Frem, take a valium before reading this one. by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Frem, take a valium before reading this one.

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 16:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3343
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
"It's not my fault I'm overweight. I'm addicted to food and haven't beaten my addiction yet." Bullshit.

So I'd just like to be clear, here. People should instead say, "I have a compulsive eating disorder caused by an imbalance in my brain, similar to symptoms of my OCD like washing my hands every fifteen minutes, relocking my door three times, or using the same pen until it runs out of ink. It's something I have to live with, nothing can be done." Is that what you're saying? This would, by your definition, be more accurate a description of the problem. Also by your definition, addiction is easy to break, and compulsion or habit is nearly impossible.
I'm not making fun of your OCD. The above examples are all actual symptoms I have myself. None of my compulsions have negatively impacted my life, fortunately, but they can make things difficult and if I could make it stop I would. So far, nothing can be done about it, I just have to live the way I live and take the occasional tranquilizer if I really start to freak. I pity anyone who has that same type of disorder around food. What would they do? What could they do?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

If you are fat, put the fucking fork down you fat ass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:17 AM

RIVERDANCER

That's a very deep and thoughtful response to the discussion, Wulf. Clearly you've spent a great deal of time pondering addiction, compulsion, and the related problems they bring to society.
So, is gaming an addiction, a compulsion, or a case of "take your hands off the fucking controls and do something else you fucking layabout," what does everyone think?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:19 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You want to talk addiction River?

Fine, we can dance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:23 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I've got no pity for you if you are fat. Im overweight. I eat too fucking much..I don't blame McDonalds for that.

I blame my lack of discipline.

But, I give a fuck about being an adult.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:23 AM

RIVERDANCER

No no, Wulf, you've stated your views, you don't have to repeat them, I'm just wondering what everyone else might think of this new angle you've brought to the table.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:33 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'm not anti-recovery. In fact, if this is how you really feel, then you haven't read my posts. I'm all for getting people to live in the real world. But, the methods of addiction recovery aren't it. It's a personality thing, not addiction. Please also see comments from the article I linked to. That guy is someone who knows what he's talking about.

Sigma, it looks like you're playing semantic games here. You oughta know I wasn't referring to "recovery" in the abstract, as if you were opposed to people getting better or, as you say, living in the real world. I thought it would be obvious from context that I was referring to the "recovery movement," I was specifically thinking of "addiction recovery," so, yes, you are anti-recovery in that context.

I don't know why it is, but anti-recovery people are obsessed with the bogus notion that calling something an addiction takes away one's personal responsibility for the problem. To anyone who has had a sincere involvement in the recovery movement this is absurd. The act of going to one's very first 12 step meeting, f'rinstance, is an act of will, of taking responsibility, of self-care. So recovery begins with personal responsibility--there is no recovery without it. "The addict" in the context of 12 step culture is an entirely internal, psychological distortion above and beyond the chemical addiction, a habit of thought and of relating to the self that must be changed in order for the addicted person to get and stay sober.

In this context, calling addiction a disease, isn't about taking away one's responsibility, but rather and crucially, taking away the addict's fantasies of control--also, removing the corrosive effects of self-hatred and blame. Unless you're a Christian Scientist, you know you're not gonna cure your flu by being a better person or getting your act together, but such is the stigma of addiction that this is exactly what people believe. As long as the addict thinks she can control her addiction, dominate it--it's just a choice, she can quit any time--or even more self-destructively, that she "should" control it, she will continue in her disease because it is exactly the desire for control and domination, and the self-hate brought on by failure, that feed the addiction. This is a psychologically nuanced program, not some sad attempt to blame the world for one's troubles.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

You come here all riled up, rhetorical guns blazing and spitting for a fight and sure, if DT doesn't ignore you entirely from now on, you will likely get one. You'll be able to talk big and "call bullshit" and whatever else satisfies your epeen, but in the end all you'll have succeeded in doing is to hijack the thread.

I didn't come in here 'all riled up'. I came in here with a well established opinion based on clinical results. I also haven't hijacked the thread, nor will that be accomplished if this conversation continues. It is a necessary one given the topic: Is the premise even valid?

You're saying you weren't riled up when you said "So, in your view, a symptom can be an addiction?!?! Are you serious? That's all bullshit," then? You were just denigrating Dreamtrove's post for fun? So you weren't riled up, you were just socially inept?

And don't pretend to ask a question when you have your answer prepared. Unless you're Socrates, that's also just rude. "Is the premise even valid?" You don't for five seconds believe it is and you didn't come here to find out.

