Addiction is a disease

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wasn't using the animal evidence to say addiction to psychoactive drugs was all physical. I used that evidence to demonstrate that there is a qualitative difference in drug addiction, not just a quantitative difference. A drug high and addiction has different qualities which caffeine and gambling addictions don't have, and those are different from compulsive obsessive disorders.

These three things are not on the same continuum you seem to put them on. I would say there are places the continuums perhaps overlap, but to lump these all into the same behavior disorder is like lumping all infections into one category. They may all be infections but that is not a useful way to look at them.

 

[Dancing David]

A compliment and criticism in the same short paragraph. Hyperbole? Ok, I'll assume that was overdrive on my part; I can't believe anyone who was educated and had experience with the subject would take that position.

Assumptions again? As I have stated there are some really strong rationales and some evidence behind my thinking. And not all people like the behavioral POV.

Biological predisposition is like an imaginary gravity well. It's something you genetically lack, and when a solution is found, it becomes habitual and is appropriately termed a medical issue, having no psychological or psychophysical origin.

See that is where I disagree, predisposition can mean so many things in a biological system. In one it could be a lacking in the endorphin system, in another it could be depression which is not a lack but an overactive system, in others it could be an underactive system, in more it could be a lack of the ability to screen sensation (either and over or an underactive system), there are literaly hundreds of thousands of ways that a biological predisposition could lead to a vulnerability to addiction.

And as for the "having no psychological or psychophysical origin", then why again are the people who have the predisposition, expose themselves and don't become addicts? Why do almost all addicts have a large component called "addicted thinking"?

An example would be someone who has it all together, no issues or hang-ups, but a genetic predisposition toward, say, opioids. Athletes, who often have a low set mood

low set mood sounds like a possible predisposistion?

and exercise "for the burn" (endorphins which are released from muscle tearing) are excellent examples. We then have a series of behaviors revolving around a firm genetic cause.

Sure but there are plenty of reason people become exercise addicts and again not all people who exercise for the burn become addicts.

There is the behavioral component (psychological component), in women it is often anorexia, and I am sure that is true in men as well.

In the case of serious athletes though, this dynamism has a very positive result, until it is taken to an extreme in the form of bodybuilding that is.

Behavior is not the cause of addiction, but the effect of it, which is often simple to identify.

Now we are in the area where the discussion occurs.
We have a biological mechanism, which seemingly has the ability to make choices that effect it's physical enviroment. When i say that addictions are behavioral in nature, I mean that addiction is a specific set of behaviors. And while the behaviors will influence the course of the addiction they are not the sole determinant. Nor is the physiological process the sole determinant. If an addict chooses to avoid the supply of the addiction, it becomes very hard for them to be an addict.

The cause of the addiction just acts as an affector, constraining behavior into a predictable set of routines.

I would not say constraint, perhaps "adding a strong reinforcement to behavior". If the person has the ability to make alternate choices, such as I will change the channel or use my Tivo to avoid beer commercials, then there is not a constraint.
The behaviors become predictable through reinforcement, there are alternate behaviors.

Sure, the behaviors can identify the addiction, they aren't the cause however.

Thank you, yes, the behaviors identify addiction.

They are one of many reinforceres of the behaviors.

Remember the statement "There are many paths to addiction"?

The thoughts and behaviors are the part of addiction that the addict can address and change. If they have a biological predisposition they can't change that. And the addicted thinking is in many cases a stronger trigger of relapse than withdrawl cravings.

Yes. I know several World of Warcraft addicts, It's fascinating watching them thrust back and forth toward the desk, mouth agape and face flushed red, when an ogre wearing a colored skirt "pwns" them with a white hot explosion of woo. Don't turn this into a similar dialogue I had with Larson about why he wasn't able to logically identify why he didn't want anyone except authority figures to have guns.

I believe in gun registration to prevent the illegal sale of arms.

I understand many people do not understand what sexual addiction looks like and how the addicts feel , they are about as happy as the meth heads.

You either know what I meant by that or you don't.

Well, I'm glad you at least changed the subject this time. A sex addict is someone like De Sade, whose works I'm fond of - mostly for their sharp edge and comic relief. But most of his behavior is simply on principle - he was a naturalist who was repulsed by religious hypocrisy at a time such a thing was unheard of, and developed a strong attraction to the taboo. I went through a similar phase.

I wouldn't say that I know that much about him, he may have been a sex addict or not. The people I know who have that issue have lifes that are pretty much the same as that of an alcoholic or meth head, except you insert the term "sex" where the eowrd "alcohol" or "meth" would go. They loose jobs, they loose relationships and all sorts of detriments to daily functioning because of thier cycles of using sex as a mood altering behavior.

If you went through a similar phase, did you stop? Did you have great difficulty when you tried to stop? Did you continue the pattern of behaviors even though you really wanted to stop?

I've defined it in simple, clear English several times already.

I believe you stated the two differnt types of addiction, I could be wrong. i feel you defined what the difference was between 'psychological' vs. 'inherent' addiction.

Did you state what addiction is?

People become addicted because they enjoy something a lot, do it often, and do not have a meaningful alternative in their lives, despite often recognizing the addiction is self-defeating.

