The rat park analogy is not true. Think of famous drug addicts, Rush Limbaugh, Doc Gooden, Robert Downey Jr, etc. These are people who are rich, famous, and the world is their oyster. They became addicted not because their lives were bleak and boring but they had a psychological predilection for addiction. About ten percent of the population has it and those that do react differently to drugs than the rest of society. For these people reconnecting to people is an important part of getting better, but it is not the miracle solution.
Yes, and prescription drug abuse is a huge problem…and a lot of those people do start because they’re given legitimate drugs and never are able to get off them. I guess you could argue the ones who don’t get off them have great social connections, etc…but I don’t think it’s quite as simple as the video’s making it out to be.
Plus, what about nicotine? I don’t think that the average smoker is someone who’s all by themselves looking for something to fulfill themselves. I think a lot of folks just start and no matter how great or fulfilling their lives are, it’s really, really hard to quit.
My speculation is that there is a genetic component to addiction. Some people have genes that make addiction likely and other people do not. So some people could use addictive substances and quit relatively easily is they chose to and other people could use those same substances in the same amount and find it almost impossible to stop.
Consider the advertising campaigns for cigarettes - all based around very primitive instincts such as status, desire, femininity, masculinity. The advertisers know that average people’s lives aren’t that fulfilling, or the advertisers will insinuate a message that that is the case.
Consider advertising as a bad parent constantly criticising it’s child, inculcating dissatisfaction and trying to break it’s connections with the rest of humanity, exploiting envy, insecurity, senses of inadequacy.
There is little advertising that doesn’t fall into your first sentence’s summary. Most consumer goods are sold with the implication that you are less of a person without that product.
So you’re correct - at least, in my view - but you can’t be so selective about the scope. I think it has more to do with it being an effective general tactic than anything specific to tobacco, or, I suppose, liquor.
Well, but it’s a myth that being rich and famous equals psychological health. The rats were all given simulations of a comfy natural environment, not excessive wealth - it was rat park not rat palace.
So did Downey grow up in a fully connected way ? But I suppose you could say “ah but they had a relatively comfy life - four walls, running water, furniture - it’s obviously a gene thing” - if normal human life was fulfilling instead of a rat race that may be true.
[URL=“Robert Downey Jr. - Wikipedia”]
… or maybe it was more like a palace. Hmm, gotta think about this.
My sister grew up in a fully connected way. She had a loving family, a ton of friends. Addiction runs in our family, but it was distant to her - a great aunt and great grandmother she barely had exposure to. She had enough money to be comfortable.
She’s a recovering alcoholic. Depression also runs in our family, which is part of her issue. And then she made a bunch of poor choices starting from a young age.
A friend of mine lost her son to an overdose. Again, monetarily comfortable. Good family. He was popular with a lot of friends. Smart. Again, a bunch of poor choices starting from a young age let to continual battles with addiction.
Another friend has a 22 year old in and out of treatment. They surround him with friends and activities to support his sobriety. They do everything desperate parents do when they read an article like this talking about “its all about connecting and not being lonely or bored.” So far, the kid continues to choose drugs over family and friends and comfort.
Its simply more complicated than that article makes out. Some people turn to self destructive behavior because they are bored, others to hide pain - physical or psychological, some try it to fit in - because in moderation little is truly self destructive - or to have fun. Some people will easily escape the pull - they decide to quit smoking on Tuesday and throw away the pack and never look back. Some will struggle and try a few times before succeeding - and it will be easy or maybe hard. And for some people, with all the support and connectedness being given them as possible, they’ll never be able to quit.
Methadone is addictive, so how does it counteract any potential addictive effects of another med? It’s an opiate.
That is moving the goalposts. It is no longer that addicts are living in bad conditions but that they had a bad upbringing. That brings us closer to the conventional wisdom, that there is something in addicts that predisposes them to be addicts whether genetics or upbringing or a combination of the two.
Hmm, sort of. We know that childhood can give permanent predispositions, and create mental cages, and that’s just what addiction psychologists are saying (but not in the OPs video). But as far as comparing the rats study I think you’re right there would have to be a parental deprivation aspect to the experiment too to make it equivalent, so thanks for pointing out my goalpost shifting. Parental deprivation in rats is a heavy studied area, but I’ll leave that for someone else to dig up.
