Saw This On FaceBook
●▬๑۩۩๑▬●
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,405
Originally Posted by Seren 
I must admit that I have been very hesitant to walk into this fray, but I felt compelled to share what I do know because I am a scientist.
First, I’ll qualify any and all comments I make and my own views on all this by stating that I am neither a sociologist nor a medical researcher. I am an oceanographer and earth scientist.
1) Karl Popper’s Hypothesis of Falsification. This is the basic premise that if a hypothesis is made, many experiments may support that hypothesis, but a single experiment may falsify it. In other words, it can no longer be considered to be universally true.
In my own experiences with addiction I will state that my stepson was always treated with love. When he came out of the hospital from his first detox from alcohol, we all pitched in to make sure his room was clean and organized, instead of cluttered and depressing. We bought him a new bicycle so that he could get some exercise to improve his overall health and keep himself active and involved with the ‘outside world’. He had free cable TV, free food, and free cell phone. He was invited along and included, as always, in family events and outings. My stepson then turned to crack and threatened to kill his father, his sister, and one of his brothers. This is just one story, but I have read many similar ones here. This, in my opinion, falsifies the universal applicability that when the family provides a loving and supportive environment, the addicted individual will stop using/drinking, will never use again, or that the addiction would not develop in the first place.
Now, to be clear:
Do I think it makes recovery for an addict harder if they are constantly criticized or are constantly having the past thrown into their faces? Yes, I do. Do I think that addicts don’t deserve loving, supportive environments? No, of course not. But to state something as universal when it is clearly not misrepresents the complexity of addiction, in my experience.
2) The Rat Park experiments. I have not read the “Rat Park” manuscript that was published, so I cannot speak to any of the criticisms the study received regarding methodology or data manipulation. Sometimes methodology issues arise due to the nature of the experiment. These are not necessarily insurmountable, but must be clearly stated when presenting the results. I would, however, be more concerned with data manipulation. If a scientist purposefully excludes some data while including other data in order to obtain the desired result, then this is a serious charge, indeed. Again, I have not read all of the literature pertaining to this, so I am merely discussing the nature of methodology, data fabrication, and data manipulation issues.
3) Subsequent experiments on community support. The finding by more recent studies that social animals thrive with community support is, in my opinion, not that newsworthy. It seems an obvious finding that social animals need social interactions in order to be happy and well-adjusted.
4) Scientific Language. Scientific language is something that is often not well understood by the general public. When you read an abstract or manuscript published in a scientific journal, you will notice that scientists usually say things like “Our findings indicate…”, or “The results of this study suggest….”, or even “This may mean that….”. If you think about it, these words are sort of ‘wishy-washy’, and they have to be. The scientific process works from hypothesis to theory to law. There are very, very few actual scientific laws. Scientific data is often subjected to statistical tests, with the Pearson or other correlation tests being the most frequently utilized. Unfortunately, even scientists overstate their results if they find a significant correlation among their data. Correlation is not causation, and a very good article which highlights the difference is this: Sewall Wright (1921). Correlation and Causation, Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 20 (7). Although an old paper, the author does an excellent job explaining the basic difference between the two. A significant correlation does not necessarily mean there is a cause and effect between two phenomena.
5) Scientific research presented by popular media. Our news outlets are an openly acknowledged source of error in reporting scientific research by the vast majority of scientists. The reporters themselves are not entirely at fault here, although Mr. Johann Hari clearly cannot be trusted. Often, the reporters are under a tight deadline, have neither the training, the time, nor the word space to fully digest, understand, and relay all the subtleties a new piece of research. So, science reported in the popular press is often a misinterpretation of the research. In some cases, this is merely annoying. In other cases, it can be dangerous.
6) Scientists as infallible and superior beings. There are just as many scientists who are ego-driven and unscrupulous as you could find in any other segment of society. The falsification, manipulation, and fabrication of data to present the desired outcome does happen. The desired outcome often being driven by funding. If you read about a scientist or medical researcher who has been censured or disciplined in some way or whose work has been retracted, then there were grave and outright dishonest actions taken on the part of that scientist. In a way, I believe that scientists, like any well-adjusted human, should be honest, transparent, and humble.
Scientific research performed at universities and institutes is also very much guided by the sort of research desired by the funding agencies (typically governmental agencies). Scientists will frequently try to find ways to spin their research proposal in such a way that it seems as though their work is a good fit with the desired research of the funding agencies.
The bottom line for me, as a scientist, is that all scientific research should be considered carefully, and if you read about something that interests you in the popular press—please go find and read the primary research.
The bottom line for me, as someone who is surrounded by addicted family members, is that I tell them I love them, I support them in doing what they need to do for their own recovery, and I love myself enough to protect myself and my health and happiness from the chaos and sometimes abuse and violence that can come with active addiction.
I also hope that scientific research will continue into understanding the causes of addiction and improving treatment successes.
