SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Friday, September 16 - 11:07pm

Link

Edit

Laj wrote:
>For example, once I start playing my first game of chess these days, it is virtually impossible for me to stop playing... It took me a long time to admit that once I played that first game, that was all she wrote, and I just couldn't play that first game...There was a time when I learned chess as a kid. Did I ever imagine that I would become addicted to chess?

Hi Laj

I've written about this some time ago, but this is a really interesting example. From my readings in this area it appears there's a lot of things you can be 'addicted' to. I know of cases of homework addiction, tidiness addiction, various food addictions etc. (It really doesn't matter what you call it, by the way - I loosely call 'addiction' any compulsive behaviour that can take over your life to its detriment).

Some of the most successful approaches I've seen come out of a practice called "externalising" the problem. This runs counter to much earlier psychological practice that insisted that problems had some "essential" basis in the makeup of the person (this idea is still prevalent in 12-step treatments for example). The problem with the "internalised" or essentialist approach is that the problem is viewed as *bound up* somehow in the victim's psychology or personality. Thus, the person *is* the problem - in some ways the problem comes to be viewed as more fundamental than the person! This model makes it very hard - no, actually logically impossible - for the person to effectively deal with the problem, as they are effectively "fighting themselves". I believe this model accounts for the multitude of stalemates we all observe in psychological treatments. It's the natural end point of this model - you can't attack the problem without attacking the person simultaneously, so it does as much harm as good. (The next step in the stalemate is often simply carpet-bombing with medication, and hoping for the best!)

*Externalising* the problem - that is, treating the person and the problem as separate entities - on the other hand, offers a different direction entirely. First of all, it is no longer of prime importance *how* the problem came about (although such histories are very interesting) - it could simply be something that one stumbles into a certain pattern of behaviour without realising the consequences of it (this is often the case with alcohol and drug addiction). What becomes important in this model is not some deeply buried mysterious psychological "cause" of the problem - but instead, what strategies can be adopted to *counter it*.

For example, you can look for the particular *ecology* of the problem - like an organism, problems have environments which are more or less favourable to their survival. To extend the metaphor, like organisms, problems also *adapt* their environments to ensure their survival - for example, the family around an alchoholic might become gradually conditioned to accept the problem behaviour, thus unwittingly making it right at home! We can ask: In what particular circumstances does this problem thrive? And in what circumstances does its victim fight back and regain the upper hand? You can then try and make the situation less favourable to the problem.(This approach actually came out of asthma treatment, where it was observed that children with life threatening asthma rarely had attacks on school sports days).

And of course, because the problem is no longer regarded as "inherent" in the person, this means the person can *gain control of it* - not the other way around.

Anyway, there is more I would like to say, but am short of time so will leave it for now. Be interested in your thoughts.

- Daniel

Post 1

Saturday, September 17 - 7:03am

Link

Edit

Daniel,

I agree with what you wrote. More generally, can't we get at addiction simply with behavioral management? There're eight methods in behavioral management of getting rid of a behavior, as paraphrsased from Karen Prior's Don't Shoot the Dog:

1. Killing the person exhibiting the behavior. Very effective. Probably undesirable.
2. Punishment; adding something unpleasant when the behavior occurs. Everybody's favorite. Highly ineffective.
3. Negative Reinforcement. Taking away something unpleasant when a preferred behavior occurs. Works nicely.
4. Extinction; letting the behavior go away by itself. Won't work for addiction.
5. Train an incompatible behavior. This is the one I think you were suggesting.
6. Put the behavior on cue, then never give the cue. I'm not sure this one works with addicts either, but it might.
7. Shape the absence. Reinforce everything and anything that's not the behavior.
8. Change the motivation. Nicest way to go. Hard to do, but effective if you can pull it off.

Jordan

Post 2

Saturday, September 17 - 2:11pm

Link

Edit

Daniel,

I think your post deserves a more thoughtful reply than the one I am about to make and I guarantee you that I will make that reply eventually. A few quick points:

1. "Externalizing" the problem is definitely a part of the way to go.
2. The essentialist has problems with this but so does the dualist, because the dualist doesn't have the flexibility to define the self however he chooses. In fact, "externalization" is implicit in Dennett's view of self as the center of narrative gravity.
3. I think that a 12-step book that I have based on REBT does use something akin to "externalization". The key isn't quite "externalization", but rather, the view that volition is not all powerful. Some admission that the behavior you want to quit is no longer under your volitional control is required, but that is what some approaches make no room for because these approaches do not allow you to "deconstruct" yourself in a way that separates you from the behavior.