Not all people become addicts because they enjoy the euphoria, especialy the people numbing pain.
Addicts often have many meaningful alternatives and very successful lives when the addiction starts. Why is that? They do have maningful alternatives but they become addicts anyhow.
Sounds like some behaviors there.
People often misunderstand behaviorism as well, there are the 'internal' behaviors such as thoughts.

Even sex addiction has a clear psychological basis, as in the case with Michael Jackson, other times psychophysical, like in the case with Sade.

I do not know enough about either to say what physiological basis for thier behavior there would be other than the standard.

Michael could have a paraphilia, or he could have a deeply fractured psyche(vauge bag of trash that is) where he thinks children are his peers. Again something to change through behavior.

My opinion on habitual drinking is based on my own experience, the fact I hit a slump once, and suddenly found drinking useful, it provided insight why other people do it habitually. It is very effective as a psychological balm, legal, available, and cheap.

Why some people do it.? Some alcoholics start in the pursuit of euphoria as opposed to the numbing of pain.

There are many paths to addiction.

Why people become addicted to one thing or another almost always has a psychological basis, which they can identify.

Well that blows the genetic predisposition doesn't it. Addicts can rationalize thier addiction to death. They are often aware of why they use, they are often just engaging in addicted thinking. What they are often in is denial, denial they have an addiction, denial of what the motivation is for them to use. Some people become addicted to multiple things. I think the history of exposure does have a role to play.

Some people however have serious issues and are on a different island altogether in that regard. The addiction acts as a self-defeating coping mechanism.

I would say that is true of the majority of addictions, the self defeating coping that is.

You may have heard "denial" often used in conjunction with habitual drinking, this is because it acts as a psychological balm to divorce intrusive thoughts welling up from one's situation. I would be frankly, astonished if Bush, who has a unique distinction as being disliked literally, by an entire planet, no longer drinks.

I think of denial in many ways, usualy denial that the mood altering behavior is a problem. I don't know if the Shrub uses or not. I wonder.

Treatment amounts to coaching, and if the problem is diagnosed as psychophysical, as in the case with someone who has genetically, a low set mood and who deals with situations badly, medical treatment.

Do you mean psych chemo therapy?

It never goes beyond that,

Well I wouldn't say that, as stated before I feel in addiction's counseling the goal is to establish trust and then gently and calmly keep reflecting the problematic mood altering behavior to the individual, pointing out negative consequences of use, alternates to use and confronting addicted thinking.

unless you either still the waters of whatever psychological undercurrent the addiction originates from,

therapy for behaviors or psychotherpay can be useful as an adjunct to the addictions program. Dual diagnosis requires dual treatment.

or develop a close personal relationship with them, in which case they will go out of their way for you to "change".

That last one is unlikely to be a motivator towards change, addicts are surrounded by people who they have a close personal relationship with who want them to change. It doesn't motivate the change in behaviors.

.

 

[Dancing David]

Depression is situation dependent, but a confluence of two simple factors: psychological (the enviornment) and sociobiological (medically definable causes for functional mental or emotional impairment).

Well I am saying that I believe depression to not be a transitory state, according to the DSM the symptoms should have occured for a two week period, I tend ot think three weeks or more of persistant symptoms.

So again to call something depression is to identify the state, the state is the same regardless of wether the depression is purely physiological, strees related and a physiological vulnerability or a physiological state totaly from stress.

The end sate is depression, and the causal factots do not change the end state.

The person is depressed irregardless of the cause. At least in my bloated opinion.

Yes, and? If I self-induce chemical depression, I'm going to have a very lousy day regardless of anything that happens.

When I think depression I think something that is not transitiory, so it would require a series of lousy days lasting at least three weeks.

It is very difficult to sort of drug induced depression fro the effects of a SoA, especialy cocaine, alcohol and methamphetamine. usualy the person has to dry out first, and then the depression alliviates. (That would be a substance induced depression).

Under anhedonia, I would not be able to positively respond to say, winning the lottery.

Ahedonia is one of the criteria that qualifies as a depressed symtoms, so I am not following you here, please elaborate

If this deficiency isn't there, and an unpleasant series of events occur, my mood will similarly be affected. Why do you think I distinguished a relationship between the two.

Perhaps I would say that i draw a distinction between a depressed mood and depression. One is like the weather on a daily basis as oppoosed to a seasonal change in weather. Depression is when there is a long term shift in the weather.

Ok, now this is insighful. That is correct, someone with chemical depression often considers "everything depressing", that is, without reasonable cause.

See there is the hitch, the rub , the sticking point. Define reasonable cause. Unemployment, reasonable, loss of relationship, reasonable, mean employer reasonable, bad things happening, reasonable.
So how to make a clear distinction between what is reasonable and what isn't?
Depressed people have the same bad things and good things happen to them that happen to other people.

I tend to use time and functional impairment.

9 weeks is the arbitrary time frame in the DSM for an 'adjustment disorder', so if someone is having functional impairment and I should say substantial functional impairment nine weeks after the event then I would say they have gone from adjustment disorder into depression.
Grief is a very good example, if you are still unable to force yourself through your day nine weeks after a traumatic event then you most likely have dperssion. However if your skills are starting to carry you through and there are times where your mood is not totaly trashed, then you are not having deperssion. PTSD mopre likely or acute stress disorder, which can co-occur with depression.