Peace, S
First, I’ll qualify any and all comments I make and my own views on all this by stating that I am neither a sociologist nor a medical researcher. I am an oceanographer and earth scientist.
1) Karl Popper’s Hypothesis of Falsification. This is the basic premise that if a hypothesis is made, many experiments may support that hypothesis, but a single experiment may falsify it. In other words, it can no longer be considered to be universally true.
In my own experiences with addiction I will state that my stepson was always treated with love. When he came out of the hospital from his first detox from alcohol, we all pitched in to make sure his room was clean and organized, instead of cluttered and depressing. We bought him a new bicycle so that he could get some exercise to improve his overall health and keep himself active and involved with the ‘outside world’. He had free cable TV, free food, and free cell phone. He was invited along and included, as always, in family events and outings. My stepson then turned to crack and threatened to kill his father, his sister, and one of his brothers. This is just one story, but I have read many similar ones here. This, in my opinion, falsifies the universal applicability that when the family provides a loving and supportive environment, the addicted individual will stop using/drinking, will never use again, or that the addiction would not develop in the first place.
Now, to be clear:
Do I think it makes recovery for an addict harder if they are constantly criticized or are constantly having the past thrown into their faces? Yes, I do. Do I think that addicts don’t deserve loving, supportive environments? No, of course not. But to state something as universal when it is clearly not misrepresents the complexity of addiction, in my experience.
2) The Rat Park experiments. I have not read the “Rat Park” manuscript that was published, so I cannot speak to any of the criticisms the study received regarding methodology or data manipulation. Sometimes methodology issues arise due to the nature of the experiment. These are not necessarily insurmountable, but must be clearly stated when presenting the results. I would, however, be more concerned with data manipulation. If a scientist purposefully excludes some data while including other data in order to obtain the desired result, then this is a serious charge, indeed. Again, I have not read all of the literature pertaining to this, so I am merely discussing the nature of methodology, data fabrication, and data manipulation issues.
3) Subsequent experiments on community support. The finding by more recent studies that social animals thrive with community support is, in my opinion, not that newsworthy. It seems an obvious finding that social animals need social interactions in order to be happy and well-adjusted.
4) Scientific Language. Scientific language is something that is often not well understood by the general public. When you read an abstract or manuscript published in a scientific journal, you will notice that scientists usually say things like “Our findings indicate…”, or “The results of this study suggest….”, or even “This may mean that….”. If you think about it, these words are sort of ‘wishy-washy’, and they have to be. The scientific process works from hypothesis to theory to law. There are very, very few actual scientific laws. Scientific data is often subjected to statistical tests, with the Pearson or other correlation tests being the most frequently utilized. Unfortunately, even scientists overstate their results if they find a significant correlation among their data. Correlation is not causation, and a very good article which highlights the difference is this: Sewall Wright (1921). Correlation and Causation, Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 20 (7). Although an old paper, the author does an excellent job explaining the basic difference between the two. A significant correlation does not necessarily mean there is a cause and effect between two phenomena.
5) Scientific research presented by popular media. Our news outlets are an openly acknowledged source of error in reporting scientific research by the vast majority of scientists. The reporters themselves are not entirely at fault here, although Mr. Johann Hari clearly cannot be trusted. Often, the reporters are under a tight deadline, have neither the training, the time, nor the word space to fully digest, understand, and relay all the subtleties a new piece of research. So, science reported in the popular press is often a misinterpretation of the research. In some cases, this is merely annoying. In other cases, it can be dangerous.
6) Scientists as infallible and superior beings. There are just as many scientists who are ego-driven and unscrupulous as you could find in any other segment of society. The falsification, manipulation, and fabrication of data to present the desired outcome does happen. The desired outcome often being driven by funding. If you read about a scientist or medical researcher who has been censured or disciplined in some way or whose work has been retracted, then there were grave and outright dishonest actions taken on the part of that scientist. In a way, I believe that scientists, like any well-adjusted human, should be honest, transparent, and humble.
Scientific research performed at universities and institutes is also very much guided by the sort of research desired by the funding agencies (typically governmental agencies). Scientists will frequently try to find ways to spin their research proposal in such a way that it seems as though their work is a good fit with the desired research of the funding agencies.
The bottom line for me, as a scientist, is that all scientific research should be considered carefully, and if you read about something that interests you in the popular press—please go find and read the primary research.
The bottom line for me, as someone who is surrounded by addicted family members, is that I tell them I love them, I support them in doing what they need to do for their own recovery, and I love myself enough to protect myself and my health and happiness from the chaos and sometimes abuse and violence that can come with active addiction.
I also hope that scientific research will continue into understanding the causes of addiction and improving treatment successes.
Peace, S
Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by Seren
I must admit that I have been very hesitant to walk into this fray, but I felt compelled to share what I do know because I am a scientist.
First, I’ll qualify any and all comments I make and my own views on all this by stating that I am neither a sociologist nor a medical researcher. I am an oceanographer and earth scientist.