The research is clear and I have cited it on this board numerous times. Do some reading, check the NIH, and stop spreading shit that can end up killing people.
The most effective treatment for alcoholism is therapy and A.A. combined. The second best treatment is A.A alone. There are a bunch of studies on this issue and the findings consise show the same thing, A.A. participation leads to much higher sobriety rates.
In short, you are absolutely, 100% wrong on effectiveness.
On addictions being progressive and incurable, well, the research here is clear as well. Very few alcoholics can go on to drink normally again. The vast majority of alcoholics who quit then resume drinking end up in the exact same place with worse problems. It is superemely stupid to suggest, in any way, that an alcoholic can drink successfully after quitting. The odds are so low and the repercussions are so bad that it is insanity to suggest that a recovering alcoholic can drink safely again.
Slee
How does A.A. compare with ibogaine treatment ?
The evidence in favor of AA is mixed.
Cite. The evidence for ibogaine is barely more than animal studies and anecdotes.
Regards,
Shodan
Nice change of topic, there.
The studies you so passionately cite tell us absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of AA (practice or theory) at all. They tell us that selected patients who participate in AA have certain outcomes. That’s such a biased, multiply-filtered population that it’s almost meaningless when trying to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the AA approach. You might as well cite how many in the study ate tomatoes or drank distilled water.
AA absolutely resists every form of formal study and analysis, and the bottom line is that we only hear from those for whom AA is a success - and that’s what I’ve said over and over here: “AA works great for those AA works great for.” That, from what fuzzy data can be assembled, is a significant minority of those who consider or initially attend AA meetings. (I personally know more people who tried AA and couldn’t hack the regimen and amateur/religious process than who “succeeded” according to AA’s dictates. Most found other ways off their addiction. Some didn’t.)
When you can point to studies of significant populations who go to a first AA meeting and then tracks their addiction/life quality to a meaningful outcome, let me know. (I won’t be waiting by the phone, because AA not only resists such study by its very nature, but actively discourages all attempts to study its model in any controlled fashion.)
So we’re left with the successes, who naturally cheer the process… just like any religious convert.
Most of what we know about ibogaine is anecdotal and self-reported by evangelists. It does seem to halt withdrawal symptoms dramatically, but it doesn’t give people any skills to resist the cues that led them to drug use in the first place. A significant number of ibogaine patients relapse if they don’t follow up with immediate therapy. Halting withdrawal and craving is simply not enough to ensure recovery.
Is that an evangelist in a perjorative, blindly enthusiastic sense, or the enthusiasm of someone who has been freed of craving almost instantly and possibly forever ?
How much do people need a new skill set after treatment ? Some people might do if returning to a familiar environment, yet many report permanent psychological change, so good question - wonder who’s got the data on that ?
Exploratory follow up study
http://www.ibogaine.desk.nl/ibogaine_udi_bastiaans.pdf
So that’s interesting, sometimes it’s not so much a case of learning new life skills but of having a newly-cleared head.
I thought about starting a thread too after watching that video.
The title is unfortunately hyperbolic and there is such a thing as physical dependence. Being shorter than 6 minutes, it’s going to lack nuance.
I personally think that psychological addiction could be referred to as “procrastinating on doing important things you dislike by doing less important things you enjoy”; it’s much more about the addicted individual than it is about the thing he’s psychologically addicted to.
Related to the video, I’ve come to think of a lot of substance abuse, including alcohol and tobacco, as a form of self-medication for depression and anxiety.
ETA: Have you stumbled upon the Crash Course channel?
Anything that tries to oversimplify addiction is wrong. Clearly there is a physical dependency aspect to heroin and alcohol addiction for example; that’s why they need to be medically managed to a degree. However, it’s very true that psychological and social factors play a huge factor in dependency and recovery. Common American rhetoric likes to portray addiction as a biological disease, which is understandable, but again an oversimplication.
Of the Vietnam war soldiers addicted, most made a full recovery, with no difference between those entering formal treatment and not. Longitudinal data on recovering addicts suggests the presence of a job, supportive family, and good social networks play a big part in rates of success. See this paper - RACGP - The recovery paradigm - A model of hope and change for alcohol and drug addiction