Nonsensical

It's only an exaggeration if the addiction specialist who presented it in a documentary I watched was exaggerating - which is possible. According to him, lab rats have literally electrocuted themselves to death in order to self-administer their drug of choice.

Interestingly, rats are much more likely to do this if they are kept in isolation and malnourished. Most rats given space, food, and social interaction will abandon the lever.

Extrapolating rat experiments to be indicative of human behavior requires a certain leap of faith, but I can accept it until additional evidence disproves it. I can see why others would not.

Aellyce

That's a bad experimental design, killing the precious subjects! If it was a documentary, I think he most likely said that for effect - typically these experiments are set in a way that the sock is not enough to kill the subject, it just startles them. But the idea is correct.

I am commenting because I work on similar things, we do these types of experiments all the time, the model is called "self-administration" and without doubt it's the experimental model that best mimics the human addiction condition. Very useful and much more conclusive than other models that are used to study drug abuse. You can introduce a variety of "risk factors" and stresses, the electroshock is one possibility. The idea is that addicted rats will take unpleasant or potentially dangerous risks to get the drug. It mimics the "continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences" part of addiction definition. Rats do this for food, too, even if they are not at near death due to starvation.

And the parts about social isolation and hunger are exact. The food restriction is pretty much the idea that we say about trying to not be hungry when we want to stay sober, and the socialized housing can represent peer support. Put a previously isolated and addicted rat in abstinence, but in a rich environment with cage mates, toys, plenty of food, etc - their relapse potential will be significantly lower than those that are still in isolation. So this sort of models recovery. We can't get them do AVRT or the 12-steps, though

LBrain

why Brain, why...

I recall a cancer lab that used bunnies (cute little bunnies) for various experiments (research).

There seemed to be a skewed result involving some of the bunnies. Why did the bunnies in the top row of cages recover more quickly or were more resistant to the cancer inducing agents? Everything else was exactly the same in the control group. It baffled the white coats. Then someone realized the obvious that wasn't so obvious. The bunnies in the upper row of cages had to be handled and removed from the cages while administering the 'agents'. The other bunnies never got out of the cage because they were within easy reach. There were not picked up and handled in a "loving" manner, if only for a brief period of time as were the 'top shelf' bunnies.

So now, another variable was introduced into the data. The experiments were performed again with all bunnies being handled in a "loving" manor. Or some bunnies being more isolated. The results were significantly different as I recall.

It's interesting how a feeling of comfort and well being increases our (bunnies) resistance to disease. Same can be said for humans. I'm sure some of you know the old folks home experiment were half were given a plant to care for and half was not. They were also given a choice of menu and when to eat etc. They had more say in their existence and also had someone (a plant) depending on them for survival. This group was more healthy and outlived their counterparts by a measurable difference.

The mind is amazing.

Aellyce

The bunny cages story reminds me of why some of the animal technicians probably hate me. I often give the staff hard time if they introduce biases into the housing and handling. And yes there are very visible, very big differences in the behavior of those animals that are being handled regularly and those that are not. Alright, maybe enough description of animal experiments.

The effect of environment and nurture on the brain, body, and behavior is amazing. I had a variety of first hand experiences living in different environments and cultures because I moved around a lot. Very definitely affects everything. The worst for me was ~ 3 years living in a very low stimulation environment while having a job that I grew to hate, a difficult relationship, and on top a series of accidents that did not want to end (eg. being mugged on the street, not being allowed to come back to the US from a European trip because the people who managed my visa issued screwed it up... many more). All this within 3 years, after a previous 3 years in totally opposite condition where I loved everything. Those "bad" years were the ones when I developed the serious drinking problem, not surprisingly. I never managed to have even 2-3 consecutive sober days there but it's true that I was not seeking help either. I was acutely aware that a lot of the culprits were the effect of the environment and my experiences but was unable to escape from it even, just utterly stuck in misery. Finally I did escape because I got convinced I would probably kill myself staying much longer. I came to NYC that I love and took a job that I love... but it took a long time to recover from those years and as we know, still recovering. The good thing now is, had I not been through those previous years, I would probably not be where I am now either.

These things are very real!

Boleo

Acceptance is the answer to all my problems today - Not!

Acceptance to overwhelming fear, adversity and failure is a good start. At least it shines some truth on the problem.