In the midst of your denigration of others, you did admit that science doesn't "know what addiction is." I think science is going to have a very difficult time finding out. So much of what we experience around addiction deals with the human faculty called "will." And I think science is particularly ill-equipped to deal with the issue of will. The mechanistic, deterministic paradigm is too strong in it.

Free will is a thing that no one can prove or disprove. As a premise, you cannot prove or disprove its validity. But the recovery movement begins from this premise, that we all have the choice between life and oblivion. And certain ways of thinking and of behaving and certain habit-forming substances can interfere with the proper functioning of our will.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 12:56 PM

BYTEMITE

I've never been treated for any addiction, and I'm not a psychologist, so I can't comment on the proper medical use of "addiction" versus "compulsion."

But I kind of understand where Frem is coming from, with the doctors who just want to push drugs.

I took medicine for anxiety and depression until I stopped needing them sometime in my teenage years (I'm not sure why or how that happened, because I definitely needed them before that). But I remember the very first psychiatrist I went to was a woman, who had me fill out a medical form before she ever saw me. Took about five minutes. And I walked into her office with her thinking I was schizophrenic because of just one of my answers (turns out I have waking dreams at night, but I was too young to realize that then). She put me on drugs that really messed me up. She refused to recant on her diagnosis too, she was very neurotic and hostile if she was ever questioned. I had to switch doctors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 4:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Byte - I think one optimum solution to that is letting doctors have it via malpractice suits for intentially false diagnoses, which is a slam-dunk when they have obviously not followed proper procedure.

I mean, this is, in it's very essence, Malpractice, innit - it's not a mistake or error, or even a judgement call, it's an act of abuse with malice aforethought in the name of profit.

I got respect for good doctors, and I've seen actual cases of stuff solved with the help of medication - but only to suppress the symptoms during the total treatment process as part of a larger whole and course of treatment intended on achieving normalcy without medical aid.

But that's expensive, and unprofitable, alas.

On the other hand, I got NO respect for the pill pushers, and the first sign that you're dealing with one is when they prescribe medication alone without any followup, theraputic plan or course of treatment beyond "come back for a refill".

As is by now obvious, I deal with really, REALLY, seriously broken people, and all the medication does is temporarily suppress the symptoms while the real treatment takes place - and since we don't have access to it, the process is more intensive and difficult than it otherwise would be, however, theraputic courses of treatment are in the end what solves the problem, not mere medication.

It's like pouring oil into a car that's leaking oil, versus replacing the gasket - sure, it's easier to keep dumping oil into it, despite the mess in your driveway, and takes a minimum of effort, but you're NEVER going to fix the goddamn problem till you replace the gasket, which is a messy and involved process despite being the only permanent solution.

So no, not a bit of respect for the pill pushers.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 4:12 PM

DREAMTROVE

HK

You're right about Sigma, I think that I'm finally learning to do what we all need to do: Ignore it.

A troll isn't a type of person, it's a type of reaction, and it might happen anywhere. The forum is finally teaching me something about communication, and it's that we all will run into this life long, and we need to be able to separate the constructive input from the nay saying and just confrontational attacks.

From my own experience, I'd say that confrontation attacks are our response to new information that threatens our world view. If we hold these views less closely, to be less sacred, and take more humility, then we can react to those challenges more openly.

My guess? Sigma has a valueset bought into at some point, and sees it under attack by a competing set of ideas, and so is lashing out.

Sigma, don't bother lashing out at this post, I'll ignore it. I'm just saying this because I think it's true. Instead, consider conflicting sets of ideas as potential to learn, and then try to share, contribute, rather than see us as an enemy that needs to be defeated. I would say the same to Auraptor about Islam. I'd say pick up the Koran and read it, but better yet, listen to some of the speeches of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I think he's more coherent than Mohammed :) No offense to any muslims should they be present. But I digress.

River,

Yes, good points all. I have OCD as well. We all do to some degree. You may know this already, but some may not: OCD is based on a reward system. The obsessive behavior, or ritual. The ritual can be anything from organizing your desk and cleaning the house, to irrational things like collecting different kinds of pepsi caps, double checking locks, etc. The former may seem normal, but it's really OCD, and it goes all the way to Adrian Monk. Further, even. What makes OCD is very real. The brain has been wired to respond to stimulus of a completed task by a neurochemical release, which is the reward mechanism. We come to believe that the ritual itself is the cure for the tension that we feel, and it becomes self reinforcing. The more the ritual is performed, the more the brain becomes wired in this manner.