1) Karl Popper’s Hypothesis of Falsification. This is the basic premise that if a hypothesis is made, many experiments may support that hypothesis, but a single experiment may falsify it. In other words, it can no longer be considered to be universally true.
In my own experiences with addiction I will state that my stepson was always treated with love. When he came out of the hospital from his first detox from alcohol, we all pitched in to make sure his room was clean and organized, instead of cluttered and depressing. We bought him a new bicycle so that he could get some exercise to improve his overall health and keep himself active and involved with the ‘outside world’. He had free cable TV, free food, and free cell phone. He was invited along and included, as always, in family events and outings. My stepson then turned to crack and threatened to kill his father, his sister, and one of his brothers. This is just one story, but I have read many similar ones here. This, in my opinion, falsifies the universal applicability that when the family provides a loving and supportive environment, the addicted individual will stop using/drinking, will never use again, or that the addiction would not develop in the first place.
Now, to be clear:
Do I think it makes recovery for an addict harder if they are constantly criticized or are constantly having the past thrown into their faces? Yes, I do. Do I think that addicts don’t deserve loving, supportive environments? No, of course not. But to state something as universal when it is clearly not misrepresents the complexity of addiction, in my experience.
2) The Rat Park experiments. I have not read the “Rat Park” manuscript that was published, so I cannot speak to any of the criticisms the study received regarding methodology or data manipulation. Sometimes methodology issues arise due to the nature of the experiment. These are not necessarily insurmountable, but must be clearly stated when presenting the results. I would, however, be more concerned with data manipulation. If a scientist purposefully excludes some data while including other data in order to obtain the desired result, then this is a serious charge, indeed. Again, I have not read all of the literature pertaining to this, so I am merely discussing the nature of methodology, data fabrication, and data manipulation issues.
3) Subsequent experiments on community support. The finding by more recent studies that social animals thrive with community support is, in my opinion, not that newsworthy. It seems an obvious finding that social animals need social interactions in order to be happy and well-adjusted.
4) Scientific Language. Scientific language is something that is often not well understood by the general public. When you read an abstract or manuscript published in a scientific journal, you will notice that scientists usually say things like “Our findings indicate…”, or “The results of this study suggest….”, or even “This may mean that….”. If you think about it, these words are sort of ‘wishy-washy’, and they have to be. The scientific process works from hypothesis to theory to law. There are very, very few actual scientific laws. Scientific data is often subjected to statistical tests, with the Pearson or other correlation tests being the most frequently utilized. Unfortunately, even scientists overstate their results if they find a significant correlation among their data. Correlation is not causation, and a very good article which highlights the difference is this: Sewall Wright (1921). Correlation and Causation, Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 20 (7). Although an old paper, the author does an excellent job explaining the basic difference between the two. A significant correlation does not necessarily mean there is a cause and effect between two phenomena.
5) Scientific research presented by popular media. Our news outlets are an openly acknowledged source of error in reporting scientific research by the vast majority of scientists. The reporters themselves are not entirely at fault here, although Mr. Johann Hari clearly cannot be trusted. Often, the reporters are under a tight deadline, have neither the training, the time, nor the word space to fully digest, understand, and relay all the subtleties a new piece of research. So, science reported in the popular press is often a misinterpretation of the research. In some cases, this is merely annoying. In other cases, it can be dangerous.
6) Scientists as infallible and superior beings. There are just as many scientists who are ego-driven and unscrupulous as you could find in any other segment of society. The falsification, manipulation, and fabrication of data to present the desired outcome does happen. The desired outcome often being driven by funding. If you read about a scientist or medical researcher who has been censured or disciplined in some way or whose work has been retracted, then there were grave and outright dishonest actions taken on the part of that scientist. In a way, I believe that scientists, like any well-adjusted human, should be honest, transparent, and humble.
Scientific research performed at universities and institutes is also very much guided by the sort of research desired by the funding agencies (typically governmental agencies). Scientists will frequently try to find ways to spin their research proposal in such a way that it seems as though their work is a good fit with the desired research of the funding agencies.
The bottom line for me, as a scientist, is that all scientific research should be considered carefully, and if you read about something that interests you in the popular press—please go find and read the primary research.
The bottom line for me, as someone who is surrounded by addicted family members, is that I tell them I love them, I support them in doing what they need to do for their own recovery, and I love myself enough to protect myself and my health and happiness from the chaos and sometimes abuse and violence that can come with active addiction.
I also hope that scientific research will continue into understanding the causes of addiction and improving treatment successes.
Peace, S
First, I’ll qualify any and all comments I make and my own views on all this by stating that I am neither a sociologist nor a medical researcher. I am an oceanographer and earth scientist.
1) Karl Popper’s Hypothesis of Falsification. This is the basic premise that if a hypothesis is made, many experiments may support that hypothesis, but a single experiment may falsify it. In other words, it can no longer be considered to be universally true.