Events are viewed through a washed out, grey and emotionally ineffectual lens. Their lives are like a continuous C-SPAN marathon. Someone with purely psychological depression does not have this deficit, but trauma due to a situation and memorex cause persistent disruption in outlook and productivity.

I would say someone with chemical depression doe shave that deficit. So maybe we disagree on that. In the Cognitive Theory of Depression Beck points out what he calls the cognitive triad of depression, negative world view , hopelessness and negative self image.

I can't believe you find this difficult to distinguish?

Not when it comes to the state defined as depression. They are same:same , irregardless of the cause.

That is clearly chemical depression. It's like wearing glasses that distort everything as shades of grey. A chemically depressed person is not capable of interpreting events in a positive manner because the mechanisms involved in this are disrupted. Hence, a medical condition. The problem vanishes like a gentle breeze when this deficit is corrected.

I wouldn't say that either, usualy a person need some CBT to deal with the symptoms that remain with the ADs.

See above. Not what I meant: the problem vanishes when the deficit is corrected, when this occurs, you perk up immediately.

As I said, even on antidepressant the sysmptoms usualy persist for quite a while, in my cases usualy about six months, I have to use the CBT skills on a dialy bvasis to maintain healthy cognitive patterns.

So I am not sure what you mean when you say

"perk up immdeatly".

How effective SSRIs/SNRI's are at actually correcting this I'll have to bow to your experience, as I have none..

depends on the person and the depression, some respond to SSRIs, some to TCAs, some to the SSNRIs, some to Webutrin and the other atypicals, some to mood stabalizers.

usualy CBT is also recomended.

Chemically depressed people are often not able to distinguish between how they interpret situations and the fact the reason they are doing this is due to a deficit. Serotonin induced anhedonia, by contrast, is characterized by emotional retardation and despair.

Those are also sysmptoms of depression, so how would you distinguish the two?

A chemically depressed person cannot identify the cause, it is identified as a variety of reasons, or they instantly diagnose themselves by admitting "..everything is so damn depressing!".

I would disagree, they will tell you very specific stressors in most cases and again they are often the same as the ones given by someone who would have 'reasonable response to stress". So up front it is almost impossible to distinguish the two. A person who reports grief and stress leading to depression from the death of a child is going to look the same as someone who has chronic de and stress leading to depression.

Most people don't realize that a neurobiological mechanism exists that regulates the ability to positively interpret the world around you - often it is interpreted as a "crisis" of religious gravity!

And you can not distinguish between the two, if someone has a biological vulnerability to depression, a stress induced biological vulnerability to depression, a stress induced depression, they are going to act the same, they are going to report the same range of symptoms. It is very hard in an assesment to distinguish, and in fact the symptoms presented will be the same regardless of which of the three categories presented.

It would take an extensive history and collateral verification to identify which people have low levels of stress and serious impairment in functioning to find the people who have purely a biological vulnerability to depression.

And then when you think you have it sorted away, you find out that crucial piece of information
"My husband rapes my daughter every night"
and so it turns out that it is a stress induced depression , albeit with a possibility of a biological vulnerability to stress.

Any unpleasant or disordered situation will have a magnified negative effect on their mood. They mistakenly interpret the event as the cause.

But the rub is in finding a way to objectify that judgement. Usualy it comes from the individual after they start treatment, get well and then stop treatment. Most people will move on and not have a reoccurance of symptoms, those with the higher biological vulnerability will have a stress related reoccurance of symptoms.

No disagreement, that should always be applied.

If someone has purely chemical depression, the problem is superficial. It is corrected by treatment. Psychological depression cannot be treated by anything, but can be masked by narcotics and alcohol. Only resolving the disordered situation works; often that is impossible, as any Iraq war vet, or oxycodone, alcohol and sex addled Hollywood star will tell you.

What , HUH?

What evidence do you have that situational (stress induced) depression does not respond to treatment?

Where is that study? How many people were in it?

What the Fred?

I am refraining from name callling which will deter from the conversation.

Show me the evidence. You have just decribed the vast majority of people who seek mental health treatment.

Indeed, it is very difficult for those with a genetic low set mood to distinguish. They have no subjective frame of reference, except everyone else coping much more positively.

I am saying that you can not distinguish that up front, only after they start treatment and get off treatment.

The only problem is the rebound, which in the case of an addict, is horrific. Pu agonist opioids are very dangerous if a chemically depressed person becomes addicted to them. Delta opioid agonists, such as mitragynine however aren't, in fact their rebound is trivial - certainly compared to an SSRI from what I've read. As a side note, it was found that saliva contained the precursor to an endogenous morphine like chemical.

Evidence that opiods can be used to treat depression?

What?

Where?

Addicted thinking?

The only real 'globally' effective antidepressent in existence is Tramadol hydrochloride, which combines a lightly acting pu opioid receptor agonist which also acts as an SSRI, and is freely available without prescription.

Citations, evidence, proof?

How do they define effective and how do they define treatment?

What?