I will respond in more detail when I have more time and address your response directly.

Laj.

(Edited by Abolaji Ogunshola
on 9/17, 7:37pm)

Post 3

Saturday, September 17 - 2:27pm

Link

Edit

Jordan and Daniel,

Many people confuse the claim that "addiction is a disease" with the claim that "addiction is not a proper subject of moral judgment". What people should understand that is that the disease paradigm is geared towards strategic solutions. The more serious question is whether any strategies are effective or insightful. I am happy that both of you have focused on that problem - the typical Objectivist romance with morality and definitions consumed the other thread.

Laj

(Edited by Abolaji Ogunshola on 9/17, 2:28pm)

Post 4

Saturday, September 17 - 4:30pm

Link

Edit

Hey Jordan:
We're in the same ballpark. Of your list, this is the closest thing to to what I'm talking about:

>7. Shape the absence. Reinforce everything and anything that's not the behavior.

This might start with family therapy that doesn't even need the sufferer to attend (often sufferers are extremely reluctant to anyway). What do the family do that might be unconsciously supporting the behaviour? How has the problem "trained" them to provide a suitably problem-friendly environment? What could be done to support the person in the grip of the problem, *without* supporting the problem itself? Can the problem be looked at in a different way?

Here's a fairly minor example. A family had a daughter addicted to homework. Her addiction got worse and worse; everything had to be done perfectly, and re done, and done again. (Ironically, this meant her marks, which had been very good, began to deteriorate, as she found she could never finish anything). All her other pursuits and interests fell away; homework dominated. All attempts to distract her with other things were angrily rebuffed - temper tantrums were regularly unleashed if anything got in the way of the homework. Further, her mother had been slowly co-opted into supporting this behaviour, despite her deep unease about it. If it keeps the peace, and oh well, at least she's doing homework rather than drugs...;-) The father, to his wife's anger, pretended it wasn't happening. The siblings got thoroughly sick of it and began to secede in to their own worlds. Gradually the family's routine began to revolve around the daughter's homework addiction - tv could not be watched during certain hours due to "distracting noise", they could not go away weekends because the public temper tantrums just were too horrendous. And so on. Finally they sought the help of a therapist, tho the daughter refused to attend.

To their initial horror, the therapist suggested they not worry about their daughter too much, and instead should worry about *themselves*. Shouldn't they really be sick of living under the domination of an addiction? Weren't they sick of never being allowed to watch TV, play music, or go away? How could they reclaim their *own lives* from this problem? Of course, the family did not want to kick their young daughter out of home in the "tough love" fashion - she was too young, and it would be illegal anyway. So they decided to confront the problem strategically. The problem, which had divided them and thus conquered, would be faced with a unified front. Wife, husband, siblings would form a plan to challenge the addicted daughter's problem. They decided to cut off the problem's "life support system". They came up with a plan to restrict the "homework behaviour" to certain places in the house, and certain times of the day until it reached a normal level. They resolved to do this despite all temper tantrums and attempts by the problem to restore its domination. In dealing with the addicted daughter, they would make it very clear that the restrictions only applied to the problem behaviour - not to her. She was welcome at all times, but....*not the homework behaviour*... If she felt herself unable to control the homework behaviour, she would have to move to one of the small homework-permitted parts of the house until she felt back in control.

Naturally there was considerable resistance at first, but the family held firm. And after a few weeks of dramatic ups and downs, suddenly the problem began to retreat. Their daughter, lost under a massive pile of perfectionist behaviour began to re-emerge. The tantrums and obsessive behaviour began to diminish. The family, and the daughter, began to reclaim their lives back. After 3 months, the situation was unrecognisably better.

Now this is a relatively trivial example, but the key themes emerge. Firstly, the subtle way problems "condition" their environment to ensure their survival via unconscious "training", "divide and conquer" tactics, threats, tantrums etc. Secondly, we can visualise how the sufferer might see the situation looking outwards. Imagine they are increasingly dominated by their addiction, and are watching themselves slip away in horror - where will this end? Then they look outwards at the people surrounding them...and see *they too* are divided, and falling under its domination! This will cause the sufferer to despair, and make their resistance level drop further.