In my own experiences with addiction I will state that my stepson was always treated with love. When he came out of the hospital from his first detox from alcohol, we all pitched in to make sure his room was clean and organized, instead of cluttered and depressing. We bought him a new bicycle so that he could get some exercise to improve his overall health and keep himself active and involved with the ‘outside world’. He had free cable TV, free food, and free cell phone. He was invited along and included, as always, in family events and outings. My stepson then turned to crack and threatened to kill his father, his sister, and one of his brothers. This is just one story, but I have read many similar ones here. This, in my opinion, falsifies the universal applicability that when the family provides a loving and supportive environment, the addicted individual will stop using/drinking, will never use again, or that the addiction would not develop in the first place.
Now, to be clear:
Do I think it makes recovery for an addict harder if they are constantly criticized or are constantly having the past thrown into their faces? Yes, I do. Do I think that addicts don’t deserve loving, supportive environments? No, of course not. But to state something as universal when it is clearly not misrepresents the complexity of addiction, in my experience.
2) The Rat Park experiments. I have not read the “Rat Park” manuscript that was published, so I cannot speak to any of the criticisms the study received regarding methodology or data manipulation. Sometimes methodology issues arise due to the nature of the experiment. These are not necessarily insurmountable, but must be clearly stated when presenting the results. I would, however, be more concerned with data manipulation. If a scientist purposefully excludes some data while including other data in order to obtain the desired result, then this is a serious charge, indeed. Again, I have not read all of the literature pertaining to this, so I am merely discussing the nature of methodology, data fabrication, and data manipulation issues.
3) Subsequent experiments on community support. The finding by more recent studies that social animals thrive with community support is, in my opinion, not that newsworthy. It seems an obvious finding that social animals need social interactions in order to be happy and well-adjusted.
4) Scientific Language. Scientific language is something that is often not well understood by the general public. When you read an abstract or manuscript published in a scientific journal, you will notice that scientists usually say things like “Our findings indicate…”, or “The results of this study suggest….”, or even “This may mean that….”. If you think about it, these words are sort of ‘wishy-washy’, and they have to be. The scientific process works from hypothesis to theory to law. There are very, very few actual scientific laws. Scientific data is often subjected to statistical tests, with the Pearson or other correlation tests being the most frequently utilized. Unfortunately, even scientists overstate their results if they find a significant correlation among their data. Correlation is not causation, and a very good article which highlights the difference is this: Sewall Wright (1921). Correlation and Causation, Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 20 (7). Although an old paper, the author does an excellent job explaining the basic difference between the two. A significant correlation does not necessarily mean there is a cause and effect between two phenomena.
5) Scientific research presented by popular media. Our news outlets are an openly acknowledged source of error in reporting scientific research by the vast majority of scientists. The reporters themselves are not entirely at fault here, although Mr. Johann Hari clearly cannot be trusted. Often, the reporters are under a tight deadline, have neither the training, the time, nor the word space to fully digest, understand, and relay all the subtleties a new piece of research. So, science reported in the popular press is often a misinterpretation of the research. In some cases, this is merely annoying. In other cases, it can be dangerous.
6) Scientists as infallible and superior beings. There are just as many scientists who are ego-driven and unscrupulous as you could find in any other segment of society. The falsification, manipulation, and fabrication of data to present the desired outcome does happen. The desired outcome often being driven by funding. If you read about a scientist or medical researcher who has been censured or disciplined in some way or whose work has been retracted, then there were grave and outright dishonest actions taken on the part of that scientist. In a way, I believe that scientists, like any well-adjusted human, should be honest, transparent, and humble.
Scientific research performed at universities and institutes is also very much guided by the sort of research desired by the funding agencies (typically governmental agencies). Scientists will frequently try to find ways to spin their research proposal in such a way that it seems as though their work is a good fit with the desired research of the funding agencies.
The bottom line for me, as a scientist, is that all scientific research should be considered carefully, and if you read about something that interests you in the popular press—please go find and read the primary research.
The bottom line for me, as someone who is surrounded by addicted family members, is that I tell them I love them, I support them in doing what they need to do for their own recovery, and I love myself enough to protect myself and my health and happiness from the chaos and sometimes abuse and violence that can come with active addiction.
I also hope that scientific research will continue into understanding the causes of addiction and improving treatment successes.
Peace, S
This is only an article though, why would anyone assume his views are universally true?
Im confused on this, because I never made this assumption.
The rat experiment he points to may not be universally true either, usually studies show percentages and deviations in their calculations, and these are used as a basis or to support a conclusion or hypothesis.
We have evidence against everything. We can look at individual situations and find many different perspectives and outcomes. For example rock bottom ideas would have killed my husband, lack of family support and active effort would have left him dead in a drug house. I guess I feel like the article is just an article and if I agree with some points he makes but not others it seems a reasonable approach to take for myself.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,497
[QUOTE=BlueChair;5158609]This is well written Seren, thank you.
This is only an article though, why would anyone assume his views are universally true?
Im confused on this, because I never made this assumption.
We can look at individual situations and find many different perspectives and outcomes.