However, acceptance without action can keep a person trapped in victim-hood for ages and can even lead to settling for a slave like existence such as Stockholm Syndrome.

Soberpotamus

Haennie, I had serious issues with animal experimentation in school

soberlicious

The concept of trauma bonding is how my therapist explained my seemingly inexplicable drive to recreate traumatic situations in my relationships, and why I put myself in violent/high intensity/high risk situations over and over. My behaviors were not a function of my addiction to alcohol by the way, I engaged in some of the highest risk after quitting substances. I see now how, for me, it was the same cycle of addiction. I can very much see the parallels between Stockholm Syndrome (trauma bonding) and substance addiction. They don't say "there's a fine line between pain and pleasure" for nothing. When pain and fear are pleasurable, an individual will do anything to protect that which is harming them.
Without really getting way too TMI, for me it explains why fear and pain can have such a calming effect. Weird.

I like learning about some of theories that can help explain why I do the things I do, but in the end, regardless of reason, I have found the only way to stop a self destructive behavior is to stop the self destructive behavior. If I have to figure out first why I do it in order to stop doing it, I may never get there. I will die trying.

EndGameNYC

I've had an ongoing love-hate relationship with experimental psychology, but animal studies, for me, have generally been instructive, sometimes invaluable. As human beings, we sometimes tend to overrate our abilities to learn, to love and to express empathy, relative to the rest of the animal kingdom. In some ways, I believe, we are woefully deficient in our expression and demonstration of our affections.

Relative to the "Stockholm Syndrome," the process itself is largely pathologized, wherein "identifying with the aggressor" has been relegated to a maladaptive response to an extremely stressful or traumatic experience. But there is more to this than meets the eye. In simple terms, the Stockholm Syndrome may instead be indicative of an adaptive response under extreme conditions; making the best of a bad situation, if you will. The turning point is whether or not this attachment born of desperation infiltrates the self to the extent that the individual refuses to move on from it once the trauma is removed; in a sense, learning from the experience and going about the business of developing or creating a more authentic self who does not look to and no longer requires external pressures in order to thrive.

And so it is with alcoholism. The momentary relief from stress that alcohol can and does provide is an adaptive response to a more or less extreme situation, whether it be social pressures, the demands of work, or disappointment and sometimes abuse in interpersonal transactions. But substituting the pleasant or enjoyable effects of drinking for healthy interactions with our environment, including the people who populate our world, is uniquely destructive in the long run, a sometimes voluntary enslavement that only hinders growth, and which makes it impossible for an authentic self to emerge.

Having been involved in many large-scale research projects, my skepticism around scientific studies has been sharpened and, as I imagine haennie has also learned, it's now a very simple thing for me to see the flaws in experimental designs; in their hypothesis, their procedures, their analyses and their conclusions.

The comments in this thread recalled for me the now classic studies of Harry Harlow, an American psychologist who ran experiments on the social behaviors of monkeys. Rather than provide a summary, I've provide and excerpt from http://muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/harlow.htm:

In Harlow's initial experiments, infant monkeys were separated from their mothers at six to twelve hours after birth and were raised instead with substitute or "surrogate" mothers made either of heavy wire mesh or of wood covered with cloth. Both mothers were the same size, but the wire mother had no soft surfaces while the other mother was cuddly covered with foam rubber and soft terry cloth. Both mothers were also warmed by an electric light placed inside them.

In one experiment both types of surrogates were present in the cage, but only one was equipped with a nipple from which the infant could nurse. Some infants received nourishment from the wire mother, and others were fed from the cloth mother. Even when the wire mother was the source of nourishment (and a source of warmth provided by the electric light), the infant monkey spent a greater amount of time clinging to the cloth surrogate. These results led researchers to believe the need for closeness and affection goes deeper than a need for warmth.

These monkeys raised by the dummy mothers engaged in strange behavioral patterns later in their adult life. Some sat clutching themselves, rocking constantly back and forth; a stereotypical behavior pattern for excessive and misdirected aggression. Normal sexual behaviors were replaced my misdirected and atypical patterns: isolate females ignored approaching normal males, while isolate males made inaccurate attempts to copulate with normal females.

