"Addiction to food..."

[Donuthole]

No one claimed that. Tim's point is the same as mine.

I don't think Tim's point is the same as yours. Tim acknowledges that many people who don't have addictions are labeled as addicts. He does not claim that food or porn addictions are not possible (which is what you seem to be claiming).

[SeattleUte]

Discussions like this depress me a little because they remind me we're just a bag a chemicals. I saw a book the other day that said conviction that something is true is just a pleasureful chemical reaction in your brain. So many of you are addicted to the LDS Church.

[KillerDog]

I don't think Tim's point is the same as yours. Tim acknowledges that many people who don't have addictions are labeled as addicts. He does not claim that food or porn addictions are not possible (which is what you seem to be claiming).

You're right, on a re-read there is a slight difference.

He does say "call them addictions when they are addictions and don't call them addictions when they are not" which I misread to mean stick to a meaningful application of the definition.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Discussions like this depress me a little because they remind me we're just a bag a chemicals. I saw a book the other day that said conviction that something is true is just a pleasureful chemical reaction in your brain. So many of you are addicted to the LDS Church.

That would depress me, too. Does it also bother you that the woman to whom you have devoted your life is a simple chemical chain reaction away from no longer loving you?

[SeattleUte]

That would depress me, too. Does it also bother you that the woman to whom you have devoted your life is a simple chemical chain reaction away from no longer loving you?

The irony is that this is where loose talk about addictions inevitably leads.

[creekster]

Discussions like this depress me a little because they remind me we're just a bag a chemicals. I saw a book the other day that said conviction that something is true is just a pleasureful chemical reaction in your brain. So many of you are addicted to the LDS Church.

Are you pruposefully lifting this from Vonnegut? VOnnegut used this as a theme several times in his wirtings. Calling us all tubes or bags of controlled chemical reactions and noting insanity was simlpy a reaction going too far here or there. Just to cheer you all up.

[SeattleUte]

Are you pruposefully lifting this from Vonnegut? VOnnegut used this as a theme several times in his wirtings. Calling us all tubes or bags of controlled chemical reactions and noting insanity was simlpy a reaction going too far here or there. Just to cheer you all up.

It's not an original thought. Not even Vonnegut can claim to be the first. Democrates, Epicurus, and later Lucretius said the same thing thousands of years ago. Of course, they aren't as famous as Plato precisely because they were atheists and Plato invented the soul.

[falafel]

I'll give you a few more overuses of addiction:

addiction to gambling,
addiction to pornography,
addiction to shopping,
addiction to work.

I believe all of these only meet some of the criteria and I'm loathe to call them addiction under such a loose standard. I admit that many will say such things exist but I think they are a harmful passion, not an addiction.

At least the first 2 have a very strong case for receiving addiction status. Just because a chemical does not go in the body does not mean these activities do not create a chemical reaction to doing them. I think gambling and pornography can have just as much of a physiological reaction as drugs or alcohol.

[LA Ute]

Then again, another approach might be to think for yourself. That might work.

Foul.

[LA Ute]

Discussions like this depress me a little because they remind me we're just a bag a chemicals. I saw a book the other day that said conviction that something is true is just a pleasureful chemical reaction in your brain. So many of you are addicted to the LDS Church.

Come on, SU, have you lost all subtlety? You're not nearly as fun when you are so obvious.

[CardiacCoug]

At least the first 2 have a very strong case for receiving addiction status. Just because a chemical does not go in the body does not mean these activities do not create a chemical reaction to doing them. I think gambling and pornography can have just as much of a physiological reaction as drugs or alcohol.

Sure, you can be addicted to gambling.

But I play poker (usually tournament style, risking between $50 and $150) about 3-4 times per year either in Vegas or with friends. I guarantee that I do not meet any clinical criteria for addiction to gambling, but it's definitely something I enjoy doing.

There is an important distinction between participating in a behavior from time to time and being addicted to that behavior.

[falafel]

Sure, you can be addicted to gambling.

But I play poker (usually tournament style, risking between $50 and $150) about 3-4 times per year either in Vegas or with friends. I guarantee that I do not meet any clinical criteria for addiction to gambling, but it's definitely something I enjoy doing.

There is an important distinction between participating in a behavior from time to time and being addicted to that behavior.

I guess this is where Tim's point comes in.

[LA Ute]

"Addiction" authoritatively defined, etc.

I have only a layman's understanding of the subject, based on having worked with addicts of various kinds, and on handling disciplinary hearings for physicians who have been "impaired" by a substance abuse problem. It's my understanding that the textbook medical definition of "addiction" is limited to drugs and alcohol, but that more and more in behavioral health circles the term is being used to describe such addictive behavior related to things as food, sex, pornography, and gambling. There are 12-step programs for people with all those problems.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, says that to be diagnosed medically as an addict you need to meet three of the following seven criteria during a 12-month period:

1. Tolerance. Has your use of drugs or alcohol increased over time?

2. Withdrawal. When you stop using, do you experience at least one of the following symptoms: irritability, anxiety, shakes, sweats, nausea, or vomiting?

3. Difficulty controlling your use. Do you sometimes use more or for a longer time than you'd like? Do you drink to get drunk?

4. Negative consequences. Have you continued to use even though there have been negative consequences to your mood, self-esteem, health, job, or family?

5. Significant time or emotional energy spent. Do you spend a significant amount of time or thought obtaining, using, concealing, planning, or recovering from your use?

6. Put off or neglected activities. Have you given up or reduced social, recreational, work, or household activities because of your use?

7. Desire to cut down. Have you repeatedly thought about cutting down or controlling your use, or have you made unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control your use?

Psychiatrists and social workers I know tell me that they use these criteria when they have to make a diagnosis for billing purposes, but when they are talking with patients they first want to know if they are facing a compulsion they have difficulty controlling and that it creates problems for them at home, at work, or elsewhere in their lives.

Anyway, I understand there's a medical definition, a "12-step" definition, and many others. My point (with half-hearted apologies to Seattle) is a religious one: As Neal Maxwell said, drugs, alcohol, and porn are are "direct frontal assaults on our free agency and our chances for happiness." I'm guessing that's why Elder Hales chose to address the subject of addiction in broad terms.

[beelzebabette]

Psychiatrists and social workers I know tell me that they use these criteria when they have to make a diagnosis for billing purposes, but when they are talking with patients they first want to know if they are facing a compulsion they have difficulty controlling and that it creates problems for them at home, at work, or elsewhere in their lives.

I could get behind using the word compulsion in many of the instances cited above. To me, it implies a need for behavior modification without necessitating a debate about chemical reactions.

[ERCougar]

I guess this is where Tim's point comes in.

And mine.

I'm not saying everyone who looks at porn or gambles or overeats is suffering from addiction. I'm just saying that our current definition of addiction, at least when used by anyone who's halfway serious about the subject, is pretty good at distinguishing the serious from the nonserious cases, and that it can apply to many things non-chemical.