Highly recommend this 14 minute talk by journalist Johann Hari on the myths of addiction and how we perceive it. Superb.



See also: The Opposite of Addiction is Connection

And: The Root Cause of Addiction (video)

Well I waited to hear the revelation and it wasn't there. I was waiting to hear how all I knew about addiction was wrong but he just said what I already knew and what I imagine most who have given it any thought would know. I enjoyed hearing his talk but he isn't saying one new thing. I figured a very long time ago as most who have ever worked with drug users that the one thing you will find as he put it is that the person 'cannot bear to be present in their lives'. Indeed you wouldn't need to work with addicts to figure that out you could look to your own experience of when you hit the bottle or the pills or whatever. So I think him presenting this as some amazing new insight is quite peculiar.

Also it isn't a novel approach to addiction recovery to find something for the person to do to take the place of drugs. In the drugs project I worked in addicts who had recovered became helpers and mentors to those still using and the purpose of that seemed highly therapeutic. In drugs projects there are those who's role is to help addicts find work/connection etc etc

I do think he glossed over the reality of the physical hook...any smoker can tell you there is a physical hook, there is a physical addiction. Physical addiction is a reality in itself and does not simply fade away by finding connection. So I think he misrepresented that somewhat.

Also drug addicts don't only hurt themselves but everyone around them. The kinds of hurt inflicted I've seen are actual physical violence in order to get money to buy drugs. So I think it's all very nice to say we should just love addicts more but the problem has a grittier side to it.

I recently heard a therapist say addiction is merely the cushion we put between our pain and ourselves, doesn't matter what the addiction is that is it's function. Nothing I didn't know but I liked that way of putting it...

...but how can he use the title 'everything you know about addiction is wrong' and then say things everyone has known for decades and then the audience sit and clap. I reckon it's all in the packaging. Put it on a Ted talk and everyone thinks it's new or something.

Except as I say there most certainly is physical hook which he underplays hugely. Take smoking. Smoking addiction is physical. You can be the most connected person in the world and still be addicted to smoking. His example of using heroin for a broken leg is not really a good example since it's for quite a limited period in small doses.

A friend was once addicted to collecting thimbles - now this seems like a humble painless addiction and yet it wasn't. The hunt for rare expensive ones consumed her life. She is now working for an addiction charity - having gone through intense therapy. Anything that is addictive (not necessarily drugs or alcohol) can be damaging. She lost her job and her husband - she's ok now

Yes, TED talks can be very inspiring but they often follow a very strict categorization veering into tabloidization. No doubt about that. "Packaging", as you say. Clearly it was a revelation for HIM even if it wasn't for many of us.

However, I think you make the mistake of assuming that something that is so obvious to you will be obvious for everyone else. That simply isn't the case. Of course, it's well-known to those that study these things - even cursorily - it's been known for decades, but that's something quite different to having public knowledge and acceptance. The "revelation" here is having such knowledge applied in our social systems which create the needed change. That is surely the point, along with the fact that addiction can extend to virtually anything as Butterfly mentions. That has had huge repercussions for the state of society.

I've also worked with addicts on a voluntary basis and I agree that he underplayed the physical hook or hit which does exist. But even then, the strength of the hook can be related to the purity of the drug in question and the type of personality who is addicted. Bound up with that is the same overriding principle of having a sense of meaning in ones life and a stronger community framework where such use can be cut drastically - and if applied in law then huge changes can occur, as the study in Portugal showed. And this was surely the "revelation" that needs to be shared so that it can become enshrined.

Of course drug-taking has a horrible, "grittier" side and it's not just about loving an addict but establishing a foundation of connection - which applies to many other avenues too. Rather than rushing out to find an addict to love and hug the real issue is highlighting the root causes that give rise to those circular problems and it's relationship to the law. Once the laws are changed then a more inclusive mode of treating addiction can be allowed to displace such horrors associated with criminalized drug use.

