Debating addiction


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

@Man in Black I didn't specify they did it intentionally. Nobody ever accidentally drank poison? (Maybe I shouldn't have used bleach as the example).

Re: "cockamamie definition" If I'm reading you correctly (correct me please if I am) part of your argument is that addiction ought to be defined, for treatment purposes, as a disease when that is not necessarily the case?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Sarcasmancer wrote:
Which seems to be problematic. Why not treat poverty as an illness and have all the poor rounded up to be "treated"? More effective than letting them rot in the streets, right? What other social ills could we dispense of by reclassifying them as illnesses?

It's only problematic because you somehow think "rounding people up" is a necessary condition of treating disease. You have some very weird ideas about what disease is and how it's treated.

Sarcasmancer wrote:
If I'm reading you correctly (correct me please if I am) part of your argument is that addiction ought to be defined, for treatment purposes, as a disease when that is not necessarily the case?

You're not reading me correctly. I am saying that it is a disease, and we treat it because that treatment can help. It's a mix of physical, psychological, and sociological causes, like all mental illnesses. We don't treat poverty the same way because medicine (in the sense of doctors and therapy, not just pills) can't do much to help with sociological phenomena.


There's such a thing as involuntary commitment, especially if a person is ruled to be a threat to others or to refuse treatment that's in their own best interest. Of course that relies on a third party to neutrally arbitrate to a person what's in their own best interest.

I agree with your comparisons between homosexuality and addiction (though I disagree that wanting to cure/brainwash somebody out of homosexuality makes them your "willing slave") and hopefully you can see where I'm coming from when I say that I see it as problematic that law/society can (more or less arbitrarily) dictate that some partially genetic/partially behavioral "problems" are "illnesses" that require "treatment" and others are socially acceptable.

It's in the eye of the beholder. In our culture we (rightly, I think) do not regard homosexuality as a dangerous aberrant addiction that needs to be cured but the same is not true of certain other lifestyle choices and I think that's something that can be fruitfully questioned and examined. As happens in this thread ;)


Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:
@Shouting Off Mountain - devil's advocate: How is that any different from offering 120 million to somebody to cure your daughter of a congenital illness? Especially if it's one with no known cure?

Ok, I know this is going to become another argument eventually, but here's my attempt. Probably going to regret it.

While homosexuality does have a number of genetic factors that influence it's appearance, it is fundamentally a trait of personality. It does not stem PURELY from genetic factors.

To remove it is a violation of freedom of will, since you are trying to fundamentally change their personality, and not just their body.

Now, for the addiction problem it's more complicated. But I still hold that it is not a purely genetic thing. It depends just as much on environment, society, and other factors so as to be a part of personality. Anything that destroys that is an attack on freedom of will. Anything that changes that doesnt "cure" the person, it simply creates a new, different person instantaneously.

Another question to ask would be:

If you new somebody could kidnap you & reprogram you to be their willing slave, would you want that (before the reprogramming, because after, you wouldn't care). I dont want that possibility to even exist.

I really hope we can all stay civil in this discussion, because I know it has SOOO much potential as flame bait. I will gladly listen to your responses.

Look, back when millions of people actually were kidnapped and enslaved, reprogramming them be so willingly (well, except by beating them into submission) wasn't an issue. Like, at all, and that's how society at large functioned. I hope I don't sound uncivil either, but I really think you're just over reacting to the idea of medical innovation.


Hitdice wrote:


Instantaneous? Have you ever watched someone reprogram a computer? Speaking seriously, I think you're over reacting to the idea of human...

I have known some folks in neurology, some folks taking a very serious mathematical looks at how brains work, and some people trying to program neurons in computers. It is hard. We are very far from having a thourough understanding of the brain, much less being able to reprogram it.

I believe I must trace a difference between being aware of how the brain works (observational) and having the ability to "reprogram" someone's brain. One is usefull, but circumstancial. We have a fairly good idea how the lungs work, but our understanding of every aspect isnt perfect. However, we arent able to make new lungs by hand (although we can grow new ones if we let biology do it's work).

As for the act of programming itself (and yes, I am intimately familiar with it's length) I guess the speed is less significant that the nature of the change. The person "after" the reprogramming could have had any number of things change without any awareness of it. The "instantaeous" nature is more metaphysical (IE, a clear break between before and after rather than a gradual change).

If you change yourself, you are making conscious choices every step of the way. The change is to "sudden" in the reprogramming case.