The combination provides the best of both worlds, and has a dosage ceiling of about 300mg, the only drawback being the somewhat harsh rebound if stopped cold at maximum dosage, but easily stepped down from.

This is actually a fascinating research question, as opioid agonists seem, despite the rebound, to instantly and globally treat depression.

I will read.

They should, although I don't see how a regulator like an SSRI will do anything unless the person has a deficit. I'll bow to your experience in this regard..

No bowing, because depression is depression, irregardless.

All chemical depression magnifies stress, anxiety, intrusive negative thoughts. If someone is psychologically depressed, the process is reversed: memorex of a actual hopeless, negative and depressing event affects mood balance. This is turning into a Taoist dialogue.

How can you tell the differnce?

Follow the way of the tao, follow the way of the tao, follow the, follow the, follow the, follow the, follow the way of the tao

 

[Dancing David]

These results support roles (a) for a dysregulation of dopaminergic neuronal activity in the expression of escape deficit subsequent to an inescapable aversive situation, and (b) for a dopaminergic mediation in the effects of morphine in the learned helplessness paradigm.

I can see how the study implies that morphine blocks a certain behavioral consequence of a conflicted situation(bind.bind) and how the hlaperiodal mediates that.

But I don't see where that says morphine is a treatment for depression.

 

[Dancing David]

I wasn't using the animal evidence to say addiction to psychoactive drugs was all physical. I used that evidence to demonstrate that there is a qualitative difference in drug addiction, not just a quantitative difference. A drug high and addiction has different qualities which caffeine and gambling addictions don't have, and those are different from compulsive obsessive disorders.

These three things are not on the same continuum you seem to put them on. I would say there are places the continuums perhaps overlap, but to lump these all into the same behavior disorder is like lumping all infections into one category. They may all be infections but that is not a useful way to look at them.

I understand what you are saying, and yes different people have different factors that drive the addiction, as do different SoA.

What i am saying is this:

If we define addiction in this very simple paradigm:

The precense of behavior D in the precense of stimulus Y,
the precense of behavior E in the abcense of stimulus Y

and we state that D is seeking behaviors to exposure Y
and that E is withdrawl behaviors in the ancense of exposure Y

than this is asimple explanation for the general idea of what I mean.

a sex addict engages in behaviors A to engage in thier addictions
a sex addict express the thoughts and feelings B regarding thier addiction
a sex addict has consequences C to thier behavioral choices

a meth addict engages in behaviors D to engage in thier addictions
a meth addict express the thoughts and feelings E regarding thier addiction
a meth addict has consequences F to thier behavioral choices

and so on...

if then A is comoparable to D
and
B is comparable to E
and
C is comparable to F

than an argument can be made that behavioraly the behaviors that define sex addiction are the same behaviors that define meth addiction, what ever causative and physiological factors are involved in driving the behaviors.

So from the behavioral perspective if the behaviors are equivalent/highly comparable then the behaviors are equivalent or highly com[parable.

 

[SirPhilip]

I can see how the study implies that morphine blocks a certain behavioral consequence of a conflicted situation(bind.bind) and how the hlaperiodal mediates that. But I don't see where that says morphine is a treatment for depression.

Morphine certainly isn't, but the same mechanisms it acts on are critical in global mood function. Unlike serotonin, which is roughly associated with 'happiness', the opioid receptor sites are synonymous with the interpretation of stress (physical and emotional pain) and well being, although it certainly does not affect memorex, a key cause of depression if caused by a situation.

 

[calebprime]

must say, I enjoy listening in when you guys are in discuss--rather than debate--mode.

musician's joke: what do you call a musician who broke up with his girlfriend?

?what

homeless.

As Bertie Wooster might say, now you see the sit.

Two more anecdotes about musicians who taught me something:

James C., a student of mine, once remarked that he knew he faced a choice between making music for money or making music that he loved. (He was one of the most talented students I had) caleb: lightbulb.

roommate for many years: I picked up his habit of screaming when I composed--it felt good, but it was a bad thing to lose that inhibition. Plus, he had a sort of Wagnerian "do what it takes" attitude: Find a patron.

My mother also has that weird thing of sort of adopting the mannerisms of whoever she's around...

I know my clangy style makes arm-chair shrinks think I'm schizoid, but I can relate it directly to musical training--you experience things as sounds, and as sub-vocal talking--plus you listen to a lot of songs--some good. Some speak to your condition.

The weird thing for me: my hypomanic style came after, not before the various disasters in my life.

Ordinarily--you say--the hypomanic overdraws his bank account, has affairs, gets in fights in bars. Me, none of those things.

Now I enjoy the hypomania when it comes. It will go away soon enough by itself, barring some further 8 happening. I'm like a granite bell--when struck, I reverberate for a while, then settle into stasis.

I know it's off topic, but I benefit from using my own life as an example. Maybe some other people will, too.

 

[calebprime]

one other thing: I like this site, for several reasons.

The ironic one is that there are no insulting caricatures of the shrinks, only of the patients. that to me speaks volumes.

www.gatewaypsychiatric.com/ SFGH%20BEEC%20Course%20Material/key_dsmiv_mental_status_exam_ph.htm - 68k -

grr...can't seem to get link to work...