I have an old friend who regularly injected heroin as a student and never had a problem managing to obtain a particularly pure source without contaminants. He was able to stop using after a couple of years with no after effects at all. This always amazed and alarmed me, not least because he spent many thousands partly due to having very rich parents. Similarly, my grandmother smoked two packs of Gaulois a day and lived to her late 90s while my sister's long time friend started smoking at 30 and died of lung cancer at 47. These are very complex questions which are profoundly linked to genes, a host of environmental influences and the state of ones mind, so I'm all for providing access to the principle that Hari outlines since many still have a very set idea of what addiction means, certainly as espoused in the mainstream media and criminal law as it currently stands.

butterfly spider said:

A friend was once addicted to collecting thimbles - now this seems like a humble painless addiction and yet it wasn't. The hunt for rare expensive ones consumed her life. She is now working for an addiction charity - having gone through intense therapy. Anything that is addictive (not necessarily drugs or alcohol) can be damaging. She lost her job and her husband - she's ok now

Click to expand...

No this is not addiction or rather it is using the word addiction so loosely it loses meaning. Thimbles do not give rise to physical dependency. In everyday speech we say things like 'I'm addicted to this TV show etc ' but that's just everyday speech it is nothing whatsoever like heroin addiction for example. I think she would have been suffering from a kind of obsession, or even obsessive compulsive disorder but it is not an addiction and shouldn't be compared to drug or alcohol addiction IMO. It's a grey area for sure because sex addiction is meant to be a real addiction and it's debatable IMO about how to classify that.

However, I think you make the mistake of assuming that something that is so obvious to you will be obvious for everyone else. That simply isn't the case

Click to expand...

.

The title of this talk is 'everything you thought you knew about addiction is wrong' so I think he is mistakenly assuming a great deal about what he thinks other people know.

Surely one only has to give it 30 seconds thought for it to be obvious, these aren't complicated concepts. Surely to goodness a child can figure out that drug users are trying to escape from something. Although addictions can also happen due to social factors. I practised smoking so I could hold my place with the big girls behind the bike sheds at school Smoking years ago was a sort of 'coming of age' activity more than a means to stifle angst.

Of course, it's well-known to those that study these things - even cursorily - it's been known for decades, but that's something quite different to having public knowledge and acceptance. The "revelation" here is having such knowledge applied in our social systems which create the needed change. That is surely the point, along with the fact that addiction can extend to virtually anything as Butterfly mentions. That has had huge repercussions for the state of society.

Click to expand...

It cannot be extended to anything as there is such a thing as physical dependency which involves neurotransmitters in the brain and hooks and wotnot. There is no way I would look at thimble dependency in the same way as crack cocaine ! Thimble dependency won't generally leave you lying dead in a gutter and also if you run out of thimble money then what ? Are you going to rob, mug, murder steal for thimbles ? What about 'cold turkey' ? Not quite the same for heroin as for thimbles I think.

Anyway I think it's been public knowledge since at least the 60s.

I've also worked with addicts on a voluntary basis and I agree that he underplayed the physical hook or hit which does exist.

Click to expand...

I thought he underplayed it to the point of irresponsibility actually. Withdrawal from drugs is no easy thing. Also at the beginning he asked why those who had used morphine etc for medical purposes didn't get addicted....BUT THEY DO, IT'S A HUGE PROBLEM. People are getting accidentally addicted pain killers all the time. What is more they can have very happy connected lives so they don't get addicted because they need to bond with something but because the medication is a physical hook and a dangerous one. Addiction can happen without intention because of the strength of that hook. To underestimate this the way he did is unrealistic and somewhat woolly headed.

But even then, the strength of the hook can be related to the purity of the drug in question and the type of personality who is addicted. Bound up with that is the same overriding principle of having a sense of meaning in ones life and a stronger community framework where such use can be cut drastically - and if applied in law then huge changes can occur, as the study in Portugal showed. And this was surely the "revelation" that needs to be shared so that it can become enshrined.

Click to expand...

I felt he was using addiction to bang home his opinions about society with that slight snobbishness about online community as if it detracted from real community. The internet has actually done the opposite of isolate people in many cases and strengthens community rather than weakens it, for example local community websites helping people connect up etc etc Also the internet is great for being able to connect however weird you are. Take us Yingers

I'm not sure about decriminalising drugs. I only just realised cannabis use is more or less no longer a criminal offence in the UK, the police don't bother with it. Well it always was a waste of time targeting pot heads

Of course drug-taking has a horrible, "grittier" side and it's not just about loving an addict but establishing a foundation of connection - which applies to many other avenues too. Rather than rushing out to find an addict to love and hug the real issue is highlighting the root causes that give rise to those circular problems and it's relationship to the law. Once the laws are changed then a more inclusive mode of treating addiction can be allowed to displace such horrors associated with criminalized drug use.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Oh ETA on the plus side one sort of new idea he shared was that the base of addiction was the urge to bond with something, not just escape from something but bond with it although bonding of all kinds could be said to be a form of escape, a wish to merge into something else. It's just some forms of escape are less harmful than others.