Misleading a person or taking advantage of known cognitive biases and missteps =/= reprogramming their brain like a robot. Give me a break.


Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
But it is still one's informed choice, that they can easily decide against at any point of the (generally long) process.

There is no such thing as contra-causal free will. We do what our brains decide, and unfortunately most of their programming takes place by happenstance instead of intent.

Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
What defines you, your personality, your memories, your ways of being (what makes you a person) can be removed wiht almost negligible effort (despite the probable complexity of such surgery). Thus personhood goes from a bastion of what you are (hard to change) to something that can merely have parts of it copy-pasted around.

That's what happens. Look at the case of the UT sniper, or any number of similar cases; do stuff to the brain and the output instantly gets scrambled; you get a new person.

Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm a scientist not a philosopher, so my explanation is probably not the best.

May I ask what sort? I'm a hydrogeologist, but have an interest in biology. If you're a neuroscientist, I'll likely bow to your superior immersion, but if an engineer or computer scientist -- not so much.

Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
Plus I think the potential for abuse of such technology is simply immesurable.

So is the potential for abuse from the atomic bomb, but the cat's out of the bag. It's better to let science deal with learning how things work, and let the people and the courts decide what constitutes "abuse."

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
There's such a thing as involuntary commitment, especially if a person is ruled to be a threat to others or to refuse treatment that's in their own best interest. Of course that relies on a third party to neutrally arbitrate to a person what's in their own best interest.

It is carefully limited to someone who presents an immediate danger to themselves or others and still sees abuse. Nobody is proposing expanding it.

Quote:
In our culture we (rightly, I think) do not regard homosexuality as a dangerous aberrant addiction that needs to be cured but the same is not true of certain other lifestyle choices and I think that's something that can be fruitfully questioned and examined. As happens in this thread ;)

The difference between homosexuality and drug addiction is that homosexuality won't kill you stone dead, through physiological causes or self-destructive behavior.


A Man In Black wrote:
The difference between homosexuality and drug addiction is that homosexuality won't kill you stone dead, through physiological causes or self-destructive behavior.

Couple relevant Google searches will show that plenty of people use drugs without being killed by them and plenty of people willing to argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle that results in poor health or death. I don't agree with the argument but it's been made and really it's a matter of degree. Everybody eventually dies from something.

At least part of the "self-destructive behavior" in both cases is a result of societal and legal factors inhibiting and stigmatizing the person who engages in the original behavior.


Sarcasmancer wrote:

There's such a thing as involuntary commitment, especially if a person is ruled to be a threat to others or to refuse treatment that's in their own best interest. Of course that relies on a third party to neutrally arbitrate to a person what's in their own best interest.

I agree with your comparisons between homosexuality and addiction (though I disagree that wanting to cure/brainwash somebody out of homosexuality makes them your "willing slave") and hopefully you can see where I'm coming from when I say that I see it as problematic that law/society can (more or less arbitrarily) dictate that some partially genetic/partially behavioral "problems" are "illnesses" that require "treatment" and others are socially acceptable.

It's in the eye of the beholder. In our culture we (rightly, I think) do not regard homosexuality as a dangerous aberrant addiction that needs to be cured but the same is not true of certain other lifestyle choices and I think that's something that can be fruitfully questioned and examined. As happens in this thread ;)

I guess I dont trust humans with the choice of deciding that certain aspects of society are absolutely wrong and must be eradicated in such a fashion. Such a thing would be akin to murder, since you are destroying a fundamental part of what the person was (teir sexuality in this case).

Oh, and I'm not stating that brainwashing someone makes them your willing slave. I'm just saying they could very easily CHOOSE to make you their willing slave. It's a different context.

@Hitdice:

The people who where enslaved in the past rarely did so willingly. Many fought (and failed) and some people chose that it was easier to survive by submitting. But the keyword here is CHOICE. Technologies that can reprogram the brain completely have the ability to remove CHOICE in it's entirety, or to make us believe certain CHOICES dont exist. And I believe that is wrong, because by removing CHOICE, even in it's simplest form (IE, choosing to live or die) destroys us as people.

Edit: @ Kirth: Nope, I'm just an engineer with strong opinions. I've worked in medical labs, but they mostly care about cancer & such (you write cancer on your grant application, you're guaranteed monay!) I still want to believe of humans as people and not just biological machines.

And while I agree we can mess with somebody's brain, we are far from having absolute control (although it is effectively a new person, as you said).