BlueChair, how do you know that your husband would have died without your help? I am curious about how you know that.
There are many folks here who made it, with no support, but their own desire to live.
My problem with the article is that it may send the addict/alcoholics family back to square one, of feeling that if they only try hard enough they can 'fix' their loved one. Many here have tried that, only to finally decide , in desperation ,to save themselves, or be destroyed along with the addict/alcoholic.
This is only an article though, why would anyone assume his views are universally true?
Im confused on this, because I never made this assumption.
We can look at individual situations and find many different perspectives and outcomes.
For example rock bottom ideas would have killed my husband, lack of family support and active effort would have left him dead in a drug house.
BlueChair, how do you know that your husband would have died without your help? I am curious about how you know that.
There are many folks here who made it, with no support, but their own desire to live.
My problem with the article is that it may send the addict/alcoholics family back to square one, of feeling that if they only try hard enough they can 'fix' their loved one. Many here have tried that, only to finally decide , in desperation ,to save themselves, or be destroyed along with the addict/alcoholic.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by Chantal88
. I maintain HOPE because I know hope works. I've seen it work and I can testify to that.
I went on to "fall madly in love" with broken and addictive charming men...just like dear old dad minus the abuse. My own personality had been shaped by my worldview about myself, relationships and addiction.
What I have learned in recovery and intensive studies on addictions (I am closely involved in the movement to change how we deal with addiction in the criminal justice system especially county jails and prisons) is that there are so many variables in how we might possibly derive a best case scenario for how to help each individual develop a personalized treatment approach.
Consider:
The addict himself. How long have them been using chemicals addictively? If from a young age drop the success percentages drastically. The have not only damaged their brains but have done it during a critical time of development of their frontal lobe. What is the genetic history of the defendant? Many relatives with addictions, mental health diagnoses? This is a HUGE problem as we incarcerate the mentally ill and many self medicate with chemicals creating even more obstacles to recovery.
What is the addict believe to be true about himself and the world around him? His current situation and criminal history? What the addict believes to be TRUE is critical to his recovery. Usually the distorted beliefs about himself, his relationships, society and moral values are a huge part of their problem with drugs.
What are his spiritual beliefs? Brain imaging has now shown that a positive God-concept can greatly enhance the adapt, change and rewire with redeemed thinking that can bring healing and transformation to the lives of addicts. We have a God shaped brain whether we believe it was put there by God himself or was something that "happened" as our ancestors looked at the awe and majesty of the stars and this magic planet.
There is no "right" or "wrong" and sometimes I see us fall into camps when we make the same mistake as that scientist: we create a worldview and belief based on our limited exposure to the addicts WE LOVE. The power of this website is that opens us up to others experiences and we dialogue and science keeps advancing helping each of us determine OUR OWN PATH and how we respond to what in all honesty are usually very painful and toxic relationships with addicts.
What I have learned is that the United States has a crisis with 80% of those in jails and prisons having a problem with drugs and alcohol and almost all of them are coming back to our communities. Most are poor and they don't get the opportunities that many of our loved ones have had at rehab or intensive support if they enter into recovery. They are the forgotten and marginalizing in every community in the US and there is little to no recovery within those institutions.
Awareness. What we are all learning together about this growing crisis we need to share so changes can be made in the coming years and decades. Out of our pain comes knowledge and knowledge is power and the catalyst for change.
I thank you all for your stories. They have all made us so much wiser and stronger and better able to help those we love and hopefully in the future...the strangers among us who continue to suffer.
It will take more than hope. It takes action that comes from our hope but most importantly the biggest key is the decision by the addict that he will do whatever it takes...the bottom moment... the spiritual moment in their darkest hour that they surrender completely to whatever it takes is critical.
Why? Because there are brain changes at that moment. The brain actually gives strength to the commitment by rewiring itself. And every moment, every day of sobriety the brain continues to heal and rewire and the journey out of addiction begins.
For some its jail. Other its the bad medical report. For some its the divorce. For some they just age out and get sick and tired of being sick and tired. For some its death...but I do believe that they the addict holds the key to their prison in their own hands and you can keep pointing to the keys but only they can unlock themselves for their prison of their own making.
Forum Leader
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,944
Hello BlueChair,
I'm sorry if what I wrote left you feeling as though you should not pursue what works best for you and your family. Of course you should! Each one of us can only make the best decisions we can with the information we have, and I support all of our members following whatever path they feel is best. I believe I have stated so several times very recently as well as in the past.
What I wrote is only meant to be a caveat to members when reading an article about scientific research in a popular publication written by a journalist. In my experience, this sort of article should always be taken with a grain of salt. My recommendation remains that everyone who is interested in the scientific ideas presented in a popular publication should refer to the primary research for the complete details.
My point about universality is in response to the authors title which claims that these ideas are 'the cure'.
I cannot, in good conscience, recommend anything written by this particular author, either, because the more I read about him the more I question his journalistic integrity.
The other points I was making were just general points about how science actually works. Something that is not widely understood by people who are not scientists.
