Addiction By Definition

Q: Do you suffer from addiction?
A: No. I enjoy it. I've heard addiction defined as a behaviour that effects every area of your life - work, home, etc. If you can hold a job and maintain reasonably peaceful interpersonal relationships, I don't much care what bad habits you have.

As I said, as long as they don't screw up my life, no, I don't care. And some of them are kinda fun along the way. Your definition does call addiction a "disease". If it doesn't cause any dis-ease - i.e. ill effects such as pain or death, then who cares if somebody chooses to call it a "bad" habit?

I think we should be in a state of pre-contemplation all the time. The unexamined life is not worth living, as Socrates said. The first line of defense against addiction is awareness.When I said I don't care I meant that I don't care if something I do can technically be called an addiction. The actual effects on myself and those around me are all that matters, not a match with a definition in a book.

Sure, and by working at Safeway, you're depriving Sears of your expertise. Everything we do in one area deprives another area. Really? Or is your behaviour just as likely to be channelled in another direction?

I'm always glad for somebody else to do my homework for me.

So the distinction is between addiction and need. An addiction is a counterfeit "need".

Yeah, I'm leaning away from the "problem" approach myself. An addiction is only a problem if it's a problem but it's still an addiction even if it isn't a problem.

If he was real, he could be. What about the need to blame somebody besides ourselves? Would that be an addiction too?

I worked with a young fellow who used to quit smoking every week - a day or so of abstention in every seven.

I have to say that gambling is an addiction that I can not understand. I don't find gambling the least bit appealing. I'm horrified at the prospect of losing, not thrilled at the prospect of winning.I can understand the appeal of alcohol. I can also understand a life without alcohol but I don't know how you can go from one understanding to the other.

My point is that I can understand what appeals to me and I can also understand that it isn't good for me - I can hold both understandings in my mind at once, even though they're contradictory. The question is, how do I change my behaviour to coincide with one understanding and not the other? The brain is sending conflicting signals. How do we choose which are "false"?

What appeals to me is intuitive. I can't explain to you why I like pickled herring or why I don't like cashews but it isn't something I have to think about. What's "good for me" has more to do with outside influences - what other people tell me. I "know" that sugar is bad for me but I don't feel it. Well, I intuit one and I know the other.

Of course the Beast isn't only a problem with addictive behaviour. We need to control our impulses to punch people or to skip work, etc.As you say, the real problem is in recognizing the Beast.

I don't doubt that there's a medical component but that's not an excuse for behaviour. This is what seems contradictory to me. It's a medical disorder, so we use logic and reason to cure it? We can (hypothetically) use logic and reason to control our behaviour in spite of the medical disorder - but that doesn't seem to be working reliably.

Who is?When I see people making bad decisions I wonder if they ask themselves, "Is this going to improve my life?" Of course we all make decisions based on a combination of logic and feelings, so being "in touch with your feelings" isn't an end in itself.