 

[SirPhilip]

Assumptions again? As I have stated there are some really strong rationales and some evidence behind my thinking. And not all people like the behavioral POV.

By behavioral, I assume you mean linking common behaviors somehow as causes, or identifying a simple set of behavioral traits that causes the roller coaster effect with a mood altering behavior, often with a disregard for the consequences. Addiction is generally just a relationship between behavior or pharmacological effect, someone's innate character (which often is lent ambiguous psychological or metaphysical interpretations), and their life circumstances.

See that is where I disagree, predisposition can mean so many things..

I think we could both agree "predisposition" is directly related to how stress is interpreted, which is why beta endorphin levels were of interest in alcoholism. I think a single mechanism for predisposition is pretty clear, in that sense.

Why do almost all addicts have a large component called "addicted thinking"?

By addicted thinking, I assume you mean the priority of the behavior or effect over meaningful, life-affirming activities.

Sure but there are plenty of reason people become exercise addicts and again not all people who exercise for the burn become addicts.

Correct, which is why Occam's Razor applies with behavior. It's futile to make an endless regression of valid, but useless associations, when the bottom line is simple causes and solutions.

There is the behavioral component (psychological component), in women it is often anorexia, and I am sure that is true in men as well.

Anorexia and bulimia are due to the fact women are naturally predisposed to link their fitness as sex objects with human worth. Obese women are considered profoundly repulsive and worthless for this reason, to the point a psychosis develops with distancing themselves as far as humanly possible to them. It almost always is the result of a female being exclusively appreciated for these reasons.

If the person has the ability to make alternate choices, such as I will change the channel or use my Tivo to avoid beer commercials, then there is not a constraint. The behaviors become predictable through reinforcement, there are alternate behaviors.

The actual cause however, and the only one worth noting, is the person simply identifies the addiction (unless it is entirely a genetic predisposition, which is another subject) as a more worthy dynamism that he or she has normally.

Remember the statement "There are many paths to addiction"?

Yes, but you'll drive yourself mad making and endless regress of relevant, but pointless associations leading up the behavior itself. An addict sees no reason to stop unless meaningful situations compensate for it. The addiction is always indeed, to compensate for that deficit of meaning or order in their lives.

I believe in gun registration to prevent the illegal sale of arms.

Although it's perfectly reasonable to prevent that, Claus just couldn't handle them, period.

I understand many people do not understand what sexual addiction looks like and how the addicts feel , they are about as happy as the meth heads.

Oh. If glam rock is played sufficiently loud during the ordeal, I'd doubt that.

If you went through a similar phase, did you stop? Did you have great difficulty when you tried to stop? Did you continue the pattern of behaviors even though you really wanted to stop?

Ejaculating into chalices, demanding shocked self-rightious, often married wives of pastors to whip you, and performing lewd acts with liturgical and ritual affects, has little to do with sex, which is difficult as sharp, attractive people only really do, but charity and principles! (..and the thrill of setting fireworks off)

 

[Dancing David]

Morphine certainly isn't, but the same mechanisms it acts on are critical in global mood function. Unlike serotonin, which is roughly associated with 'happiness', the opioid receptor sites are synonymous with the interpretation of stress (physical and emotional pain) and well being, although it certainly does not affect memorex, a key cause of depression if caused by a situation.

I think the interactions of serotonin may not have quite as many 'global' acts as the opiod but it is a crucial system to emotional regulation, not just 'happiness'.

I will have to look it up, it is not as involved in the flight/fight response as the dopaminergic pathways. Interpretation of stress, pain and well being are fairly evenly distributed amongst the brain systems, and the endorphins do regulate the transmission of certain signals in the peripheral nervous system, which may be what you are reffering too?

And again with the situation, a person with 'biological' depression has the same sort of depression as someone who has 'situational' depression.

BTW have you found anything that says situational depression does not respond to anti-depressants?

 

[Dancing David]

Well Sir Philip:

There are a number of huge things that just stand out here in the post.

-psychodynamic thinking, where vauge notions that may seem to have meaning are ascribed and attributed to human behavior. But while they seem to be meaningful they can not actualy be tested, ascertained or verified. The classic examples is the whole Fruedian id, ego, superego complex and other silly stuff like that. Although I personaly find great meaning in both Jung and Freud, it often is not science at all.

-overgeneralization and simplification of a very complex and intricate mechanism (the brain) to simple root cause and explanations. the human brain is composed of a huge number of neurons and supporting characters, it also interacts with the peripheral nervous system and through the glial cells (the blood brain barrier) the circulatory system. It is often almost impossible to reduce anything involving the body to a single root cause, much less the most complex system in the body.

By behavioral, I assume you mean linking common behaviors somehow as causes,

Close but not quite. There are no single answers in the human condition, given the interdependant nature of being, we are involved in complex social, cultural, economic and situational systems and interacts with them. As critters we are comprised of a huge number of organs, systems and moods of communication between the systems and within the systems.

Behaviors and the role of reinofrcement are tremendously powerful in shaping human behaviors. As human we have no instinct that can be determined after about the age of two months old. Almost all behaviors appears to be learned and highly influenced by the learned set of response to stimuli.