As parents, these isolate female monkeys (the "motherless mothers" as Harlow called them) were either negligent or abusive. Negligent mothers did not nurse, comfort, or protect their young, nor did they harm them. The abusive mothers violently bit or otherwise injured their babies, to the point that many of them died. Deprivation of emotional bonds to live mother monkeys (as infant monkeys) these (now adult) monkeys were unable to create a secure attachment with their own offspring. (Principles of General Psychology, 1980, John Wiley and Sons).

Harlow's research suggested the importance of mother/child bonding. Not only does the child look to his/her mother for basic needs such as food, safety, and warmth, but he also needs to feel love, acceptance, and affection from the caregiver. His findings show some long-term psychological physical effects of delinquent or inadequate attentiveness to child needs.

Harlow also did learning research with his monkeys. His theory, "Learning to Learn", described the ability of animals to slowly learn a general rule that could then be applied to rapidly solve new problem sets.

Harlow presented the monkey with two stimuli (a red block and a thimble, for example); one was predetermined "correct" and reinforced with food (red block) and the other was "incorrect" and not reinforced with food (thimble). After each selection, the objects were replaced and the monkey again chose a stimulus. Each trial reinforced the same stimulus (red block). The monkey had a 50% chance of being "correct" on each trial, however, he could increase his chances by adopting the win-stay, lose-shiftstrategy. For example, if the monkey chose the thimble and was not reinforced, he should shift to the red block for the reinforcer. If, however, he correctly selected the red block and was reinforced, he should stay with the reinforced stimulus and choose the same stimulus next time.

The monkey continued throughout a series of six trials with eight pairs of stimuli (learning sets). Harlow found the monkeys to be averaging approximately 75% correct responses by the sixth trial of the eighth set. He then began to look at the animal's behavior during the second trial. He found the monkeys to implement the stay or shift strategy on the second trial of the six-trial set, which means the animals did not relearn the strategy with each new stimuli set, they instead applied the rule they had already learned. After 250-plus trials, the monkeys were about 98% correct on the second through the sixth trials with each new stimuli set.

Harlow's learning research demonstrates that animals, like humans, are able to learn to apply strategies or rules to situations to help them solve problems.

Soberpotamus

Oh, I agree with them being instructive and sometimes invaluable. It's just hard to deal with seeing animals in distress, at the hand of a human (for me, anyway). And I absolutely agree with you that we seem to rate ourselves in a hierarchy with the animals that puts us above them in ways that aren't warranted.

MIRecovery

We will always gravitate to what we know even it is bad. I know how to how to live in chaos and pain living in happiness and sobriety is uncharted territory

FT

I just cannot get behind anthropomorphizing alcohol (or drugs), which I would have to do to make it fit the Stockholm Syndrome. Developing an unhealthy allegiance with something like drugs and alcohol does not equate with a similar allegiance with another human or group of humans. At least not to me.

I have studied Stockholm Syndrome with some interest ever since I learned the meaning of the term. Famous hostages such as Patty Hearst come to mind, who actually bonded strongly with her captors and bore arms in solidarity with their cause. While Stockholm Syndrome does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, it has been still described as "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other." (Dutton)

Anthropomorphizing alcohol seems to be a common thread in recovery groups, hence the "Dear John Letter" to alcohol sometimes seen here. I just don't get it. At least for me, alcohol is an inanimate object and incapable of "intent." Any intention was put there by me. In my opinion, you've got to own that to beat it, at least in the long term.

So that puts the topic squarely in the powerlessness arena, once again. Perhaps Patty Hearst was powerless against her captors, and joining them became her route to survival, I don't know.

The closest I can come to your analogy to the Stockholm Syndrome is a concept called a "disability syndrome," whereby the person believes themselves to be so disabled they become their illness, as they have no other choice. In my profession (which will go unnamed here), I see it applied all the time to opiate addicts who become disabled by their addiction after severe medical trauma. Later, they become dysfunctional and unproductive to the place of requiring social services to survive. Many of them are physically and mentally well otherwise. Insurance underwriters like to call them "malingerers." (No, I am not an insurance underwriter.) A similar thing can happen in non-drug scenarios, such as the accident victim who becomes paralyzed from the waist down and can no longer walk. A few recover and regain neurologic function, but are unable to walk because despite normal innervation, because they believe themselves unable to. There are many such cases in the medical literature.

Okay, you can beat me up now. But this is my two cents worth.



