Science A Possible Cause for Addiction

Debi

Owner/Admin
Staff
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
242,078
Reaction score
235,504
Points
315
Location
South of Indy
http://www.davidwolfe.com/the-likel...been-discovered-and-it-is-not-what-you-think/

drug-addict.jpg


Hari says, “If you had asked me what causes drug addiction at the start, I would have looked at you as if you were an idiot and said: “Drugs. Duh.” It’s not difficult to grasp. I thought I had seen it in my life. We can all explain it.”

He is talking about chemical hooks in drugs that cause our bodies to crave them. It is believed that these chemical hooks cause addiction.

This reference from the 1980s by Partnership for a Drug-Free America questions this thought entirely.

Although, in the 1970s, Bruce Alexander, passed professor of Psychology in Vancouver, noticed something about the experiments. All the rats were kept in empty cages and completely isolated. He decided to try the experiment again, but this time with much bigger cages, multiple rats, including a complete rat sanctuary. He called it Rat Park

And this is what happened. “The rats with robust lives didn’t like the drugged water. They mostly ignored it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs than the isolated rats ingested. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment and companionship became addicted.


This whole quest for knowledge Hari took teaches us much more than how to help addicts. It shows us that we need to strengthen our current lifestyles and relationships.

“Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections. It’s how we get our satisfaction. If we can’t connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find. He says we should stop talking about ‘addiction’ altogether, and instead call it ‘bonding.’ A heroin addict has bonded with heroin because they couldn’t successfully bond as fully with anything else.”

FULL ARTICLE AT SITE
___________________________________________________________________________

Reading the entire story, I believe there is some validity in this theory. What do you guys think?
 
The Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think! - DavidWolfe.com
..

Although, in the 1970s, Bruce Alexander, passed professor of Psychology in Vancouver, noticed something about the experiments. All the rats were kept in empty cages and completely isolated. He decided to try the experiment again, but this time with much bigger cages, multiple rats, including a complete rat sanctuary. He called it Rat Park

And this is what happened. “The rats with robust lives didn’t like the drugged water. They mostly ignored it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs than the isolated rats ingested. None of them died.

This whole quest for knowledge Hari took teaches us much more than how to help addicts. It shows us that we need to strengthen our current lifestyles and relationships.

“Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections. It’s how we get our satisfaction. If we can’t connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find. He says we should stop talking about ‘addiction’ altogether, and instead call it ‘bonding.’ A heroin addict has bonded with heroin because they couldn’t successfully bond as fully with anything else.”

Reading the entire story, I believe there is some validity in this theory What do you guys think?

Okay my thoughts are mixed. We are attempting to draw a conclusion from a hypothesis, but the conclusion arrived at is false.
I agree with the article's main points, though, I believe it is a bit simplistic. Granted, however any article on addiction, is probably always going to be simplified. There are so many stories of people who seem to have it all, and pitch it all in the trash over an uncontrollable drug craving, and still others who overcome enormous obstacles to defeat their addiction. This is where I agree with the 'hook' theory that is presented.

However, I disagree strongly with the study's conclusion!
A big problem here is the wording of the conclusion, and again back to the over-simplification issue. However the oversimplification involved in the conclusion drawn is breaking a very important rule in the scientific method to the point of extreme sloppiness. I will use that term, since I believe it states a professor (really?) conducted this experiment, and performed a Science 101 mistake.

While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment and companionship became addicted

This is a completely false (or maybe to be nicer, and possibly more accurately put: falsely worded) conclusion. Using this scientific logic, that would mean the answer to our 'rat park' environment (and by extension the real world) to eliminating drug abuse would be: Make sure that nobody is alone and unhappy, and always with companionship... Problem solved! That is absurd!

While I admit, the study is well intentioned, it is critically flawed by the way the conclusions are drawn, to the point that ABSOLUTELY NO meaningful data can be obtained as to how likely the outcome of any particular subject in this or any similar experiment can be predicted. We could use percentages, or even generalizations in our findings to help a little, but reading the synopsis, I can almost imagine that this particular test never occurred. The giveaway? The descriptor words used in the conclusion: (i.e. all or none) are of no use in drawing any conclusions from this test.