I am actually very happy, Blue Chair, that you and your husband are doing well and have found a way that works for you!
S
I'm sorry if what I wrote left you feeling as though you should not pursue what works best for you and your family. Of course you should! Each one of us can only make the best decisions we can with the information we have, and I support all of our members following whatever path they feel is best. I believe I have stated so several times very recently as well as in the past.
What I wrote is only meant to be a caveat to members when reading an article about scientific research in a popular publication written by a journalist. In my experience, this sort of article should always be taken with a grain of salt. My recommendation remains that everyone who is interested in the scientific ideas presented in a popular publication should refer to the primary research for the complete details.
My point about universality is in response to the authors title which claims that these ideas are 'the cure'.
I cannot, in good conscience, recommend anything written by this particular author, either, because the more I read about him the more I question his journalistic integrity.
The other points I was making were just general points about how science actually works. Something that is not widely understood by people who are not scientists.
I am actually very happy, Blue Chair, that you and your husband are doing well and have found a way that works for you!
S
Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: The planet Earth, or at least that's what I've been told.
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Hopeworks
I highlighted Hopeworks because years ago this was me: Faith, Hope and Love could conquer all including addiction.
It will take more than hope. It takes action that comes from our hope but most importantly the biggest key is the decision by the addict that he will do whatever it takes...the bottom moment... the spiritual moment in their darkest hour that they surrender completely to whatever it takes is critical.
It will take more than hope. It takes action that comes from our hope but most importantly the biggest key is the decision by the addict that he will do whatever it takes...the bottom moment... the spiritual moment in their darkest hour that they surrender completely to whatever it takes is critical.
You speak of the bottom moment, or the bottom spiritual moment as you put it. I think this is commonly referred to as "rock bottom". Many people have taken this term for granted in the addiction community. People just know and assume that it's true. But there is a lot of research and evidence that it is not. If you check out the posts by "Allforcnm" she directs people to resources that explain why it is outdated.
I too have worked with addicts and I have a close friend who is a counselor who volunteers in prisons. We have talked at length about the corruption of the penetentiary system and why it actually makes crime and drug use worse. There is a term for it - The Prison Industrial Complex. I am sure you have heard of it.
Anyway, the point I have been trying to make is that these studies are paving the way to change. It's a change that may force us to abandon beliefs that we have assumed to be true for generations. Terms will become outdated, methodologies will evolve, society will adapt. A debate in a forum is not going to stop that change, it is only an example of how uncomfortable change is for most people.
For every new progression in science there have been people who embrace it and others who fight against it. But we all know that the forward movement of science cannot be hindered. Science will continue on, whether we like it or not.
Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: The planet Earth, or at least that's what I've been told.
Posts: 130
Blue -
Well said. And I also want to point out, once again, that the "Rat Park" experiment was validated by several recent studies done on rats and addiction. Everyone seems to be all too eager to attack the validity of Rat Park, but I haven't heard a peep about the subsequent studies performed by different scientists and published in accredited journals. Unless there is some grand conspiracy that the scientists are all in on, I think it's fair to say that there is some truth to their conclusions.
Well said. And I also want to point out, once again, that the "Rat Park" experiment was validated by several recent studies done on rats and addiction. Everyone seems to be all too eager to attack the validity of Rat Park, but I haven't heard a peep about the subsequent studies performed by different scientists and published in accredited journals. Unless there is some grand conspiracy that the scientists are all in on, I think it's fair to say that there is some truth to their conclusions.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Canada.
Posts: 795
Originally Posted by chicory
BlueChair, how do you know that your husband would have died without your help? I am curious about how you know that.
There are many folks here who made it, with no support, but their own desire to live.
My problem with the article is that it may send the addict/alcoholics family back to square one, of feeling that if they only try hard enough they can 'fix' their loved one. Many here have tried that, only to finally decide , in desperation ,to save themselves, or be destroyed along with the addict/alcoholic.
I am not understanding the animosity in this whole multiple page thread. Aren't we all wanting the same thing? Why is so much anger being exhibited? If it works for even one person, is that not important and shouldn't it be celebrated?
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by Chantal88
You can't have optimism or change without hope. So while I recognize that hope is not the answer, it certainly is a major component.
You speak of the bottom moment, or the bottom spiritual moment as you put it. I think this is commonly referred to as "rock bottom". Many people have taken this term for granted in the addiction community. People just know and assume that it's true. But there is a lot of research and evidence that it is not. If you check out the posts by "Allforcnm" she directs people to resources that explain why it is outdated.
You speak of the bottom moment, or the bottom spiritual moment as you put it. I think this is commonly referred to as "rock bottom". Many people have taken this term for granted in the addiction community. People just know and assume that it's true. But there is a lot of research and evidence that it is not. If you check out the posts by "Allforcnm" she directs people to resources that explain why it is outdated.