Dutton, D.G and Painter, S.L. (1981) Traumatic Bonding: the development of emotional attachments in battered women and other relationships of intermittent abuse. Victimology: An International Journal, 1(4), pp. 139–155

Soberpotamus

FT, I understand exactly what you mean. I am unable to anthropomorphize alcohol at all. I couldn't write the letter they asked us to at IOP, the "dear alcohol" breaking up letter. And I'm a creative writer.

LBrain

I just posed the question I have not studied psychology nor am I learned in much of it.
I do know that the dog whisperer guy is ripping off america by the armored truck load though.
This thread is running parallel to the 'relapse' thread. Just thought I would throw that out there. That's what got me thinking about it in the first place.

Love stimulating conversation though.

soberlicious

I don't see liquid alcohol as being like the abuser in a Stockholm Syndrome situation, but I do see how the cycle of trauma bonding and substance addiction are very similar.

And whether or not the attachment infiltrates the self to the point the individual refuses to move on from it, even when the threat is removed, can depend on many factors. People who have had early neglect or abuse that is significant and sustained, can mean that the body's ability to stay is an alarmed state, a state of high anxiety, is enhanced and that enhanced state begins to feel normal. It could be one event or a series of small events, but as Patrick Carnes says, "Living so reactively takes a toll on the body. Some researchers make a strong case that the impact of trauma is encoded right down to the cellular level. If there is enough time and sufficient fear, the impact can be highly addictive."
This also from Carnes :
"Throughout medical literature on trauma, there are many descriptions of the addictive qualities of trauma, especially as it concerns the bond with the abuser. <snip> Well, known Harvard researcher Bessel van der Kolk carefully reviewed the role of the endogenous opioid system in addiction to the trauma and trauma bonding."
Among his observations he noted that "what these people all have in common is a vague sense of apprehension, emptiness, boredom, and anxiety when not involved in activities reminiscent of the trauma." The cycle of doing it again and again...sound familiar?

EndGameNYC

I tend to agree. Writing letters to alcohol is, for me, a waste of time along the lines of writing a letter to my past regrets, failures and disappointments. Or sending a "Dear Pizza" letter once the magic has disappeared from the relationship I've nourished with such a tasty and seductive treat. It is not my words or my thoughts, but instead my actions, that can bring me to a better place. My time is better spent engaging in activities that sustain me, sustain my sobriety, and give meaning to my life. I'll also add for the sake of full disclosure that I've never gotten anything good or meaningful from keeping a journal, no matter how much effort I put into, and no matter how often and in so many different ways I've reflected on my motives and expectations for doing so. It simply is not my way.

(I also have a problem with some of the ways in which people make use of what's referred to as the "AV," but I don't think my criticisms would be helpful for anyone, and the very fact that some iterations of the AV help some people is enough for me to remain silent on this issue. If I genuinely believe that "whatever works" is the best philosophy, then my own thoughts and feelings are trivial in comparison to whatever anyone else finds helpful for them. I also have no interest in intentionally provoking controversy here.)

In my own view, I don't see the application of the Stockholm Syndrome to alcohol as necessarily an act of anthropomorphization. No sleight of mind can provide an inert substance or any other external thing or event with human attributes. But we regularly see and experience such things successfully portrayed in art, literature and simple communication. Children's stories, animated videos, and a large part of what we refer to as "creativity" would have very little content or meaning without such a convention. It is rather alternatively a metaphor and, I believe, an apt description for the relationship that I/we sometimes (often?) develop with things external to our selves, a means of adapting to difficult or extreme circumstances in the service of surviving those very circumstances. In my relationship with alcohol, I am essentially compromising my own long-term well-being in the service of being able to live another day. Or so I tell myself.

Yet my growing attachment to the effects of alcohol turns against me, sooner rather than later, with my long-term welfare undermined by each act of drinking. Despite this reality taking its rightful place front and center in my consciousness, I continue to drink. It is not denial but fantasy that dominates my fractured and labored thinking. Cognitive dissonance requires that I resolve my internal conflict regarding my reservations about the enormous and chronic negative effects of my drinking by either putting down the drink (which is unthinkable) or -- something which is much more compelling for me -- rationalizing that, for example, the salutary effects of drinking (such as the momentary and later illusory relief of stress) far exceed any and all negative consequences I am all too willing to endure which, for me, included loss of employment, loss of a stable living space, and poverty, both financially and in terms of genuine human interactions, with bad faith replacing whatever remnants remain from both genuine thought and personal conviction.

Groovitational

What an interesting topic!
Using your analogy of Stockholm Syndrome with alcohol being the captor, I can say there was a time when I hit rock bottom that I stopped loving the sweet,fun and relaxing "captor" and saw it for what it really was: a dangerous and violent enemy (even though this "captor" treated most other people quite nicely).

Of course I had to go through years of being in a living hell and almost dying to realize what this captor was.

And I think at times I saw it like that while beginning sobriety.

I suppose I'm more so breaking out of Stockholm Syndrome and that's a day to day thing for me, still with a fragile psyche. Especially after MANY relapses in the past. For me to start changing my life, I had to accept responsibility and not victimize myself. I should have never gone down that dark path in the first place!

Aellyce

You guys are fast A little on the experimental psychology topic: in my experience most people are uneasy with animal work in the beginning and if they decide to still pursue it, they get conditioned to it and lose the strong emotional reactions. A bit like a CBT approach. But some just don't like it, period. I always take it very seriously to discuss with new people what they would like and willing to do and encourage them to follow their natural inclinations. I've seen numerous senior scientists forcing the junior staff to work on whatever they (the boss) wants them, no matter what. Very bad approach, in my opinion.

On maternal behavior: another great example from contemporary research is how the nurturing (or abusive) behavior of a mother can affect not only similar aspects of their offspring, but also the later generations of the offspring. Scientists have followed 3-4-5 generations regarding this. One type of result from these studies is that, say, the lineage of an abusive mother may breed more abusive mothers over a long period of time. Some of these experiments with rodents have laid important foundations for what is known today as "epigenetic inheritance". Michael Meaney was one of the pioneers in this field.

I am also unable to personify alcohol and I also tried to write some of those "goodbye" letters after reading about the method and that it's helpful for many people. No words would come out of me. In the case of the AV, I think it's the opposite, we downgrade parts of ourselves in order to not identify with it. I find it interesting how diverse we are in terms of what methods work.

In terms of rationalizing destructive behaviors, for a long time I took it to extremes and romanticized the entire lifestyle of quiet desperation. I have not done journaling sober recently (other that what I write on SR), but wrote about all the madness in my head on a daily basis drunk. Wrote about it and then sent them to my select close friends via email. It did not help that they tended to love reading the insane rambles and visions. The other hobby was making drunken music videos. My two most dominant learning styles are verbal (reading, writing) and visual, so these came naturally. If any of you are familiar with Herman Hesse's novel 'Steppenwolf' - I was pretty much a Harry Haller during those times - in a weird position that not only I romanticized it for myself, but also some of my friends for me. I had to cut connection with those friends because it's not helpful to have positive reinforcement for a deeply unhealthy behavior. But I was in love with them at the time, and so were some of these people who read/saw the content of my ***ed up head projected into electronic media.

Soberpotamus

I see the AV as part of my brain, or my brain's dysfunction/disorder. I guess I imagine my AV as some sort of mutation or hijacking in the amygdala. So that's probably why I couldn't rage at alcohol as the bad guy. I don't think alcohol is the bad guy at all... not for 90% of the population who aren't problem drinkers. So the problem must be in me. In my brain and the way it reacts to the alcohol. An addict's emotional memory of drug use is different than a non-addict's. And the arrows seem to point to the amygdala and the limbic system. (My knowledge of this is limited obviously, as I'm not a neuroscientist but I do read a lot.) So I think I "downgrade", as you've said there Haennie, or maybe isolate this part as the area or voice of my brain that I do NOT let override the higher self or higher consciousness, or the part of my brain that knows what's best for me.

EndGameNYC

Ha!

My love of Steppenwolf was a sequel to what I identified with in Holden Caulfield in The Catcher In The Rye during my alienated and alienating youth. I was disappointed in each case with the characters' individual transformations or personal epiphanies.

I read both books at least one more time later on in life, and came to see that the characters' transformations, though not at all inevitable, were necessary in order to affirm and embrace the reality that life is worth living, and that a sense of meaning can only come from within.

alphaomega

What a fascinating thread ! Thank you all for this delciousness !!