As for the cat being out of the bag, we are not yet in such a state. The understanding I've gotten from neuro-bio friends is that we have little more than a basic understanding of the brain. We still have the possibility to stop it, so I dont see why we should not try.

Also: @ sarcasmancer: I agree, "Misleading a person or taking advantage of known cognitive biases and missteps =/= reprogramming their brain like a robot." It is slow, gradual, and allows you choice. Reprogramming does not.

I think I'm going to have to stop here. To many uncertainties at the moment. Need to do some research to get some facts straight.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Sarcasmancer wrote:
Couple relevant Google searches will show that plenty of people use drugs without being killed by them

Plenty of people survive cancer. How is this relevant?

Quote:
plenty of people willing to argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle that results in poor health or death.

Those people are demonstrably wrong. "Someone, somewhere, said a thing" doesn't make it true.

There is no such thing as gay overdose, cancer of the gay organ, or getting into an accident because of gay driving. Shut up about homosexuality.


Mountain, I can't say you're wrong about choice (I'd actually use the word preference, but I'm pedantic like that) but none of the innovation I'm talking about is mutually inclusive with a 1984-type, brainwashing totalitarian state. It's a lot closer to mental health treatment, actually.


@Man in Black you don't seem especially receptive to people who disagree with you even when they do so only rhetorically. My guess is you're looking for a fight (or a chance to signal) more than an actual discussion. Or "debate" as implied in the title of the thread. And so, as Paul Harvey would say... good day.

Liberty's Edge

Ok, I'm going to weigh in for what it is worth:

I'm a big guy. A while back I went in and had the lap band surgery. Before I could have said surgery, however, I had to receive clearance from 3 people, a cardiac doctor, a lung doctor, and a therapist. Yup, a therapist. For weight loss surgery. Why? Well, it is simple, it is all about addiction.

Each addiction isn't just its own little thing, totally separate from all the others. A lot of people who are overweight, have a food addiction. Whenever they get a surgery that removes their ability to fulfill that addiction, that addiction can change. As in, poof, you are no longer addicted to food, but now you are addicted to gambling, or drinking, or whatever. This was enough of a concern the surgery group was willing to give up patients that couldn't get the OK from the therapist, even though the insurance would pay for it and that as a prerequesite for the surgery, besides getting the ok from the therapist, I had to have someone who would help me out and watch out for me and make sure I didn't get into a different addiction. I was also given a forum address as a form of group therapy as a kind of preventative medicine.

And as a side note, not all drug addicts are responsible for taking their first dose. I know of someone who was injected with heroin on her 13th birthday by force. That began her addiction and she didn't get to choose the first time. Likewise, people who are injured and then end up becoming addicted to pain pills (or sleeping pills for insomniacs, or whatever) didn't choose to get hurt (or have insomnia, or whatever).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good thing it's quite unlikely to be a simple, or safe, process. You would need a specially-tailored replacement of synapses, I think, in pretty large parts of the brain to even be able to approach what you're talking about. This makes it a matter of hypercomplex nanotech structures - something that's a fair bit away.


Sissyl wrote:
Good thing it's quite unlikely to be a simple, or safe, process. You would need a specially-tailored replacement of synapses, I think, in pretty large parts of the brain to even be able to approach what you're talking about. This makes it a matter of hypercomplex nanotech structures - something that's a fair bit away.

More the reason for assimilation....!


Hitdice wrote:
Mountain, I can't say you're wrong about choice (I'd actually use the word preference, but I'm pedantic like that) but none of the innovation I'm talking about is mutually inclusive with a 1984-type, brainwashing totalitarian state. It's a lot closer to mental health treatment, actually.

I'd be curious to know what kind of mental health treatment. I've had family members go through it, and the impressions I got where this:

-There was no capacity to "solve problems". I was always about "managing conditions", letting the people know the ressources are available, and letting them make the choice.

-There is no cure, and treatment is until relapse (at best) or forever. They help you find methods to cope (and that's if you ask them to help, they dont even try for people who dont want any).

-There is a lot of difficulty in identification of the illness. It took months to even decide on a name for what it was, and even then they werent sure.

-Medecine is extremely unreliable. The family member from earlier spent the first year of their depression cycling through meds, trying to find something that might help. In the end, the long-term therapy helped more than the meds.

My uderstanding is that they have very little ability to affect people's mind, even when they want to. But experiences may differ.

A good look at current mental health treatment (from someone who actually knows how to write) can be found at cracked.com, they had a really good article recently.