Wether behaviors is causitive or not is a great subject for a whole series of thread. Especialy since so many people are opposed very strongly to the ideas of behaviorism. I would say they have a high causal component in human behavior.

or identifying a simple set of behavioral traits that causes the roller coaster effect with a mood altering behavior,

That is very close as well, there are always the interactions of the physiological mechanisms of biology underlying all human existance and behavior. The actual behaviors and the consequences of the behaviors shape and mold the physiological responses of the mechanism s in the brain, it would appear. They are not directly deterministic but certainly part of the causal and probabilistic nature of human behavior. Aside from the huge question of free will.

often with a disregard for the consequences.

Probably the single largest hallmark of addiction.

Addiction is generally just a relationship between behavior or pharmacological effect, someone's innate character (which often is lent ambiguous psychological or metaphysical interpretations)

Yeah, that kind of language is a plauge I think, there are physiological set points and homeostatic systems involved as well as the whole model of learned behaviors. Character is a single word that covers one of those complex set of interactions. it is about as meaninful as 'consciousness' and 'self', it is better to actual think about the actual set of behaviors in the specific circumstances.

, and their life circumstances.

I think we could both agree "predisposition" is directly related to how stress is interpreted, which is why beta endorphin levels were of interest in alcoholism. I think a single mechanism for predisposition is pretty clear, in that sense.

I know you do, but there are literaly hundreds and thousand of ways a possible predispostion could work out in being a driving factors of addiction.

-low levels of endorphin
-circadial cycles
-low or high hormone levels
-high of low response levels in all sorts of regulatoty mechanisms

each one of those could have multiple causal factors and hundreds if not thousands of implicated interactions


Your statement is similar to saying:

I think a single mechanism for cancer is pretty clear, in that sense.

By addicted thinking, I assume you mean the priority of the behavior or effect over meaningful, life-affirming activities.

OOOK?

You are using some sort of moral/chacter language there.

By addicted thinking I mean the system of rationales to deny, explain and justify the system of addicted behaviors. If you have met addicts it is usualy very blatant, 'the officer was just out to get me', 'I wasn't drunk they lied', 'sure I get drunk and pass out everybody does in college'.... etc... 'I just use when I feel happy', it's my wifes fault, if she didn't nag I wouldn't drink"... there are usualy quite a few of them.

Correct, which is why Occam's Razor applies with behavior. It's futile to make an endless regression of valid, but useless associations, when the bottom line is simple causes and solutions.

Oh yes Occams razor does apply , after you stop oversimplifing things to the point of overgeneralization. A system that involves the brain can be reduced to a single cause, a system that involves the body can be reduced to a single cause.

I don't think so.

What evidence do you have for what you claim.

Can cancer be reduced to a single cause? What system as complex as the human brain, nerves and body be reduced to a single cause.

The human body is associated with itself and all it's parts, you could reduce it to a single simple overgenralized statement but this where the rubber hits the road. Prove that there isa single causitive factor? Choose a human system and lets see it, okay?

Anorexia and bulimia are due to the fact women are naturally predisposed to link their fitness as sex objects with human worth.

Naturaly, what?

What a quaint and old fashioned notion. Are you like a hundred and twenty years old? Is your brother Prince Albert, what?

Obese women are considered profoundly repulsive and worthless for this reason,

Gee that is another antique, how refreshing to encounter such, um, unscientific and unrestrained cultural and social bias in thinking.

to the point a psychosis

Misuse of terminology?

develops with distancing themselves as far as humanly possible to them. It almost always is the result of a female being exclusively appreciated for these reasons.

First part is psychodynamic woo-woo, the second is closer to the mark.

The actual cause however, and the only one worth noting, is the person simply identifies the addiction (unless it is entirely a genetic predisposition, which is another subject) as a more worthy dynamism that he or she has normally.

More over simplification shall we. And how would you translate that into something you could examine and test?

To just sweep it under 'dynamism' is like using the word 'mind' or 'consciousness', a rubric to not look at the actual complexity of the situation.

Yes, but you'll drive yourself mad making and endless regress of relevant, but pointless associations leading up the behavior itself.

You certainly won't get anywhere ignoring the complex and associative nature of the human nervous system? You are doing the equivalent of saying "There is one lementary particle in physics".

Sorry, science follows nature.

An addict sees no reason to stop unless meaningful situations compensate for it.

Getting closer, changing behavior, eh what?

The addiction is always indeed, to compensate for that deficit of meaning or order in their lives.

Nice but how would you test for it? Much less define it, sounds like Mighty Sky Pixie Moralism to me. That is most not likely what you intend.

There is a whole lot of order and structure to an addict's life.

Although it's perfectly reasonable to prevent that, Claus just couldn't handle them, period.

I wouldn't know. I grew up with guns.

Oh. If glam rock is played sufficiently loud during the ordeal, I'd doubt that.

Uh huh, more sophmoric humor, nope you haven't met a sexual addict.

Ejaculating into chalices, demanding shocked self-rightious, often married wives of pastors to whip you, and performing lewd acts with liturgical and ritual affects, has little to do with sex, which is difficult as sharp, attractive people only really do, but charity and principles! (..and the thrill of setting fireworks off)

Well as intersting as you may find the Marquis, I don't know if he was a sexual addict or not.