We are not necessarily opposed and I am not invalidating your experience or your beliefs on addiction recovery I am only sharing my personal experience as someone who has lived addiction from the age of earliest memory. Addiction has impacted my entire life and had a direct influence on who I am and my own dysfunctional life choices. I have experienced extreme loss from my lost childhood, my emotionally unavailable alcoholic father, my brother who is lost in alcoholism and choosing to drink himself to death to my lost loves...all addicts. My XA whom I love dearly but will never reconcile with has a severely damaged heart and while in recovery now has a long history of chronic relapse.
I have been working with addicts in my work for over 35 years in the criminal justice system and have had extensive experience with every type of recovery philosophy. I have been studying addiction and addiction recovery for the past 10 years and we routinely help families, usually poor, find help and resources and participate in interventions.
That being said, we still are just seeing the tip of the iceberg and we continue and learn and grow in knowledge of how we can best help addicts recovery.
The "deflation at depth", "moment of clarity", the "miracle" that many recovered alcoholics and addicts speak of is life changing because it is a complete change of mind that make actual changes in the brain.
We both agree that human behavior and human choices are made in between the ears...the human brain is responsible for recovery or...not. When we have that moment that is an "AHA" that changes everything our brains process that knowledge and the more important it is to us the more the impact and chemical changes are in the brain.
For example...my XA could "talk" recovery and if he were a politician could have gotten elected. He was a walking talking master salesman of the illusion...but in reality and he know admits it was manipulation and he had not "broken up with alcohol". Therefore there was no real change in his brain except abstinence...not recovery. The evidence was many more years of destruction and now ruined health and a shortened lifespan.
This is science...well proven. We behave how we believe. If your kindness and supportive "cage" works with an A it is because they have had a change of mind...a new belief system that is going to affect their choices.
If a person has a time of deep spiritual moment of depth it has the power to change everything in very real brain changes. If one reviews history and its many heroes willing to die for something they believe passionately it is this power of deep belief, conviction and passion for a cause deeply believed in.
It is no different for the addict. If they have a deflation at depth and a powerful God moment they can become passionate about living instead of dying...changing everything with a willingness unknown before.
And again...in my long history of knowing tens of thousand of families struggling with addictive loved ones I can assure you there are addicts and there are extremely severe addicts. What works for a problem user/borderline addict and a severe addict from the age of 13 with brain damage is two completely different challenges.
There are no absolutes or good or bad as each situation is individual and a recovery plan should be developed based on the facts by a professional.
My experience is that unless an addict is committed to change...whatever it takes commitment.... the recovery attempt most likely will fail. It is a fine line between support and enabling...I was the chief of enablers for many years...hence my name Hopeworks which I considered changing...but it is a reminder of just how naďve I was many, many years ago so I keep like a big Red A on my chest! lol. It is my "deflation" that reminds just how little we really know..especially me.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by soverylost
Wow, that was a bit uncalledfor. If she feels her husband was in dire straits, why are you questioning that? Why does it bother you?
I am not understanding the animosity in this whole multiple page thread. Aren't we all wanting the same thing? Why is so much anger being exhibited? If it works for even one person, is that not important and shouldn't it be celebrated?
I am not understanding the animosity in this whole multiple page thread. Aren't we all wanting the same thing? Why is so much anger being exhibited? If it works for even one person, is that not important and shouldn't it be celebrated?
Having watched one loved one drink themselves to death, my brother on that path whom I love dearly and my XA now suffering from very severe heart damage from his addiction I get the pain.
I lived in the gnawing fear of imminent death of my XA for years...he was in the streets of Las Vegas drinking himself to death literally. Hospitals with BACs over 50. He almost died at least 20 times but each time survived...
it is the most awful, scary, debilitating thing a loved one can experience. No peace, no sleep and literally aging and making oneself sick. I lived it but I had to change my belief system and accept what I could not control and to even contemplate not saving that person by creating safe space and enabling...it was unthinkable to me. I truly believed my love could save him.
Today...for this moment he has saved himself. But he would tell you that had a kept him in his comfy nest of drinking in my home creating chaos and insanity (almost burned the house down as he was a black out drinker) he would have kept drinking. Why stop if no consequences?
Sometimes things are said here and are misunderstood as being mean or angry when in the posters mind it is loving care...and the poster is sharing her reality...her truth...her experience. Mine was the same... it was the saving of myself and giving my XA the responsibility to choose recovery or not...the freedom to choose life or death that ultimately saved his life.
For now. I wish I could post a picture of him with his beautiful girls who has just reconciled with after 3 years drinking in the streets. Gorgeous, intelligent, loving charismatic love of my life... truly. But he is dangerous and a relapse is as close as a lingered look at a liquor ad and then the impulsive drink from his impaired frontal lobe. Sigh.
Tragic. Just tragic. BUt life is tragic and unfair. We have to accept what is true and make our own choices based on our own belief systems. I have to be very careful as I am a recovered codependent but my drug of choice is a phone call away and he is SOBER!!!!
This is why I am posting so much. I am reinforcing my brain circuitry for a reason.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Canada.
