I regret not having built the common ground bridge before, I can see where we are at logger heads, and where the conflict lies.. Now that the yelling horde of kids telling me to eff off is almost done I shall try to be more civil. Although you state many things I disagree with, I will try to pick up the conversation where the communication is lagging.
Sorry. I appreciate you perserverance in this thread.
Causes are seperate from treatment and effective change. What the factors are that drive addiction are different than the changes a human can make to stop addiction.
Human behavior isn't robotic or mechanical, it only resembles that in the cases of disorder, in which a strong emotional affector constrains behavior, in which case you can then, very effectively, link their behavior to past behavior.
I would say that this is mischaracterization of what behaviorism is. And not an uncommon misunderstanding. The behavioral approach focuses on the current situation at hand , it is the psychodynamic models that focus on the past. History is an important aspect of assessment but when it comes to b-mod you look at the current situation almost solely. You link their current antecedents and consequences to current reinforcers and consequences. Then you teach self monitoring and start by small behavioral changes with large impacts.
That really bugs a lot of the psychodynamic crowd.
And behavioral therapy does not depend upon the robotic nature of humans. It depends upon the active role of a self aware human being in creating change.
Why would I require research to back up something obvious to almost everyone who has met someone with an addiction, and only disputed by you.
Strangely I am not the only person who has this view of addiction, maybe a large minority.
Why research the obvious, because often the obvious is not the most valid.
But to create common ground, the effects of the causes are addiction. So while the multiple causes of addiction are academic, as you have said, the consequences of the behaviors that you labels as 'issues' are that they are one of the antecedents to using. Some of them are behaviors and some are more associative.
However they can be treated through the cognitive behavioral therapy intervention.(Along with other i think are a waste of time.)
I was only stating that there are multiple factors that drive addiction.
Not everyone is driven by 'issues', they also seek euphoria and other driving factors to addiction.
Sorry for not spelling it out earlier.
The obvious is human nature isn't robotic but bizarrely you fail to comprehend this.
That is a mischaracterization of behaviorism, CBT relies upon the fact that humans are not robots. People can change there responses to stimuli, and are not robots. Now the radical behaviorists might argue otherwise but I am not one of them.
And science is science, common sense is often divorced from science.
Science is the mysticism of common sense, and math it's symbology.
Okay, I disagree.
Desperation. Well, you really don't bow to anyone...
I am not disputing the obvious.
The obvious is not always valid?
What, pray tell would the NIAAA, NIMH and PubMed have that contradicts the obvious reason millions of people do drugs. What study exists that asserts addiction is simply a medical problem. As usual, this is off base and has no context. A study could easily conclude that the biological cause for wide oxycontin abuse is because it is an opioid. Big deal. That doesn't change the common sense cause though: because it's usage fills a gap in people's lives.
I asked you to show where research shows where what you think is obvious is valid.
Your welcome, I have said there are multiple causes all along.
Of course it contains subcategories, but that is irrelevant, isn't it. That isn't going to tell me anything useful.
it says that there are multiple causes?
The Third Reich was an enormously complex cultural and sociopolitical situation, but caused by an elementary dynamic: emotional manipulation of basic human insecurities. An exhaustive sociocultural university study isn't required to understand why it happened, or how to prevent it.
thanks for the straw man, it can go on the bonfire.
Ultimately, an alcoholic or drug addict has to address the reason; a therapist can isolate the most emotionally troubling key part of it, in which case you have a means of changing the behavior.
that would be another area I would disagree, as a behaviorist i don't think you need to understand the root cause, change the behavior and see what happens. Now you do have to address trauma and depression and things like that, but first you have to stop using.
Why would I research and compile data on a topic that is not in dispute. This is like asking someone for data and research that men largely prefer blondes. People become addicted to substances in a haphazard way to cope with life.
And that is a great theory but it is not a valid theory until you research it, isn't science cool?
You are the one failing to refute the obvious, not to mention the Wikipedia article (edit that anytime?)! Do you think anyone cares to hear a thousand reasons how they got that way?
Another straw man on the fire?
No, they know why they are that way.
Duh.
They just don't want to stop. It's essentially, an existential and philosophical choice they make.
OOOK?
There is another one of those words. "existential and philosophical ", I hope not. Different POV have I.
I think there is more than one cause?
Boredom, largely, the drug habit takes the place of something otherwise interesting or meaningful - cannibus' appeal is universal in this sense, as it enhances appreciation. Or they do not in fact have a "good life" in their own opinion, but an empty one.
One of many causes? And I thought the causes were irrelavant according to you?
Maybe you are running out of places to run, dance, or hide outs. Maybe these "paths" are just different variations of the same situations which make substance abuse appealing as an escape. You know, perhaps?
Show me the research and I'll say they are the same.
Science rules the obvious drools.