 

[calebprime]

there should be an award at the JREF Forum for content, instead of language.

DD might win it with this post. still needs an editor, though.

 

[Dancing David]

there should be an award at the JREF Forum for content, instead of language.

DD might win it with this post. still needs an editor, though.

I am just a tiny little star in the sky of the JREF, thanks however. I will have to start cutting and spell checking. Yesterday was my break from rewiring my new house.

 

[SirPhilip]

there should be an award at the JREF Forum for content, instead of language.

That would be depressing, if true.

DD might win it with this post. still needs an editor, though.

Since this is largely a dispute between approaches; which in my case is fundamental thinking, like equations which describe a lot and valid assumptions, or David's who thinks it is best explained and treated by behavior, I fail to see how a 'winner' is possible. Ultimately you have with serious addicts, a relationship between what Freud termed the "Id", events in their personal environment over time, the pharmacological appeal ('intrinsic addictiveness') of that substance itself, the personal appeal, and the last, sociobiology, which causes the body to want or respond to it in a manner which reinforces it's use. Of course, you could, in exhaustive detail, composite behaviors over time, and dozens of factors, that drive one behavior: a serious addiction, validly deduce the cause of it that way, but it's academic.

 

[Dancing David]

Since this is largely a dispute between approaches; which in my case is fundamental thinking, like equations which describe a lot and valid assumptions,

I debate on the validity of the assumtions, you haven't demonstrated the validity of them and make many overgenrealizations. They appear to be valid assumptions, that does not make them so.

or David's who thinks it is best explained and treated by behavior, I fail to see how a 'winner' is possible.

There are no winners in science. Only approximations of the reality.

Ultimately you have with serious addicts, a relationship between what Freud termed the "Id",

Ah the pinacle of stupid psychodynamic jargon

events in their personal environment over time, the pharmacological appeal ('intrinsic addictiveness') of that substance itself, the personal appeal,

Vauge what?

and the last, sociobiology, which causes the body to want or respond to it in a manner which reinforces it's use.

There are addictions that do not have a basis in a SoA although they are dependant upon the total physiological nature of humans.

Of course, you could, in exhaustive detail, composite behaviors over time, and dozens of factors, that drive one behavior: a serious addiction, validly deduce the cause of it that way, but it's academic.

No that is science, rather than just saying things like "It must be true because I think it is true".

And again it is causes, not cause. It appears to be a remnant of montheism in our culture that everybody wants a single cause.

So no response to my queries in the prior post?

Especialy the stuff about anorexia nervosa? I feel I should give you a chance to answer those questions.

 

[SirPhilip]

Although I personaly find great meaning in both Jung and Freud, it often is not science at all.

No disagreement.

Wether behaviors is causitive or not is a great subject for a whole series of thread. Especialy since so many people are opposed very strongly to the ideas of behaviorism. I would say they have a high causal component in human behavior.

Obviously, I don't disagree - it's why I think that telling alcoholics that they have a disease is very bad, because it reinforces that behavior.

That is very close as well, there are always the interactions of the physiological mechanisms of biology underlying all human existance and behavior. The actual behaviors and the consequences of the behaviors shape and mold the physiological responses of the mechanism s in the brain, it would appear. They are not directly deterministic but certainly part of the causal and probabilistic nature of human behavior. Aside from the huge question of free will.

Which 'exists' and you don't factor in. So how would you describe this, differently than I have in a useful context to someone suffering from an addiction?

..well?

Yeah, that kind of language is a plauge I think, there are physiological set points and homeostatic systems involved as well as the whole model of learned behaviors. Character is a single word that covers one of those complex set of interactions. it is about as meaninful as 'consciousness' and 'self', it is better to actual think about the actual set of behaviors in the specific circumstances.

This is simply reductionism though; like telling a smoker how in physiological terms they became that way. It's purely academic. Addiction fundamentally operates on simple dynamics, that ultimately, you are forced to address in treatment. How seeing it as a jigsaw puzzle - which anything can be, is useful in this context is something only you know. Look, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't get the point. It's like someone giving me a 1000 page scholarly analysis on George W Bush, I don't need one because his surface behavior and summarized biography tells me enough useful information about why he behaves that way.

I know you do, but there are literaly hundreds and thousand of ways a possible predispostion could work out in being a driving factors of addiction.

Right, which is why the cause is simply important, not the effect (the details). Had I fell for example into alcoholism this approach would be useless. I would have to resolve two things: the appeal of the substance, and the cause of it, which was due to an event. This is how it generally always happens. A therapist is then tasked to clear a path for someone who can't manage to do it themselves.

Oh yes Occams razor does apply , after you stop oversimplifing things to the point of overgeneralization. A system that involves the brain can be reduced to a single cause, a system that involves the body can be reduced to a single cause.

This statement is humorously oxymoronic. Does this mean you are going to finally link common sense causes to predictable behaviors, like addiction, then? The "Human behavior is super complex and I know all the important angles which you only scratch the surface of.." crap is getting boring, but then clarity isn't your strength. Or perhaps it is, but you have a bad habit with transparent debate tactics.