Trojina said:

The title of this talk is 'everything you thought you knew about addiction is wrong' so I think he is mistakenly assuming a great deal about what he thinks other people know.

Click to expand...

And that's exactly what you're doing in assuming everybody knows what you know!

Trojina said:

Surely one only has to give it 30 seconds thought for it to be obvious, these aren't complicated concepts. Surely to goodness a child can figure out that drug users are trying to escape from something. Although addictions can also happen due to social factors. I practised smoking so I could hold my place with the big girls behind the bike sheds at school Smoking years ago was a sort of 'coming of age' activity more than a means to stifle angst.

Click to expand...

To reveal that addicts are trying to escape from their demons wasn't the point. The principle he was sharing was that punishing addicts which is what we do now is ridiculous and we need to completely re-think the idea of criminalization via restablishing connection i.e. greater expansion of the concept of community which can indeed be extended in infinite ways. This idea of connection as opposed to punishment is what's needed. And it is intimately linked to how society is currently structured.

Trojina said:

It cannot be extended to anything as there is such a thing as physical dependency which involves neurotransmitters in the brain and hooks and wotnot.

Click to expand...

You're describing the bio-chemical and neuroscience of addiction - the "hit," which of course is true but such biological responses involved with neurotransmitters and clusters of neuropetides do not operate in isolation. The point of the principle of connection and support is one of value and meaning in terms of emotional connection and attention/activity as focuser and director away from the habit and allowing a natural recovery. This has a direct influence on the subsequent potential for alleviation and amelioration of such an addictive pattern of behaviour. And it's a natural recovery that does occur in the overwhelming number of cases according to Bruce Alexander's studies. Punishment and ostracization doesn't work which is presently the dominant factor in law. It is this that determines recidivism not the intrinsic, biochemical nature of the addictive pattern itself.

I think cultural health and ill health have huge impacts on the entry point for addiction and its exit. For example, sustained family and community dysfunction are far more powerful predictors of addiction than say, traumatic child abuse. So, this idea of bonding and connection is hugely important in any addiction and must determine the direction of our culture if it is survive.

Trojina said:

There is no way I would look at thimble dependency in the same way as crack cocaine ! Thimble dependency won't generally leave you lying dead in a gutter and also if you run out of thimble money then what ? Are you going to rob, mug, murder steal for thimbles ? What about 'cold turkey' ? Not quite the same for heroin as for thimbles I think.

Click to expand...

Butterfly's thimble example is stretching it, but she was illustrating how addiction can manifest in very diverse forms. Bruce Alexander's book on The Globalisation of Addiction is extraordinarily lucid on this point. And it shows that no, it is not all hot air and obvious to anyone as the parameters are significantly extended. If it causes serious issues and pain in life it doesn't matter at all what the addiction is. We are merely measuring the relative level of pain and chaos it causes whether that is cocaine abuse or porn addiction leading to marriage break-up family fragmentation or the like. The various effects can be either dramatic or cumulative - but each can cause enormous harm. The principle is exactly the same and stems from the same source: a lack of meaning, a disconnected society, crazy laws and a lack of community and sense of individual meaning. It's common denominator is cultural ill health and seriously dysfunctional social systems.

Trojina said:

Anyway I think it's been public knowledge since at least the 60s.

Click to expand...

Like I said, that's irrelevant. Plenty of things are public knowledge but the social structures are in place that prevent any changes and which maintain the status quo. That's the most obvious problem here I think.

Trojina said:

I thought he underplayed it to the point of irresponsibility actually. Withdrawal from drugs is no easy thing. Also at the beginning he asked why those who had used morphine etc for medical purposes didn't get addicted....BUT THEY DO, IT'S A HUGE PROBLEM. People are getting accidentally addicted pain killers all the time. What is more they can have very happy connected lives so they don't get addicted because they need to bond with something but because the medication is a physical hook and a dangerous one. Addiction can happen without intention because of the strength of that hook. To underestimate this the way he did is unrealistic and somewhat woolly headed.