Sissyl wrote:
Good thing it's quite unlikely to be a simple, or safe, process. You would need a specially-tailored replacement of synapses, I think, in pretty large parts of the brain to even be able to approach what you're talking about. This makes it a matter of hypercomplex nanotech structures - something that's a fair bit away.

I certainly agree with that. The sheer research effort would cost BILLIONS, though I'm sure some people have tried.

What's interesting is that this great age of science has made people surprisingly incredulous. In the past, schisters used promises of magic to con people. In an age were so much has been done by science, now con men convince that way. Despite the fact that science is merely a study of what exists.

It's engineering (biological, mechanical, electrical, optical, etc.) that makes stuff from it. And we all have limits. The simplest one being cost.

There is so much we do not know, and that we can not do (yet, though). People expect so much of science & engineering. Too much I believe.


Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Mountain, I can't say you're wrong about choice (I'd actually use the word preference, but I'm pedantic like that) but none of the innovation I'm talking about is mutually inclusive with a 1984-type, brainwashing totalitarian state. It's a lot closer to mental health treatment, actually.
I'd be curious to know what kind of mental health treatment.

I trimmed some, just for the sake of space.

Here's the thing: I can't possibly answer that question, because the innovations I'm talking about haven't happened yet. "Reprogram the brain" is an entirely hypothetical statement at this point. That's why I think you're over reacting in the first place.


Hitdice wrote:
Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Mountain, I can't say you're wrong about choice (I'd actually use the word preference, but I'm pedantic like that) but none of the innovation I'm talking about is mutually inclusive with a 1984-type, brainwashing totalitarian state. It's a lot closer to mental health treatment, actually.
I'd be curious to know what kind of mental health treatment.

I trimmed some, just for the sake of space.

Here's the thing: I can't possibly answer that question, because the innovations I'm talking about haven't happened yet. "Reprogram the brain" is an entirely hypothetical statement at this point. That's why I think you're over reacting in the first place.

I guess I'm responding to the exact (and theoretical) notion of reprogramming the brain. I believe it's worth discussing such hypothetical so that we can find dangerous possibilities and know which ones are most dangerous. I think it's essential. And where I am, we are all expected to review implications at large of our work. I'm currently working on an astronomical project (so pretty low impact) but when I worked in a bio lab we had to consider the impact of our research much more strongly.

Will it ever happen? Maybe. There is no certainty in such things. But I still believe we should stay conscious of what can happen, and not stay blind to it (like in the case of the A-Bomb, malaria treatment, and many other cases where we chose to be expedient rather than reflect on the consequences).

Man, this would be so much better in person. I hate debating by text, if only because all the non-textual stuff doesnt cross through.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
"Reprogram the brain" is an entirely hypothetical statement at this point. That's why I think you're over reacting in the first place.

I'll be the first to say that actually doing it isn't something that's even remotely close, but I think the writing's on the wall that it could be done, given sufficient chemical and biological knowledge. I just think it will take a couple centuries more research before we get even a basic, crude handle on it.

Look at how lithium drugs revolutionized the treatment of bipolar disorder -- we stopped pretending it was some sort of spiritual mind thing with no physical basis, and instead starting treating it as a chemical imbalance that was physically making the brain produce oscillating output.

Two hundred years ago we rode around in wooden wagons, but had a pretty good idea that mechanical flight was possible. Now flying to the Moon is old hat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What we need to be afraid of is not bogeymen that are admittedly pretty far away. We need to make sure we don't end up in an authoritarian state - whether such a state would make limiting energy consumption easier, get us a handle on the population growth, enforce "social justice" or anything else. As long as we have an authoritarian state, everything that CAN be used to control the individual WILL be. There's your nightmare. So, get cracking on dismantling the ubiquitous surveillance, and make sure the policy-makers fear the people again.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
"Reprogram the brain" is an entirely hypothetical statement at this point. That's why I think you're over reacting in the first place.

I'll be the first to say that actually doing it isn't something that's even remotely close, but I think the writing's on the wall that it could be done, given sufficient chemical and biological knowledge. I just think it will take a couple centuries more research before we get even a basic, crude handle on it.

Look at how lithium drugs revolutionized the treatment of bipolar disorder -- we stopped pretending it was some sort of spiritual mind thing with no physical basis, and instead starting treating it as a chemical imbalance that was physically making the brain produce oscillating output.

Two hundred years ago we rode around in wooden wagons, but had a pretty good idea that mechanical flight was possible. Now flying to the Moon is old hat.