Posts: 795
Hope, I understand where you are coming from. My H was a raging drunk. I have broken furniture and holes in my walls to prove it. I get it, I really do.
I was told by someone in Al anon that h's rock bottom could be death. And if he was convulsing on our floor, calling an ambulance would be enabling. I would call an ambulance for a stranger but shouldn't for my husband?!
Rock bottom is cruel and usually unnecessary. No one is suggesting cushy places for them to land - I took the kids and gave my H an ultimatum. But I also changed the environment in our home to something positive and supportive. He did also. That's what he needed and he was ready for that. It worked for us so far and that's what counts to me. And who knows? It might work for someone else.
No one is calling into question what people have chosen to do for themselves. And i think most tines we are dealing with something more than just addiction. I've read about bi polar, borderline personality and narcissism on this board. Quitting drinking is a start for them but not the whole problem.
There seems to be a deep-seeded fear with some when it comes to the idea of trying something different. I can't understand that.
I was told by someone in Al anon that h's rock bottom could be death. And if he was convulsing on our floor, calling an ambulance would be enabling. I would call an ambulance for a stranger but shouldn't for my husband?!
Rock bottom is cruel and usually unnecessary. No one is suggesting cushy places for them to land - I took the kids and gave my H an ultimatum. But I also changed the environment in our home to something positive and supportive. He did also. That's what he needed and he was ready for that. It worked for us so far and that's what counts to me. And who knows? It might work for someone else.
No one is calling into question what people have chosen to do for themselves. And i think most tines we are dealing with something more than just addiction. I've read about bi polar, borderline personality and narcissism on this board. Quitting drinking is a start for them but not the whole problem.
There seems to be a deep-seeded fear with some when it comes to the idea of trying something different. I can't understand that.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,497
Soverylost,
I am sorry if you were offended by my question. I simply wanted to know how she knows that he would have died without her help. Many of us are afraid that our addicts will die without our help, and we do more than is good for us. I fear my son will die, if I do not give him a place to live, but many think that he would do very well on his own, if I did not . I am glad that things have gone so well for bluechair and her husband. not everyone is so easily changed.
Not everyone responds to the loving efforts to help them. They catch the carpet on fire, leave the front door open, and the pets get out. They yell loud enough that the neighbors call police. You get thrown out of your rented apartment. You go to work sick, and dread the moment you see your house come into view-wondering what the A is going to do today. When they are stone drunk almost every moment, they don't even notice your loving care. Dinners grow cold, and money disappears. You replace doors, fix holes in the wall. You deplete yourself sometimes, and the stress can kill you. That was my son, during a very bad time of drinking, and I loved him unconditionally through that, until I had to leave for my own sanity's sake.
I don't know that every rock bottom is cruel or unnecessary...to me, the bottom is the moment when the addict/alcoholic says 'enough'.
I have no problem with trying something new. I do my own thing, follow my heart.
Its rare when creating a nice atmosphere changes the alcoholic or addict- it just makes doing their thing easier. Not every one will agree to counselling, nor are all so meek and mild.
my parents were both alcoholics, so is my son. He has always been loved by everyone, and who said that we all haven't tried to be nice, supportive, etc? We tried that, and that is why we are here, because that wasn't enough.
I am sorry if you were offended by my question. I simply wanted to know how she knows that he would have died without her help. Many of us are afraid that our addicts will die without our help, and we do more than is good for us. I fear my son will die, if I do not give him a place to live, but many think that he would do very well on his own, if I did not . I am glad that things have gone so well for bluechair and her husband. not everyone is so easily changed.
Not everyone responds to the loving efforts to help them. They catch the carpet on fire, leave the front door open, and the pets get out. They yell loud enough that the neighbors call police. You get thrown out of your rented apartment. You go to work sick, and dread the moment you see your house come into view-wondering what the A is going to do today. When they are stone drunk almost every moment, they don't even notice your loving care. Dinners grow cold, and money disappears. You replace doors, fix holes in the wall. You deplete yourself sometimes, and the stress can kill you. That was my son, during a very bad time of drinking, and I loved him unconditionally through that, until I had to leave for my own sanity's sake.
I don't know that every rock bottom is cruel or unnecessary...to me, the bottom is the moment when the addict/alcoholic says 'enough'.
I have no problem with trying something new. I do my own thing, follow my heart.
Its rare when creating a nice atmosphere changes the alcoholic or addict- it just makes doing their thing easier. Not every one will agree to counselling, nor are all so meek and mild.
my parents were both alcoholics, so is my son. He has always been loved by everyone, and who said that we all haven't tried to be nice, supportive, etc? We tried that, and that is why we are here, because that wasn't enough.
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,444
The thread seems to have moved away from the original post, and on to what other people posted and why - it's getting personal, and I think it's best to leave things here for now.
The forum mods will look at this later.
Dee
Moderator
SR
The forum mods will look at this later.
Dee
Moderator
SR
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