Click to expand...

I agree about the medical addiction. And I also agree that the reality of the "hit" was underplayed. That's TED talks for you...

Trojina said:

I felt he was using addiction to bang home his opinions about society with that slight snobbishness about online community as if it detracted from real community. The internet has actually done the opposite of isolate people in many cases and strengthens community rather than weakens it, for example local community websites helping people connect up etc etc Also the internet is great for being able to connect however weird you are. Take us Yingers

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. Social networks have undoubtedly brought people together and have offered many obvious benefits but they have also caused harmful addictions and mental illness. Facebook especially. (Forums are slightly different animals). Studies are legion on the effects social media is having on teens and below. Mostly not good. It's the deep spiritual emptiness and lack of belonging that society induces in its present form that largely leads to most forms of addiction which is why Hari was reminding us about the idea of connection and by extension the development of REAL community. And it's the development of flesh and blood community that I am concerned with not online social networks.

Trojina said:

I'm not sure about decriminalising drugs. I only just realised cannabis use is more or less no longer a criminal offence in the UK, the police don't bother with it. Well it always was a waste of time targeting pot heads

Click to expand...

Well, it's a different story where I am and not true in virtually every place I've lived. Maybe it's changing. The metropolitan police were an absolute pain in the arse when I was in living in London and I don't see anything has changed on that score...So to speak. Yet, its so much more than just targeting "pot-heads." I think this should extend to all drugs, including class A. You take the profit out of it the equation and you defang the problem and release funds for community projects and therapies which actually help to solve the problem at root. The data has proven beyond doubt that it reduces petty and more serious crime time and time again.

And that's exactly what you're doing in assuming everybody knows what you know!

Click to expand...

Yes my point was exactly that. You said I was making mistaken assumptions yet he is making massive ones so I was trying to point out to you that what you accused me of he does a hundred fold yet you don't say he is making mistaken assumptions ? That's why I said it to show you that what you said I was doing he was doing a much greater extent.

To reveal that addicts are trying to escape from their demons wasn't the point. The principle he was sharing was that punishing addicts which is what we do now is ridiculous and we need to completely re-think the idea of criminalization via restablishing connection i.e. greater expansion of the concept of community which can indeed be extended in infinite ways. This idea of connection as opposed to punishment is what's needed. And it is intimately linked to how society is currently structured.

Click to expand...

I know that wasn't his main point and I know what he was saying but it really isn't so new. There are drugs projects across the country who work towards that very non punitive aim for example. I'm really not so sure how much addicts are punished. For example I once had to work for a day as a 'carer' for an alcoholic paranoid schizophrenic. How 'punished' was she for being an alcoholic ? Well she had a very nice social housing flat with 24 hour 'carers' who she shouted abuse at and frightened to death. It was cold but she would not let me have the fire on. She made me take her to the chip shop and the off license in a wheel chair though she could walk. She shouted at me for stumbling on the kerb because I found it hard to push her up it. She was given money by the state to buy alcohol and cigarettes each day, extra money for alcohol like it medicine. It was horrific for me and I would never work there again... Yes I know this is anecdotal but I could come up with similar stories for any number of addicts/alcoholics I've had dealings with. I know some who make other tenants lives hell because they have no notion of day or night so play loud music all the time but the council will not evict them because they are 'vulnerable'.

You know from where I am I don't see a whole lot of ostrasizing and punishing I see the people living around and with the addicts being punished. You can see why I find this guy's approach at times somewhat idealised. You know blame it all on 'social structures' is a pretty academic approach and I don't wholly trust it.

You're describing the bio-chemical and neuroscience of addiction - the "hit," which of course is true but such biological responses involved with neurotransmitters and clusters of neuropetides do not operate in isolation. The point of the principle of connection and support is one of value and meaning in terms of emotional connection and attention/activity as focuser and director away from the habit and allowing a natural recovery. This has a direct influence on the subsequent potential for alleviation and amelioration of such an addictive pattern of behaviour. And it's a natural recovery that does occur in the overwhelming number of cases according to Bruce Alexander's studies. Punishment and ostracization doesn't work which is presently the dominant factor in law. It is this that determines recidivism not the intrinsic, biochemical nature of the addictive pattern itself.