I'll quite agree with you on that kirth. The difficulty is seeing which writing is relevant. If any at all. Futurologists really have their work cut out for them (and it's quite funny how many mere sci-fi authors do a better job by simply imagining cool stuff).

This has given me an idea for another thread. Does technological achievement have a functional "limit". As an engineer, I know there is only so much work anyone is willing to give to a project before saying "good enough". And I'm wondering, will we ever reach the point that anything "new" will simply not be worth the time and effort put into it?


I don't disagree by any means Kirth, I'm just saying that we're nowhere near a practical application of "reprogram the brain," and Mountain seems to be concerned about the coming epidemic of people being roofied with ground-up "reprogram the brain" pills. (No insult, Mountain.)


Re: "Is it worth the effort?" When it comes to health care, there's infinite money to be made. Look at the immense profits in the pharmaceutical industry. Look at what people pay rehab clinics today, despite their low long-term success rates. People will pay anything to be "better." If you could eventually take one millionaire celebrity and surgically "cure" his/her addiction to heroin, that would open the floodgates. Within a few years, rich people would pay outrageous sums to be cured of their tendency to forget where they put their car keys.


Sissyl wrote:
What we need to be afraid of is not bogeymen that are admittedly pretty far away. We need to make sure we don't end up in an authoritarian state - whether such a state would make limiting energy consumption easier, get us a handle on the population growth, enforce "social justice" or anything else. As long as we have an authoritarian state, everything that CAN be used to control the individual WILL be. There's your nightmare. So, get cracking on dismantling the ubiquitous surveillance, and make sure the policy-makers fear the people again.

It almost makes me wish I had the charisma to be a politician. Unfortunately, the traits "clever wordplay" and "student of philosophy" cant be taken by NPC experts like me. Sigh.

I struggle against it as I can. I vote for those I believe might actually do something against such behavior (to no avail). I occasionally write letters to my representative in parliement. I've actually written essays against certain of the techs associated with ubiquitous surveillance (for an ethics course). Though I'm quite happy I'm not in Britain let's say.

I'm not sure policy-makers ever really feared the people. But that's a whole other discussion. (Let's just say I'm not impressed by the hippy movement of the 60's)

Ghaaa, soo of-topic...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
The difference between homosexuality and drug addiction is that homosexuality won't kill you stone dead, through physiological causes or self-destructive behavior.

Couple relevant Google searches will show that plenty of people use drugs without being killed by them and plenty of people willing to argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle that results in poor health or death. I don't agree with the argument but it's been made and really it's a matter of degree. Everybody eventually dies from something.

At least part of the "self-destructive behavior" in both cases is a result of societal and legal factors inhibiting and stigmatizing the person who engages in the original behavior.

Some people are willing to argue the Earth is flat. Willingness to argue is not sufficient evidence that something is true.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Re: "Is it worth the effort?" When it comes to health care, there's infinite money to be made. Look at the immense profits in the pharmaceutical industry. Look at what people pay rehab clinics today, despite their low long-term success rates. People will pay anything to be "better." If you could eventually take one millionaire celebrity and surgically "cure" his/her addiction to heroin, that would open the floodgates. Within a few years, rich people would pay outrageous sums to be cured of their tendency to forget where they put their car keys.

I guess... but I still think research costs would be prohibitive. But yeah, in healthcare, people will pay anything. Although (from my own experiences) people worry about DEATH. Clear, visible causes of DEATH get a lot more attention than stuff like addiction. Cancer, heart disease, stuff that strikes people suddenly with little warning... those tend to get a lot more attention than addiction.

Though I guess my question applied to ALL tech, as much spaceships & medical science.


Just to clarify, when I talk about my own experience using the patch to quit smoking, I'm saying medical treatment as in taking the full course of proscribed antibiotics, rather than medical treatment as in surgery.


meatrace wrote:

The reason people do drugs is because it feels good.

Give them something that feels better and they'll stop doing drugs.

Except LSD, cuz LSD is amaaaaaaaazing.

Until that day you are eaten by a swarm of spiders.


Irontruth wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
The difference between homosexuality and drug addiction is that homosexuality won't kill you stone dead, through physiological causes or self-destructive behavior.

Couple relevant Google searches will show that plenty of people use drugs without being killed by them and plenty of people willing to argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle that results in poor health or death. I don't agree with the argument but it's been made and really it's a matter of degree. Everybody eventually dies from something.

