Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Other Addictions?

Posted by Pennie Lane on August 25, 2001, at 23:20:57

In reply to Re: Other Addictions? » Mitch, posted by Rosa on August 23, 2001, at 8:28:20

Rosa wrote:

In an article by Dr. Grohol < www.grohol.com > he said:
"A reward deficit syndrome can express as substance addiction, addictive relationship behaviors, communication addictions and addictions to electronic activity. But electronic addictions can include also television, recorded music and electronic gaming as well as Internet addiction."
____________________________________

I don’t think Dr. Grohol wrote those words, but I think the author would take it as a compliment that the prose was attributed to an actual doctor. I think the excerpt is from an essay posted to the International Mental Health On-line general Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ismho-general/message/1361 )

As a friend of the pretty nurse behind the shelter in a roundabout who is selling poppies from a tray, I have a special insight into addiction. Our understanding of behaviors described as addiction is a result of the sacrifices by countless heroin addicts (who often sacrifice other’s lives as well as their own). Our understanding of the neurology of addiction started with an understanding of addiction to opiates, then advanced through the discovery of an endogenous opiod system to a more rounded understanding of the reward system of the brain.

Since opiates are most closely related to the endorphines that help trigger dopamine activity in the reward networks, they tend to trigger the most obvious signs of physical addiction. But the processes opiates trigger are similar to the processes triggered by *good* addictions. Our reward system attenuates us to return to productive behaviors, hopefully. In pathological addiction, the reward system attenuates us to destructive behaviors. The crisis, for addictionologists, is distinguishing between productive and pathological attachments.

One can rationally argue that addiction to opiates, if dosages are controlled and the habit is not tainted by the social problems of opiate prohibition, might be no more harmful than addiction to television. Perhaps harm is a poor measure of addiction, though it is a measure commonly used in some settings. Perhaps an opposite measure – of benefit, rather than of harm – would be more useful in sorting out which rewarding behaviors are truly worthy of our attachment. Granted, other factors including salience, tolerance, relief and withdrawal are described as elements of addiction. But the measurement of salience, tolerance, relief, withdrawal and harm does not always inform efforts to distinguish between beneficial attachments and pathological addiction. Certainly amorous love evokes patterns of salience, relief, tolerance and withdrawal. (I can’t get enough of you, baby, etc.) And love can lead to some very harmful sorts of attachments. But then suffering through harmful aspects of personal attachment can be useful, for individuals and for their community. Some things, like maybe freedom, might even be worth dying for - that seems very addictive but maybe the pursuit of freedom is a worthy addiction.

We describe pathological attachments as addictive in part because we learned about the reward system by studying addiction. Addiction is the word science grew up with, but it might not be the most fitting term. We now talk about process addictions as well as substance addictions. Opiod addictions antagonize the endorphine system and hence attenuate the dopaminergic networks that mediate our attachments to worldly things. Cocaine and amphetamines antagonize the dopamine system more directly, with similar results, though with less obvious physical symptoms of withdrawal. Processes – gambling, sex, communication and other behaviors – seem to stimulate activity throughout the reward system, and can have many of the same effects as substance addictions. As our collective understanding of the reward system increases, perhaps we will develop more precise language for describing the neurochemistry that mediates our attachment to worldly things. The pejorative and pathological implications of to the term “addiction” might best be left in the dust-bin of history.

A more precise terminology might let us better sort out which of our habits are useful and which are needlessly burdensome. With brains, use it or lose it is the rule. So communication, via the Internet, television, telephone or by gregarious engagement of strangers at parties can be productive. But motion – physical motion – is also an important element of developing neural networks. In as much as communication – via television, Internet, music or otherwise – builds connectivity in the brain, it can be useful. But when communication habits interfere with physical mobility, chances are they are slowing down some neural processes. Information overload can also be problematic – we can assimilate more information than we can effectively process and as a result might tend to ignore otherwise relevant information when it does not rise above the noise level.

In the final analysis, it does not matter whether we are addicted or not. What probably matters more is how productive are our attachments for the purposes we hold to be important during our brief mortal lives, and whether we can effectively choose for ourselves our endearments in this life.


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:Pennie Lane thread:9779
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010825/msgs/10235.html