Click to expand...

Well no of course the hit aspect doesn't operate in isolation. What you are saying roughly translated is simple. People need relationships, care and meaningful activity to get better from addiction. As for ostracization well anyone who has lived near drug dealers will know it can get pretty tough because addicts are prone to anti social behaviour, they ostracize themselves as much as anything. As for punishment and ostracization being the main factor in on going addiction without recovery yes to some extent...er but in my experience what I saw that determined recividism was not punishment or ostrasization by external agencies at all but stressors in domestic situations, violence, difficulties with access to their children often seemed to trigger people. That is events in their personal lives played a huge role and I don't think people's personal lives are totally manufactured by social structures.

Butterfly's thimble example is stretching it, but she was illustrating how addiction can manifest in very diverse forms. Bruce Alexander's book on The Globalisation of Addiction is extraordinarily lucid on this point. And it shows that no, it is not all hot air and obvious to anyone as the parameters are significantly extended. If it causes serious issues and pain in life it doesn't matter at all what the addiction is. We are merely measuring the relative level of pain and chaos it causes whether that is cocaine abuse or porn addiction leading to marriage break-up family fragmentation or the like. The various effects can be either dramatic or cumulative - but each can cause enormous harm. The principle is exactly the same and stems from the same source: a lack of meaning, a disconnected society, crazy laws and a lack of community and sense of individual meaning. It's common denominator is cultural ill health and seriously dysfunctional social systems.

Click to expand...

I shall never look at a thimble in quite the same way again.

It's a nice idea that cultural ill health is responsible for addiction but in the end what does that really mean ? There is no perfectly well culture and you cannot 'design' one. Generations have tried and failed. I keep thinking of Orwell's 'Animal Farm'...well I thought of it when in another thread you said you thought a whole other society could be made. Yes we can try, must try it's the only way forward and it is exciting IMO but let's not be naïve that we can design some kind of perfectly well society where there are no addicts. I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this fundamentally of course, I pretty much agree with you in principle

Well, yes and no. Social networks have undoubtedly brought people together and have offered many obvious benefits but they have also caused harmful addictions and mental illness. Facebook especially. (Forums are slightly different animals). Studies are legion on the effects social media is having on teens and below. Mostly not good. It's the deep spiritual emptiness and lack of belonging that society induces in its present form that largely leads to most forms of addiction which is why Hari was reminding us about the idea of connection and by extension the development of REAL community. And it's the development of flesh and blood community that I am concerned with not online social networks.

Click to expand...

Hmmm I get a bit weary of the likes of Hari preaching how bad social media is as if before social media we all lived jolly happy fulfilled lives in jolly happy communities. We didn't ! What mythical time is he harking after ? As for 'deep spiritual emptiness' I think that is a part of the human condition, as old as time, and has absolutely nothing to do with social media. It's the same old story. When cinema came out people were saying it would ruin relationships....and it didn't. When TV came out people were warned about it's detrimental effects on social relationships....but in fact people bonded over TV just like they bonded over cinema, just like they bond over social media. I wouldn't go near facebook personally and I do see a lot of hate and harassment via the internet but actually that is quite small compared to the positives. I mean facebook groups have accomplished some great things for charities and so on. There never has been a culturally 'well' time has there, there never was a time when people happily lived in nice little communities and everything was perfect. There is always a dark side because people are people. Animal Farm.....or perhaps 'Lord of the Flies' ? It is quite possible to be part of a real community and use social media.

Roll me a joint will you all this discussion is making me tense.

Trojina said:

Yes my point was exactly that. You said I was making mistaken assumptions yet he is making massive ones so I was trying to point out to you that what you accused me of he does a hundred fold yet you don't say he is making mistaken assumptions ? That's why I said it to show you that what you said I was doing he was doing a much greater extent.

Click to expand...

Well that's a roundabout ride! But it doesn't wash for me I'm afraid for the simple reason I think he's largely correct and you're incorrect in your "assumptions." Sorry. We can go around again if you like ...

Trojina said:

I know that wasn't his main point and I know what he was saying but it really isn't so new.

Click to expand...

I think we've established that...

Trojina said:

There are drugs projects across the country who work towards that very non punitive aim for example. I'm really not so sure how much addicts are punished.