If the ritual behavior fails to produce the chemical reward, we are convinced that it was done incorrectly, and so we return, and do it again. For the simple house cleaner, it may be that the house is not 'clean' yet. The reality is that the house will never be clean. The house is host to millions of parasites and scavengers, countless insects, numerous rodents, and who knows how many objects out of place, disorganized, even if shoved in drawers, etc. It's a matter of knowing when to stop. The best route to that knowledge is to learn that it is the rumination over ritual, and whether it is done correctly, and the repetition of the ritual itself, even if it is only in your mind, which itself is a rumination, which creates the problem.

Treatmentwise, there are some great books on cognitive therapy, and some herbal supplements that will do a lot more good than drugs. OCD can go off the deep end if the brain loses the ability to produce the reward release, and the individual can find themselves endlessly pursuing it through endless repetition or obsessing, etc. Learning not to seek the reward is ultimately the escape.

I guess if there's a point to this its that OCD shares a reward system element with addiction, and the mechanical reward system of World of Warcraft, artificially constructed, keeps people cycling in through the system. All forms of addiction can be destructive, even catastrophically so.

Wulf,

This thread is about addiction. I invite contributions, even if you want to say something about Warcraft that has nothing to do with addiction, but reveals something about the game, or share experiences. I hate to pull topic on anyone, but this is a serious subject, and it's a topical thread, and any poster of any thread on any board since the dawn of darpanet has always had the right to say:

Topic.

Everyone, respect, it's not a thunderdome, some threads are, this one is about self destructive behavior and a very tragic case.

A little side story, of which I'm most ashamed. When I was young, I made a snide remark about a guy being boring. He was going on and on yadada yadada and I made fun of him for it, because that's what I was used to doing. Then my father turned to me and said, the man was telling the story of how his son was just sliced to ribbons by a serial killer in their motel room, and he had gone back and found the body... and you weren't paying attention and so you made a snide remark, without a clue as to how painful it was for that man to even revisit that experience let alone tell the story. Don't let it ever happen again.

Now, the sins of the trolls on this board can generally not hold a candle to that one, but it's worth remembering before you post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 4:36 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just a few random comments before I have to leave:

'Drugs' work b/c they attach to brain receptors that are already there and ready to receive some rewarding neurochemical. If that rewarding neurochemical can be achieved through an action, the action can be just as addicting as a drug.

There have been many studies which have shown that a random reward is more rewarding neurochemically than a consistent one. Also, that one big reward early on v some painful result is a good predictor of future addiction. Those are the circumstances that help make gambling - smoking, heroin etc - an addiction.

Anyway, I need to go.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 4:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

BYTEMITE,

There should be a network to warn people about the medical profession, I was 32 when this happened to me, and I didn't know enough not to give them the ammo they needed to classify me with every nonsense diagnosis that they could invent.

My experience sounds very similar to yours. And anyone can comment. There is no medical authority. You're only as qualified as what you know. The govt. can dole out certifications, but that doesn't mean jack. I right now have a doctor who understands what I'm talking about, and that's really a first for me, after many, many others, including some I quite liked. I don't mean about my condition, I mean about medicine in general, about the brain and how it works.

The truth is in every field of science right now, except for maybe the cutting edge of stem cells, nanotech, the absolute cutting edge, anyone who is a better online researcher can become an expert in anything. Right now there's a random guy in Gabon who could solve our middle east crisis if we let him :) for all I know he's sixteen, and just read about it online. It's the information revolution.

This goes far past just how the mind works. When you get sick, I think in a non-emergency, the first doctor should be Dr. You. The users manual for the human body, and the human brain. Everyone should study it, and not rely on someone else to do it for you. So, comment away. If you feel you don't understand something, google, or ask, a lot of people here are very well informed.

As for word definitions, I go with etymology generally. Whereever it came from, that's the meaning. Addiction, yield to devotion, devotion to reward, to self-addict: "to give over or award (oneself) to someone or some practice" -1607.

This is the definition of the word, original. If someone wants to try to redefine it as "chemical dependency" then they are up against history, and all the text that stands printed before the redefinition.

I dabble in etymology and linquistics among many other things, and another word that I've seen redefined too many times recently is this one:

Terrorism: To foster an atmosphere of fear in order to achieve a social or political objective.

That's the definition. Nothing about bombs, or Islam. If our politicians use fear mongering to support policy, then anyone is correct in calling them terrorists, whether they are behind 9-11 or not :)

Kathy

Quote:

There have been many studies which have shown that a random reward is more rewarding neurochemically than a consistent one. Also, that one big reward early on v some painful result is a good predictor of future addiction. Those are the circumstances that help make gambling - smoking, heroin etc - an addiction.

Interesting, and good point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE