New controversial Book by A Neuroscientist
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,966
New controversial Book by A Neuroscientist
Hi folks. I was listening to an interview by the neuroscientist Dr. Carl Hart, promoting his book called High Price. He has an official web page and a 1 hour utube video. I have not linked it because I did not listen to it yet and because it is highly controversial. But being that he has worked in the field of addiction for over 20 years and a scientist I felt it was worth mentioning for those interested. Like I said, I'm not positive that I agree with everything he says, nor do I know all that he stands for. He seems to be challenging some of our older pre-existing ideas about drug and alcohol addiction.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,927
Ive been meaning to post this for a while now... I found it rather interesting, when you posted this thread Cleanin.. it was quite a while before it appeared on other places here at SR... I did read up on him and to put it honestly I thought he made some good point and it didn't create any controversy for me..
Over at the Center for Motivation and Change (Craft advocates) they shared a couple of thoughts and I wanted to share them here...
Rethinking “Addicts”
This is part 1 of two responses to the New York Times article about Dr. Carl Hart’s research at Columbia University.
Stereotypes are pretty dangerous things. They bias opinion about a group of people, and are the basis for racism and bigotry. Massive amounts of research is available on stereotype threat, where the mere mention of a negative stereotype is enough for people to react based on internalized negative beliefs. However, when it comes to “addicts”, the stereotypes are so ingrained that if you don’t want to accept them, then you are considered in denial and not ready to get help.
In the September 16th issue of the NY Times, John Tierney writes about the research of Dr. Carl Hart, an experimental psychologist at Columbia University who has done some very interesting research on addiction and the behavior of “addicts.” In the article, Mr. Tierney describes Dr. Hart’s research bringing regular users of crack and methamphetamine into a lab to research the kinds of decisions they make. According to traditional stereotypes, these “addicts” should be unable to control themselves when given the option to use more of their drug of choice. However, this is not what happened. Instead, when given the option of using versus delaying their own gratification to get a monetary reward at the end of the study, several weeks away, the participants showed an overwhelming response against typical “addict behavior” and chose to take the money several weeks down the road.
What Dr. Hart’s work shows is that not all addicted people act as stereotypically “expected”, and lumping together ideas about people with substance abuse issues is a way to perpetuate stereotypes. “Addict behavior” is nothing more than a way of suggesting that “they” behave differently from “us” and therefore we are not alike. This is, however, not true! People struggling with substances make decisions using the same reward/consequence model that we all use, and the more that we can find and see the similarities between “us” and “them”, the easier it will be to help get everyone the treatment that they need.
Some people find words like “addict” helpful, and if that is the case for an individual, then I encourage its use! However, for many people, the insistence that they accept the label in order to get help is a significant barrier. By applying that label and the associated stigma to over 23 million people, we reinforce negative stereotypes that are, as in the case of Dr. Hart’s studies, not accurate for the individuals. We recognize the damage of stereotyping other groups of people; let’s widen our recognition to people who struggle with substance use.
Over at the Center for Motivation and Change (Craft advocates) they shared a couple of thoughts and I wanted to share them here...
Rethinking “Addicts”
This is part 1 of two responses to the New York Times article about Dr. Carl Hart’s research at Columbia University.
Stereotypes are pretty dangerous things. They bias opinion about a group of people, and are the basis for racism and bigotry. Massive amounts of research is available on stereotype threat, where the mere mention of a negative stereotype is enough for people to react based on internalized negative beliefs. However, when it comes to “addicts”, the stereotypes are so ingrained that if you don’t want to accept them, then you are considered in denial and not ready to get help.
In the September 16th issue of the NY Times, John Tierney writes about the research of Dr. Carl Hart, an experimental psychologist at Columbia University who has done some very interesting research on addiction and the behavior of “addicts.” In the article, Mr. Tierney describes Dr. Hart’s research bringing regular users of crack and methamphetamine into a lab to research the kinds of decisions they make. According to traditional stereotypes, these “addicts” should be unable to control themselves when given the option to use more of their drug of choice. However, this is not what happened. Instead, when given the option of using versus delaying their own gratification to get a monetary reward at the end of the study, several weeks away, the participants showed an overwhelming response against typical “addict behavior” and chose to take the money several weeks down the road.
What Dr. Hart’s work shows is that not all addicted people act as stereotypically “expected”, and lumping together ideas about people with substance abuse issues is a way to perpetuate stereotypes. “Addict behavior” is nothing more than a way of suggesting that “they” behave differently from “us” and therefore we are not alike. This is, however, not true! People struggling with substances make decisions using the same reward/consequence model that we all use, and the more that we can find and see the similarities between “us” and “them”, the easier it will be to help get everyone the treatment that they need.
Some people find words like “addict” helpful, and if that is the case for an individual, then I encourage its use! However, for many people, the insistence that they accept the label in order to get help is a significant barrier. By applying that label and the associated stigma to over 23 million people, we reinforce negative stereotypes that are, as in the case of Dr. Hart’s studies, not accurate for the individuals. We recognize the damage of stereotyping other groups of people; let’s widen our recognition to people who struggle with substance use.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,927
Changing the Focus of Substance Abuse Treatment
This is part 2 of two responses to the New York Times article about Dr. Carl Hart’s research at Columbia University.
Some of the work of Carl Hart, an experimental psychologist at Columbia University, was described in the NY Times recently, and adds to our understanding of motivation in addiction, while challenging one of the myths of addiction. Many people believe (and it’s often supported by treatment providers) that you can have little impact on a substance users choices, because their brain is wired to choose drugs or alcohol over anything else (“uncontrollability”, the defining characteristic of addiction for many). The message attached to this myth is “you can’t do anything to help them until they bottom out and have no other choice to make but to change”. In fact, Dr. Hart’s work appears to support what years of other solid research has found (again and again): if you give people access to alternative resources and behaviors, many will choose these things over substances (in Harts experimental lab work it was the finding that people chose small amounts of money over their drug of choice when given a choice). The foundation of the treatment we use at CMC is the Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) which is an evidence based treatment (means it’s been studied and proven to be effective). The main objective of CRA is to reduce or eliminate substance use by strengthening “community”. The goal of this treatment model is to identify things (people/relationship, resources, activities) in a person’s environment that reinforce positive behavior and change, then increase attention to those variables and provide access to them. By building up alternative reinforcers you are establishing alternatives that can compete with what the person gets from their substance use, and ultimately replace substance use as a behavior.
A family intervention based on this idea is called CRAFT, and is designed to help family members identify the ways they can strategically have a positive impact on their loved ones choices. The core point again being…you can influence a substance users choices in a positive way! Dr. Hart’s point that many substance users choose substances because their communities are depleted and empty of resources for family engagement, employment and health and wellness…is more real than many treatment providers or politicians want to discuss. Building community (through self-help groups like AA, yoga classes, sports groups, book clubs, volunteer organizations, etc.) and family connections can have a positive impact and change the course of addiction.
Dr. Hart points out in the article that in lab studies, when we enrich the environment of lab rats, they make the choice to abstain from highly addictive drugs like cocaine, and instead engage in their environment. He points out that this process is true for humans as well. Both CRA and CRAFT encourage the enrichment of one’s environment, making it easier to make the decision to abstain from use. Whether that enrichment is done on one’s own, or helped along by caring family members and friends, creating positive connections to a “community” can help to change patterns of substance abuse.
This is part 2 of two responses to the New York Times article about Dr. Carl Hart’s research at Columbia University.
Some of the work of Carl Hart, an experimental psychologist at Columbia University, was described in the NY Times recently, and adds to our understanding of motivation in addiction, while challenging one of the myths of addiction. Many people believe (and it’s often supported by treatment providers) that you can have little impact on a substance users choices, because their brain is wired to choose drugs or alcohol over anything else (“uncontrollability”, the defining characteristic of addiction for many). The message attached to this myth is “you can’t do anything to help them until they bottom out and have no other choice to make but to change”. In fact, Dr. Hart’s work appears to support what years of other solid research has found (again and again): if you give people access to alternative resources and behaviors, many will choose these things over substances (in Harts experimental lab work it was the finding that people chose small amounts of money over their drug of choice when given a choice). The foundation of the treatment we use at CMC is the Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) which is an evidence based treatment (means it’s been studied and proven to be effective). The main objective of CRA is to reduce or eliminate substance use by strengthening “community”. The goal of this treatment model is to identify things (people/relationship, resources, activities) in a person’s environment that reinforce positive behavior and change, then increase attention to those variables and provide access to them. By building up alternative reinforcers you are establishing alternatives that can compete with what the person gets from their substance use, and ultimately replace substance use as a behavior.
A family intervention based on this idea is called CRAFT, and is designed to help family members identify the ways they can strategically have a positive impact on their loved ones choices. The core point again being…you can influence a substance users choices in a positive way! Dr. Hart’s point that many substance users choose substances because their communities are depleted and empty of resources for family engagement, employment and health and wellness…is more real than many treatment providers or politicians want to discuss. Building community (through self-help groups like AA, yoga classes, sports groups, book clubs, volunteer organizations, etc.) and family connections can have a positive impact and change the course of addiction.
Dr. Hart points out in the article that in lab studies, when we enrich the environment of lab rats, they make the choice to abstain from highly addictive drugs like cocaine, and instead engage in their environment. He points out that this process is true for humans as well. Both CRA and CRAFT encourage the enrichment of one’s environment, making it easier to make the decision to abstain from use. Whether that enrichment is done on one’s own, or helped along by caring family members and friends, creating positive connections to a “community” can help to change patterns of substance abuse.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,927
I just found these comments released by Center Motivation and Change .. and they really spoke to me.. I agree with what they are saying, and feel there are very important concepts shared in their words.
Thank You Cleanin. for being aware of these types of articles and professional researchers..
Thank You Cleanin. for being aware of these types of articles and professional researchers..
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