Click to expand...

It's called government legislation, law enforcement, prison and the law courts. And I can tell you that addicts are most certainly punished if they end up being regurgitated through that system - which they do. That doesn't mean outreach centres and community programs are not available but they are a) desperately underfunded and b) still inside state run programs which don't feature any of the innovations centred around community activities employed in some European countries. In other words it's a nice chat with their mentor or social worker in a sterile room along with the required quota of methadone from an overworked doc and off s/he goes to repeat the cycle. And in the background the machinery of the overarching penal system continues to peddle its human sausage meat as a vicious circle.

Trojina said:

For example I once had to work for a day as a 'carer' for an alcoholic paranoid schizophrenic. How 'punished' was she for being an alcoholic ? Well she had a very nice social housing flat with 24 hour 'carers' who she shouted abuse at and frightened to death. It was cold but she would not let me have the fire on. She made me take her to the chip shop and the off license in a wheel chair though she could walk. She shouted at me for stumbling on the kerb because I found it hard to push her up it. She was given money by the state to buy alcohol and cigarettes each day, extra money for alcohol like it medicine. It was horrific for me and I would never work there again... Yes I know this is anecdotal but I could come up with similar stories for any number of addicts/alcoholics I've had dealings with. I know some who make other tenants lives hell because they have no notion of day or night so play loud music all the time but the council will not evict them because they are 'vulnerable'.

Click to expand...

Alcoholism is treated very differently to drug addiction and to some degree socially acceptable in a way that drugs are not which is crazy. But it's is still a symptomatic of the overall social dysfunction I was mentioning. And I agree, there are social welfare operations which vary county by country and borough to borough. So, while not dismissing your anecdotes we have to look at the overall picture where the prison system and having a "criminal record" usually comes first prior to voluntary care, rehab etc.

Trojina said:

You know from where I am I don't see a whole lot of ostrasizing and punishing I see the people living around and with the addicts being punished. You can see why I find this guy's approach at times somewhat idealised. You know blame it all on 'social structures' is a pretty academic approach and I don't wholly trust it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps from where you stand you might not be seeing the whole picture. And I don't think its academic at all. The symptoms are everywhere that our society isn't functioning at all well and most of the time wholly avoidable. I mean that's about as obvious as it gets. And it's beyond just minor problems - there are deep rooted social problems. No, that doesn't mean I'm seeking Utopia. A level playing field would be a start.

As I mentioned, "punishment" means being prosecuted if found in possession of class A or class B drugs. This is the reality no matter whatever experiences we have on the scale of this addict did this... or that addict was better off than the other guy ... and I think they have a cushy deal down our way...It doesn't alter the fact and consequences of the justice system and statutory law which feeds into and exacerbates the main reasons why people become addicts in the first place: we live in a dysfunctional and rather ill society. And what was it Krishnamurti said? "It's no measure of good health to be well-adjusted to a sick society."

Trojina said:

Well no of course the hit aspect doesn't operate in isolation. What you are saying roughly translated is simple. People need relationships, care and meaningful activity to get better from addiction. As for ostracization well anyone who has lived near drug dealers will know it can get pretty tough because addicts are prone to anti social behaviour, they ostracize themselves as much as anything. As for punishment and ostracization being the main factor in on going addiction without recovery yes to some extent...er but in my experience what I saw that determined recividism was not punishment or ostrasization by external agencies at all but stressors in domestic situations, violence, difficulties with access to their children often seemed to trigger people. That is events in their personal lives played a huge role and I don't think people's personal lives are totally manufactured by social structures.

Click to expand...

See above. I think they are all intimately linked and feed off or augment each other. It's a social feedback system. Personal lives are effected by and shaped by our social systems. Nothing is isolated. Ostracization can be powerfully internal as it is external.

Trojina said:

I shall never look at a thimble in quite the same way again.
It's a nice idea that cultural ill health is responsible for addiction but in the end what does that really mean ? There is no perfectly well culture and you cannot 'design' one. Generations have tried and failed. I keep thinking of Orwell's 'Animal Farm'...well I thought of it when in another thread you said you thought a whole other society could be made. Yes we can try, must try it's the only way forward and it is exciting IMO but let's not be naïve that we can design some kind of perfectly well society where there are no addicts. I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this fundamentally of course, I pretty much agree with you in principle

Click to expand...