At least part of the "self-destructive behavior" in both cases is a result of societal and legal factors inhibiting and stigmatizing the person who engages in the original behavior.

Some people are willing to argue the Earth is flat. Willingness to argue is not sufficient evidence that something is true.

Of course. But whether something is true or not has never stopped them from acting upon their belief (see, flat earth society).

Hmm. This has been a surprisingly civil discussion.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Being pedantic about "Drinking bleach isn't a disease" is splitting hairs. When someone drinks bleach, they still require medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they drank it in the first place. Just because you treat it with charcoal and a stomach pump instead of antibiotics and surgery is beside the point.


Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
I guess... but I still think research costs would be prohibitive. But yeah, in healthcare, people will pay anything. Although (from my own experiences) people worry about DEATH. Clear, visible causes of DEATH get a lot more attention than stuff like addiction.

There's FAR more money in plastic surgery than in medically-necessary surgery. And look at the profits in the "self-help" field. More to the point of mind-alteration though physical means, when you get a chance, Google the profits from Ritalin and Adderol sales sometime.

Tell someone you can improve their focus or whatever through surgery and there would be suckers lining up around the block.

Liberty's Edge

Ross Byers wrote:
Being pedantic about "Drinking bleach isn't a disease" is splitting hairs. When someone drinks bleach, they still require medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they drank it in the first place. Just because you treat it with charcoal and a stomach pump instead of antibiotics and surgery is beside the point.

So is getting shot a disease because it requires medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they got shot?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
I guess... but I still think research costs would be prohibitive. But yeah, in healthcare, people will pay anything. Although (from my own experiences) people worry about DEATH. Clear, visible causes of DEATH get a lot more attention than stuff like addiction.
There's FAR more money in plastic surgery than in medically-necessary surgery. And look at the profits in the "self-help" field. Tell someone you can improve their focus or whatever through surgery and there would be suckers lining up around the block.

I think the keyword here is PROFIT. I've yet to hear of research centers for cosmetic surgery. And all the surgery was originally developed to help people with horrible scars & disfigurements (except for boob jobs as far as I know, those are just ridiculous). Cosmetic surgeons make a lot of money, but as far as I know they dont re-invest it much in research.

As for the self help field...There isnt any actual "investment". Just people, with experiences, under the false impression that their unique experiences have given them the "right" way to live. Either that or con men. And those folks generally dont play the long game either. Suckers dont pay for actual solutions, they pay for expedient ones, that most often dont work.

Hmm. My cynicism is coming out. Unpleasant. Hopefully I'm not being too rude Kirth, I'm doing my best but I'm afraid I might be a bit sharp with my words.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
I guess... but I still think research costs would be prohibitive. But yeah, in healthcare, people will pay anything. Although (from my own experiences) people worry about DEATH. Clear, visible causes of DEATH get a lot more attention than stuff like addiction.
There's FAR more money in plastic surgery than in medically-necessary surgery. And look at the profits in the "self-help" field. Tell someone you can improve their focus or whatever through surgery and there would be suckers lining up around the block.

Quoting Roger Ebert, as best as I can remember:

"I saw a world famous actress in the Self-Help section of the bookstore. Doesn't she know that people read those books to get where she is? Maybe there should be a section the bookstore called Uninstall."

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
@Man in Black you don't seem especially receptive to people who disagree with you even when they do so only rhetorically. My guess is you're looking for a fight (or a chance to signal) more than an actual discussion. Or "debate" as implied in the title of the thread. And so, as Paul Harvey would say... good day.

There are two reasons to go about* disagreeing with people 'rhetorically'.

The first is to point out flaws in the argument of someone with whom you agree, but whose actual argument is not logically valid.

The second is arguing for the sake of arguing. That is 'looking for a fight'. Man in Black and I don't get along, but I'm pretty sure you're doing the second.

*:
I say 'go about' because in formal debating it is often necessary to argue a premise with which you don't agree. This is not a formal debate.


I've never found conversations where someone is playing Devil's Advocate, just to play Devil's Advocate, to be particularly fruitful. It's as useful as declaring "all of reality could just be a program fed to my brain, which is really in a jar some where". It doesn't really take the conversation any where interesting OR useful.


Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
Hopefully I'm not being too rude Kirth, I'm doing my best but I'm afraid I might be a bit sharp with my words.

I'm not sensing any rudeness at all, SOM. You're offering counterpoints to what I'm saying, which is a straightforward and clear way of communicating.

