"Can you get over an addiction?"
 

Interesting article in the Sunday Review of the New York Times. Makes a lot of sense to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/op...tmobile=0&_r=1

I've seen the article before :)

I certainly agree that addicts should be less demonised, thought I'm not sure how to make that happen.

I don't feel my addiction is just a simple learning disorder tho.

I understand the attraction of thoughts like these - and more power to you if that works for you - but, to me, I'd forget I'm an addict to my peril.

D

I tend to focus on the solution rather than the cause.

That said, I find the research fascinating.

At the end of the day, I think that it's a mistake to think that the disease model and the learning disorder model and the connections model are all mutually exclusive.

What D said

I think the article postulates a plausible model for addiction. No matter the cause or type of problem though it can be beaten!

Intresting. I do believe, and I have read studies before, where addiction has been linked to the brain messing up and mistakenly takes the drug/alcohol as something it needs for survival. Therefore the urge to use that drug (I include alcohol as a drug) is the sign of a strong survival instinct, not a drive to self-destruct.

I can believe this article, that the instinct to use, is a deep primal survival instinct, just from the strength of the urges. Ive talked to people who don't have an addiction problem before..and one said "If I can resist a cream cake, when I love them, I don't see how you can't resist a drink"
The difference between "wanting" something and the feeling of a primal urge that you "need" something I reckon are enormous.

There is much work to be done , if I live to 175 I might manage it .:c011:

Interesting article, one that drew upon her experiences as a very young addicted person. I also agree that demonizing people is pointless.

One of the two concerns I have is that when new theories about addiction are posited, it may be interpreted by some -- particularly those who are not addressing their addiction -- that seemingly novel roots of addiction may leave the door open to them being able to use in moderation, particularly if they're addicted to alcohol.

The other concern, as others have noted, is that we need to focus on solutions.

With the technology that's out there today, I don't understand why we cannot "measure" and "examine" exactly what is going on inside a person's brain in a more precise and definitive way...

For example: If we KNOW that there indeed are neurotransmitters in our brain such as dopamine, serotonin, nor-epinephrine, etc, etc, why can we not take it one step further and measure those things accurately? We are most often left with subjective data and depending upon how someone says they feel and their BEHAVIORS.

The fact is, there is so much that is unknown about addiction. I am with teatreeoil on this one. With current knowledge and the technological advances of diagonostic imagery, why are more definitive answers so illusive to the scientific community? Is it lack of funding for what many perceive as a "destructive lifestyle choice"?

I don't know that we can't measure brain chemicals accurately. I am not sure what that might do for us if or when we do. Ultimately what needs to be changed is our behaviour.

If addiction is a learning disorder, it is far from simple. I don't think the term trivializes my experience in the least. I see it as a maladative behaviour that was reinforced through altered brain chemistry by consumption of a substance for which a tolerance is developed through repeated and continuous consumption.

I forget all the time that I used to be an alcoholic. It isn't part of who I am now. On the other hand, I never forget that I never drink.