Well, the principle was really all I was interested as I've constantly mentioned. But now you're jumping to entirely different focus. Who said anything about Utopia? Animal Farm? Look, if you agree that biological reactions do not happen in isolation then so too the individual in the organism that is society. Culture isn't a "nice idea"- it's made up of constellation of beliefs, memes and social constructs which either work or prove to be toxic in the short or long term. Cultural health/illness just like an individual or a groups health obviously occurs or it doesn't. Healthy people or unhealthy people comprise societies. Or are we all Ghosts in a Machine? There is surely room to improve our collective situation? I can't make out if you're playing devil's advocate here or not...

Trojina said:

Hmmm I get a bit weary of the likes of Hari preaching how bad social media is as if before social media we all lived jolly happy fulfilled lives in jolly happy communities. We didn't ! What mythical time is he harking after ?

Click to expand...

Oh good grief. When a new innovation arrives and has detrimental aspects to it that doesn't necessarily mean that we think that the past was idyllic.

Trojina said:

As for 'deep spiritual emptiness' I think that is a part of the human condition, as old as time, and has absolutely nothing to do with social media.

Click to expand...

Of course it's not the root cause. But if such a condition is as old as time a) that doesn't mean we can't improve it realistically (or would you prefer doing nothing and pretending all is well?) and b) if a new innovation or social construct arrives on top of a foundation of dysfunction as it exists then it will contribute to that malaise just as it will contribute to the more positive aspects of our collective focus. It depends which influence overall has dominance.

Trojina said:

It's the same old story. When cinema came out people were saying it would ruin relationships....and it didn't.

Click to expand...

How do you know? Perhaps it did indeed contribute to the misunderstanding and problems people experience in relationships just as much as it has entertained? The influence of technology is still being discussed because it is still relatively recent phenomena. There are negatives and positives, all of which influence. The question is what is dominant?

Trojina said:

When TV came out people were warned about it's detrimental effects on social relationships....but in fact people bonded over TV just like they bonded over cinema, just like they bond over social media. I wouldn't go near facebook personally and I do see a lot of hate and harassment via the internet but actually that is quite small compared to the positives. I mean facebook groups have accomplished some great things for charities and so on.

Click to expand...

No one said it's all bad. See above. I don't have a TV but I like to watch films now and then. You may also like to read this although I suspect it won't appeal to you ...I have no idea why

Trojina said:

There never has been a culturally 'well' time has there, there never was a time when people happily lived in nice little communities and everything was perfect. There is always a dark side because people are people. Animal Farm.....or perhaps 'Lord of the Flies' ? It is quite possible to be part of a real community and use social media.

Click to expand...

Of course it is. No one said it isn't. I think social media and the internet are potentially are new global brain. But we might be crossing the infant stage with this technology and there are serious teething problems being visited on the young especially and from which we can't disengage because we are immersed in technology more and more without being fully cognizant of the implications. But yes, social media is a wonderful tool when used within an even partially healthy society - which we don't have, in fact collective narcissism appears to be on the rise in part thanks to our smart phone and Facebook generation so of course, when technological innovation surfaces it will naturally be a product of our level of awareness at in this present era.

How do you know there was never a time when life and societies were more balanced? You don't. And no it doesn't mean we all go back to mud huts and walk around starry-eyed in a new age haze. There certainly hasn't been a time in our present Western, capitalist/socialist societies where there has been any semblance of true balance for a host of geopolitical and mostly state-bound reasons. But there are clear signs that a happier, simpler way of life is possible in our ancient and more recent past. No, that doesn't mean to say it was easy - it was very harsh and difficult existence. Absolutely no sentimentalization here. Yet, studies with some indigenous cultures of the last 200 years living wholly outside our societal framework did exhibit persistent and conclusive evidence of a simplicity and deep happiness that transcended our conceptions of it in our current cultures. Despite their very basic existence. That is, before the monoculture of our beloved corporations and consumerist societies subsumed them. There is much to be learned from them.

A case in point is Helena Norberg Hodge's work with the thousand year old people of Ladhka. She lived with them for over twenty years. You can read about her discoveries in Ancient Futures (1991). I went on a residential course with her at the Schumacher College in Devon about 20 years ago now and it was extremely moving. And I can assure you she is one of the most grounded, pragmatic, no BS kind of "academic" you could meet.

