when major structural changes and growth are happening in the brain, changes and growth that require a lot of fatty acids for creating nerve and other brain cells, kids are getting Fruit Loops and skim milk as their nutrition source.

Fruit Loops sound like they wouldn't be too bad. Instead, the Kellogg's product is called Froot Loops. It's a bit fitting: a bastardization of the spelling which underscores the bastardization of nutrition going on with the product.

It might actually be a legal issue too. At least here in Holland there are strict rules as to the naming of product.

That's why we call peanut butter 'pindakaas', for example, which means 'peanut cheese'; producers were not allowed to use 'butter' in the name if the product did not contain actual butter.

Post reply on HN