I'm still forced to disagree, though. When I think of the money in Ritalin, and in rehab clinics, and in psychiatry, and in "criminal rehabilitation," and then add them all up -- yeah, I think the research dollars will be there. Especially given the 200 years or so we'll need to get to where I'm talking about. In that period of time, some other avenues of "necessary" research may give us most of the tools we need, in fact.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

ShadowcatX wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Being pedantic about "Drinking bleach isn't a disease" is splitting hairs. When someone drinks bleach, they still require medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they drank it in the first place. Just because you treat it with charcoal and a stomach pump instead of antibiotics and surgery is beside the point.
So is getting shot a disease because it requires medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they got shot?

No. It's an injury. As I've said, I'm not sure 'disease' is the right word for addiction. 'Medical condition' is much too vague. I'm not actually sure English has the right word, unless we change 'addiction' to have a connotation to be a subtype of 'medical/neurological/psychological problem' instead of a moral failing.

In context, I was replying to someone who was asserting that addiction doesn't get to qualify as a disease because it is not a disease in the same sense as cancer, and used a glassful of bleach as an example of something that wasn't a disease that still requires treatment.

I was saying that person was missing the whole point of saying addiction is a disease.


Quote:
a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

I think things like alcoholism actually fit that definition pretty accurately.


@ Ross Byers I'm interested in people thinking out their conclusions thoroughly, I noted what I thought was an inconsistency / cognitive dissonance. As is typical of such inconsistencies, the dichotomy was (surprise!) one conclusion is socially acceptable to express ("nothing wrong with gay people!") and one conclusion less so ("using drugs doesn't mean you're an addict who needs treatment!").

And, not surprisingly, the social signaling has aligned in just such a way, with everybody helpfully telling me how wrong my opinions are, because even though I agree with them, I had the temerity to report the existence and opinions of people who do not.

@Irontruth and others - it's relevant what "people" argue / believe / think when you're talking about something with political dimensions. If you're going to start treating every trivial "addiction" as a disease, you have to consider the legal and political ramifications of that decision, i.e. involuntary commitment. As previously alluded. Actual objective reality is not decided by consensus, but political and legal reality can be, even (horrors!) in contravention to the truth.

And I would think it was obvious from my example re: drinking bleach is - when someone drinks bleach, you don't say "this person is a bleach drinker", as though it were a pathology, you say, "this is a person who has drunk bleach," as though it was a one-time occurrence/accident.

Standard Disclaimers: I hope this clears it up, I know I'm inarticulate at times, don't bear anyone any malice.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shouting Off Mountain wrote:
Hopefully I'm not being too rude Kirth, I'm doing my best but I'm afraid I might be a bit sharp with my words.

I'm not sensing any rudeness at all, SOM. You're offering counterpoints to what I'm saying, which is a straightforward and clear way of communicating.

I'm still forced to disagree, though. When I think of the vast profit in Ritalin, and in rehab clinics, and in psychiatry, and in "criminal rehabilitation," and then add them all up -- yeah, I think the research dollars will be there. Especially given the 200 years or so we'll need to get to where I'm talking about. In that period of time, some other avenues of "necessary" research may give us most of the tools we need, in fact.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

As for psychiatry, that's a whole other can of worms, mired on accusations of "diseases invented for the drug". That's a short-term profit motivation, caused by the fact patents are too short for pharma companies to make obscene profits (US & Canada: 25 year patents, -10 years of developement/testing (bare minimum) means only 15 yeats to recoup investment, which is short for the millions in spending necessary).

Well, time will tell. I think I'll probably die before any of that stuff shows up anyway, though I do try to fight for what I feel is right. Now matter how useless it feels.

Liberty's Edge

Ross Byers wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Being pedantic about "Drinking bleach isn't a disease" is splitting hairs. When someone drinks bleach, they still require medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they drank it in the first place. Just because you treat it with charcoal and a stomach pump instead of antibiotics and surgery is beside the point.
So is getting shot a disease because it requires medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they got shot?

No. It's an injury. As I've said, I'm not sure 'disease' is the right word for addiction. 'Medical condition' is much too vague. I'm not actually sure English has the right word, unless we change 'addiction' to have a connotation to be a subtype of 'medical/neurological/psychological problem' instead of a moral failing.

In context, I was replying to someone who was asserting that addiction doesn't get to qualify as a disease because it is not a disease in the same sense as cancer, and used a glassful of bleach as an example of something that wasn't a disease that still requires treatment.

I was saying that person was missing the whole point of saying addiction is a disease.