Similar studies have been carried out with the African Pygmies, the intuit tribes of Greenland; the mongolian stepe tribes of Siberia; the Australian aborigines of Papua new Guinea and some of the native American tribes over the last 150 years. Without exception there are certain daily cultural traits, deep spiritual knowledge that we in the "sophisticated", "civillised" world have lost. Partly related to our disconnection from the natural world but also connected to the anti-human constructs of our urban societies. And it's from here we can learn about the real nature and deep source of our multi-faceted addictions.

The existence of our individual and collective dark side is not the problem. We need to understand how to express it and channel it safely so that creativity flows encompassing both poles. I think that's how communities of people can assist in that process.

Geeze have I written that much? What a waste of energy...I have to get back to work...Sorry I get carried away sometimes.

Yeah, I need a joint too. I'll have to settle for my home grown tobacco...Tweed get my pouch... ...What do you mean you've eaten it?

Well that's a roundabout ride! But it doesn't wash for me I'm afraid for the simple reason I think he's largely correct and you're incorrect in your "assumptions." Sorry. We can go around again if you like ...

Click to expand...

Not really a roundabout ride just that you missed what I was saying. I think the connection between these 2 statements was clear

You said

However, I think you make the mistake of assuming that something that is so obvious to you will be obvious for everyone else. That simply isn't the case .

Click to expand...

so I said

The title of this talk is 'everything you thought you knew about addiction is wrong' so I think he is mistakenly assuming a great deal about what he thinks other people know.

Click to expand...

You laughed at me as if I hadn't known what I was saying there. He is most certainly making assumptions about what people know...


I don't think you are in a position to tell me I have wrong assumptions about what people know about addiction since you don't know as a matter of fact what most people know or don't know about addiction. It can't be quantified unless we go door to door to each person in the land. I do think the title 'everything you thought you knew about addiction is wrong' is misleading since he doesn't know what we think to start with

There is surely room to improve our collective situation? ..

Click to expand...

Yes I did actually say that here

Yes we can try, must try it's the only way forward and it is exciting IMO

Click to expand...

Geeze have I written that much? What a waste of energy...I have to get back to work...Sorry I get carried away sometimes.

Click to expand...

I guess in order to avoid getting drawn into discussion it's best not to post threads designed to trigger some kind of discussion ? We've all been there....Goodnight.

Okay Trojina have it your way...You were right all along and he made a BIG assumption - How dare he!

Hello
Have just got back to a computer after a few days climbing and canoeing - and read the replies and debate above. Funnily, I spoke to a mountain runner at the top of a high peak on Tuesday. He runs up a very high peak at least twice a week - he was in his 60s and made us all feel very unfit. We met him at a col and speaking to my son said that he was addicted to the runs - which he did all year, location depending on the weather. Interesting his wording - he was very fit looking,very thin and wirey - possibly due to his running addiction. It got us as a family talking about addiction to physcial excercise and those folk who are addicted to gym use, running etc. My daughter said that this was a real problem - and showed me a video of someone whose mother literally had to lock the doors to stop her daughter from going to the gym - 4 to 5 times a day. There are no health warnings on gym doors and I am sure that this girl would get help. She was not a smoker, where the hooks are out to get you, or a drug or alcohol abuser she just took this to extremes. LIke my friend who had a stressful job, an unhappy marriage and several setbacks, the thimble collection was her connection to something that hooked her in. She spent so many hours at work on research and money and loans to pay for travel, and purchases - not unlike a drug user, keeping her paraphanalia secret.

I too smoked behind the bike sheds with the cool girls although as a dancer I stopped as soon as I left school - I also hated it and liked chocolate far more. My friend continued and still smokes today - she was hooked I wasnt. I cannot think of anything worse than a collection of thimbles, but I am not my friend. A drug user needs as much compassion as a thimble collector imo - and no one has any right to judge - and compassion, not judgement are needed. The image of a drug user who is hooked on heroin raises hackles - mostly, I think because people are smug and feel that they are clean, upright and controlled - unlike the poor sole on the advert. It is useful to make them an example as if they are somehow lacking.

I always think of hex 49 with addiction

Thanks for the discussion.