Sorry for bashing this to pieces, but as a science scholar, I couldn't let that one go by without negative press/
 
I know compulsiveness can lead to addiction and I also know compulsiveness is hereditary, so it is in our make up already, after we realise this we understand why our parents would try and pick our friends for us. Most people start smoking or try drugs because of peer pressure, when they decide they like it they tend to over do it through "compulsiveness" And one day they awake with a feeling of need for that particular drug, whether it be tobacco, Alcohol. or a narcotic. This has been my experience.
 
Maphoo, thank you. Thank you. I had 9 trimesters of graduate level statistics. My BS meter is finely honed. But I'll take this apart from another angle. Will do it in two words. 'Rat Runner.'
Oh how i wish i could have used 2 words! However, they wouldn't be those particular two! :D But I hope everyone can see that I actually gave the source as much benefit of the doubt as humanly possible. I couldn't stay quiet on this. This is an example of :"But it must be true.. I read it on the ..."
Don't be confused anyone, the "conclusions" drawn, are symptoms of *some* people who face drug addiction. And as a recovering alcoholic, I do not want to make light of this situation in anyway. But whoever wrote this would have been better equipped to come from a philosophical or even personal experience point-of-view. To try to blow this steamy pile by me and paintman as science, well bzzzzt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paintman and Mokey
I knew when I posted this it would evoke some feelings....just didn't realize how much! Thank you all for being so open and honest with your feelings on this one.
 
I know compulsiveness can lead to addiction and I also know compulsiveness is hereditary, so it is in our make up already, after we realise this we understand why our parents would try and pick our friends for us. Most people start smoking or try drugs because of peer pressure, when they decide they like it they tend to over do it through "compulsiveness" And one day they awake with a feeling of need for that particular drug, whether it be tobacco, Alcohol. or a narcotic. This has been my experience.

Well put Armand. I suffered a years long battle with alcohol, so we do know of what we speak. With me compulsiveness is a factor. I fully agree that dependency issues are hereditary. On the other hand, a word of caution: one cannot take for granted that "they are immune" because of no family history. We have learned that most genetic illness readily skip a generation, or many generations. So I believe that I was an alcoholic the moment I was born, and even though proudly sober, continue to be. I personally believe this is the case of all others that are genetically predisposed.

My advice to anyone who's mother and father are/were alcoholic, never touching a drink is probably the best advice that I could give. Although remember I mentioned above about generation skipping too, but (doing my best not to be a holier than thou recoverer) I can't advise everybody to never try a drink, just because out there somewhere in your family tree lurks a recessive gene of a boozer!!

Given that I fully believe I was an Alkie at birth, Just like others, it wasn't a problem for me at 15 and had my first drink. Nor was it when I started going out regular after I turned 21. In my 30s I routinely got plastered, and maintained a job, although things began to get more difficult to conceal. I reached a point where I occasionally needed sedatives for my shaking and withdrawals, and coffee for my fatigue just to continue with "business as usual". In my experience, and from my own hindsight: I think if you find yourself in the mirror saying "I think I got a problem" you are correct, but you have already recognized it too late. Not to get help, this is the perfect time! But you are too late in the sense that the phrase you said to the mirror should have come out "I got a problem." Self-recognition always comes slow.

Only on looking back I can self-diagnose the things that were happening to me that I was unaware of at the time:

I eventually began to have a very serious problem in my late 20s or early 30s, when the alcohol took the upper hand in the decision making. In my experience, and from my AA meetings and such, I've never met anyone that can put an exact date on when they lost control.. Looking back in time through my 20/20-armchair-quarterback glasses (because this was before I had my '02 Yukon Time-Dilation Device). -- The big warning sign for me wasn't that I couldn't abstain if necessary. I could, although not for an extended length of time, but mine was specifically: I lost that ability to have that "just one more."

I would rationalize that A 30 pack seemed like it wasn't a big deal, so long as i spread it over the entire day. That psychology didn't work either. What had happened to me, was somewhere along the line, I had lost my "off' swich. I drank until i was too tired to have another, or it could no longer be obtained, regardless of my constant pre-planning.
 
I knew when I posted this it would evoke some feelings....just didn't realize how much! Thank you all for being so open and honest with your feelings on this one.
Oh c'mon bird :p that was your intention!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mokey and Debi