However, if you change the dynamic surrounding them, and unify the anti-problem forces, making the environment "problem-un-friendly", this actually *encourages the sufferer* to fight back against the problem. The effect is similar to an embattled nation, who suddenly sees its fragmented allies suddenly unify and rise to its defense. This inspires the resistance, and before you know it, the enemy is on the run.

But of course, this all rests on *correctly identifying the enemy in the first place*. With this model, "externalising" or "objectifying" the problem makes this possible. However, with the "internal" or "essential" model we are all to often confronted with stalemate, or beyond that the final, desperate solution - killing the village in order to save it.

- Daniel

Post 5

Saturday, September 17 - 6:39pm

Link

Edit

Hey guys,

Which thread did this one spin off from?

Jordan

Post 6

Saturday, September 17 - 7:29pm

Link

Edit

I think it was "Ayn Rand Smeared again" I got it from. One of that lot anyway. I had no interest in contributing to that thread, so cropped Laj's interesting comment.

- Daniel

Post 7

Sunday, September 18 - 6:26am

Link

Edit

Got it. Thanks. I appreciate both Laj's and your posts in this thread.

Jordan

Post 8

Monday, September 19 - 2:14pm

Link

Edit

Incidentally, I should add that a particular environment can powerfully yet invisibly affect individual behaviour. For example, there was a study done on the personality of siblings, and how it was affected by their birth order - there were various ancient social assumptions that this had quite a large effect. And sure enough, it was discovered that eldest children did exhibit certain classic characteristics (say, more adventurous and entrepreneurial), middle children showed others ( say, more insecure) and last born others again (attention seeking).

But the kicker was...they only showed these characteristics *when they were among their families*. Individually, in the context of their ordinary lives, these traits were not especially evident.

- Daniel

Post 9

Tuesday, September 27 - 1:56pm

Link

Edit

With the various behaviours we can label as addictions, I think what needs to be criticised first is the bland assertion that "it all comes down to choice".

The main reason it needs to be criticised is that it is a total cop-out. We already *know* people make choices. Repeating this obvious fact solves exactly nothing. All it does is beg the real question, which is: *why* does someone who is usually rational - often outstandingly in many other aspects of their life - make consistently *irrational* choices in other areas?

Going on about "choice" tells you nothing you don't know already - in fact, it actually blocks examining the problem properly. To demonstrate, let's change the situation and try to operate with that assumption.

Imagine a man is on trial for stealing. He's an upstanding citizen, smart, talented, hard working, yet here he is, caught stealing a car.

Do we simply say "oh, well, it was obviously his choice to do it, let him take the consequences" and sentence him accordingly?

We certainly don't. In fact we would probably condemn such an approach as completely idiotic.

Actually, the first thing we would do would be examine the evidence for any *external causes* that would explain such inconsistent behaviour eg: did he believe his life to be in danger? Did this belief in turn have a valid cause eg: was someone holding a gun to his head? Did he act dishonestly or mistakenly? Did he steal the car only as a last resort, having exhausted other options? And so on and so forth. And we'd build up a very comprehensive picture of the events surrounding the theft before coming to any conclusions.

Yet if we take the same person - smart, talented, hardworking - and replace the problem of stealing with the problem of addiction, *we start to think differently*. We go: "oh, it's obviously just their personal choice to do it, let them take the consequences". Once we've established "choice" as the alpha and omega of a problem, there's no need to really bother looking much further - we can get on with the fun part, which is judging and condemning! We are now conveniently free to ignore or deliberately downplay the importance of external influences and issue our verdict on the basis of our own ignorant (and even illogical) essentialist psychologising. For example, "oh, obviously underneath all their success that person must be fundamentally weak willed or irrational" - or in Objectivist-speak, "be in possession of irrational premises".

Note that in the case of the theft, *we went out of our way to look for external factors* before even starting to make such judgements. However, in the case of the addiction - a far more complex and little-known area - we happily choose to let our prejudices do our judging for us.

- Daniel

Post 10

Tuesday, September 27 - 8:17pm

Link

Edit

I have to agree on that, Daniel - it's context, context, context... as long as that does not imply relativeness or the unprincipledness of pragmatism...

Addictions and Counter-strategies