A lot of mental disorders have a connotation of moral failing. Heck, even physical conditions sometimes have that connotation.


Irontruth wrote:
I've never found conversations where someone is playing Devil's Advocate, just to play Devil's Advocate, to be particularly fruitful. It's as useful as declaring "all of reality could just be a program fed to my brain, which is really in a jar some where". It doesn't really take the conversation any where interesting OR useful.

I disagree!

Seriously, you don't think there's any benefit in having your thinking challenged or critiqued?


ShadowcatX wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Being pedantic about "Drinking bleach isn't a disease" is splitting hairs. When someone drinks bleach, they still require medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they drank it in the first place. Just because you treat it with charcoal and a stomach pump instead of antibiotics and surgery is beside the point.
So is getting shot a disease because it requires medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they got shot?

No. It's an injury. As I've said, I'm not sure 'disease' is the right word for addiction. 'Medical condition' is much too vague. I'm not actually sure English has the right word, unless we change 'addiction' to have a connotation to be a subtype of 'medical/neurological/psychological problem' instead of a moral failing.

In context, I was replying to someone who was asserting that addiction doesn't get to qualify as a disease because it is not a disease in the same sense as cancer, and used a glassful of bleach as an example of something that wasn't a disease that still requires treatment.

I was saying that person was missing the whole point of saying addiction is a disease.

A lot of mental disorders have a connotation of moral failing. Heck, even physical conditions sometimes have that connotation.

There is a long history of that. The famous explorer doctor livinstone believed the pestilence in africa that killed virtually all europeans that tried to set up there came from a "fundamental lack of morality in the land". He went there in the hope of moralising/converting the africans. He was quite surprised that most africans where quite healthy.

Unfortunately, morality has a long history of being associated with disease.


Ross Byers wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Being pedantic about "Drinking bleach isn't a disease" is splitting hairs. When someone drinks bleach, they still require medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they drank it in the first place. Just because you treat it with charcoal and a stomach pump instead of antibiotics and surgery is beside the point.
So is getting shot a disease because it requires medical treatment before it is time to figure out why they got shot?

No. It's an injury. As I've said, I'm not sure 'disease' is the right word for addiction. 'Medical condition' is much too vague. I'm not actually sure English has the right word, unless we change 'addiction' to have a connotation to be a subtype of 'medical/neurological/psychological problem' instead of a moral failing.

In context, I was replying to someone who was asserting that addiction doesn't get to qualify as a disease because it is not a disease in the same sense as cancer, and used a glassful of bleach as an example of something that wasn't a disease that still requires treatment.

I was saying that person was missing the whole point of saying addiction is a disease.

Also, if someone comes in to the hospital with a new gunshot wound once a week for four weeks in a row, odds are they'll get an interview with social workers and mental health professional, and the police, just figure what the hell is going on in that person's life. No reason addicts shouldn't receive that robust a set of follow up interviews, just to figure out the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I've never found conversations where someone is playing Devil's Advocate, just to play Devil's Advocate, to be particularly fruitful. It's as useful as declaring "all of reality could just be a program fed to my brain, which is really in a jar some where". It doesn't really take the conversation any where interesting OR useful.

I disagree!

Seriously, you don't think there's any benefit in having your thinking challenged or critiqued?

I don't mind being challenged. I dislike being contrary for contrariness' sake.

If you want to point out the flaw in someone's thinking, you're going to have to come at it with something better than "these people over here think their invisible skyman told them that this is wrong". Whether they believe it to be true or not has no actual bearing on the truth. Just because I think the Moon is made of cheese does not suddenly make that an actual possibility.

You're "challenging" so far amounts to making claims with no foundation in fact. You are being contrary just to be contrary.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Sarcasmancer wrote:
And I would think it was obvious from my example re: drinking bleach is - when someone drinks bleach, you don't say "this person is a bleach drinker", as though it were a pathology, you say, "this is a person who has drunk bleach," as though it was a one-time occurrence/accident.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.


Irontruth wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Disease, no. Mental illness, most definately.
Do you think there's something to be gained from parsing the difference between disease and the "illness" aspect of mental illness? Before your proceed to actually determine what that difference is, I want to hear what the benefits of this will be. How will the conversation on the topic improve?

A disease is something that you can vaccinate against or provide some other medical cure or treatment for.

A mental illness usually takes a different approach to fix, like therapy.

Which do you think better qualifies?

101 to 150 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Debating addiction All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.