The human body is associated with itself and all it's parts, you could reduce it to a single simple overgenralized statement but this where the rubber hits the road. Prove that there isa single causitive factor? Choose a human system and lets see it, okay?

Some behaviors are more predictable than others. The more predictable, the easier the cause is to determine. Addiction is a very predictable behavior and has common causes, and common solutions. If you want to approach it like particle physics be my guest, it'll be a good read - just don't think it will have any practical use.

Naturaly, what? What a quaint and old fashioned notion. Are you like a hundred and twenty years old? Is your brother Prince Albert, what?

(At this point, I'm almost inclined to stop making sense so he will take it up as a position..)

Gee that is another antique, how refreshing to encounter such, um, unscientific and unrestrained cultural and social bias in thinking.

Antique? It's the longest running craze in Hollywood!

To just sweep it under 'dynamism' is like using the word 'mind' or 'consciousness', a rubric to not look at the actual complexity of the situation.

Think for a moment, if you are capable of it, exactly why I am not doing that in the first place, David. Human behavior isn't a string of artificial intelligence calls written in genetic code, waiting for someone smart enough to map out. As you correctly pointed out earlier, it is largely the result of learning. When someone becomes habituated to a behavior, however, it becomes deterministic to varying degrees. This is constantly exploited by marketing corporations all the time, especially those targeting youth. NPD's and ASP's are also observed to have very predictable, deterministic behaviors (they are easily diagnosed by a set criteria).

You certainly won't get anywhere ignoring the complex and associative nature of the human nervous system? You are doing the equivalent of saying "There is one lementary particle in physics".

You again make no real sense.

Sorry, science follows nature.

Human behavior isn't newtonian physics however, you dolt. (That is, unless you have NPD or ASP)

Nice but how would you test for it? Much less define it, sounds like Mighty Sky Pixie Moralism to me. That is most not likely what you intend.

You utterly fail to make any sense.

There is a whole lot of order and structure to an addict's life.

Yes (!), and in fact it has a shape, a bell curve.

Well as intersting as you may find the Marquis, I don't know if he was a sexual addict or not.

Gosh, I wonder...

 

[SirPhilip]

No that is science, rather than just saying things like "It must be true because I think it is true".

Your rebuttals are flailing rhetoric masquerading as empiricism. Some of it is empiricism, which is irrelevant. But then, the alternative is acknowledging I'm right which you lack the maturity to do. There was never a debate in the first place as I asserted the obvious, and you jumped in, hoping to contest it with scientific sounding rhetoric. It's a 'debate' tactic you use to diffuse common sense, and you do it constantly. I know when I'm right and when I'm perhaps wrong. Why do you bother? Then again, why am I bothering. I look like an unmitigated idiot repeatedly clarifying to whom no matter what sense I attempt to make, disagrees and obfuscates. This is an unrequited, undeserved compliment on my part. Now, for the 20'th time answer this, and don't say "behavior":

1. If substance addiction isn't universally caused by issues the addict uses the substance to allay, then what is the cause.
2. What purpose would going into exhaustive detail about someone's behavior over their lifetime serve, when the reason for the addiction existing is not difficult to understand, and that is not required, further at all, to treat it.

These two points I originally made have not been refuted. No alternative explanations have been offered. That is how addiction actually occurs. The self-defeating habit is a coping mechanism, it counterbalances the negative psychological impact of an event or personal issue, which is retained into memory and causes fluctuations in mood and outlook. How do you contest this? I'll compliment you one last time, and just factor this as writing clarity. But it's the last time. Now what the heck is your point.

 

[Dancing David]

Your rebuttals are flailing rhetoric masquerading as empiricism. Some of it is empiricism, which is irrelevant.

Now that is interesting, what is there besides empricism? Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

But then, the alternative is acknowledging I'm right which you lack the maturity to do.

Now that is funny, just state you are right, especialy when you overgeneralize and can't find data or research to back you up.

There was never a debate in the first place as I asserted the obvious, and you jumped in, hoping to contest it with scientific sounding rhetoric.

The obvious is not by any means going to be science.

It's a 'debate' tactic you use to diffuse common sense, and you do it constantly.

Then use data to refute the statements and arguments. That is easy. Common sense is not science.

I know when I'm right, when I'm wrong, and when I'm possibly wrong. Why do you bother?

And how do you know you are right, is there data, is there research or just the obvious fact that the world is flat and god exists?

Then again, why am I bothering. I look like an unmitigated idiot repeatedly clarifying to whom no matter what sense I attempt to make, disagrees and obfuscates.

I see, you are so clear and it is so obvious that you can't find data or research to support your common sense argument.

Sorry.

This is an unrequited, undeserved compliment on my part. Now, for the 20'th time answer this, and don't say "behavior":

1. 
   Oh poor human, can't find science with both hands and a flashlight. Try the sources mentioned before. The NIAAA and NIMH and PubMed are a great place to start.
   
   
   

   [*]If substance addiction isn't universally caused by issues the addict uses the substance to allay, then what is the cause.

   It seems you don't like the pluralistic nature or reality, that must be very frustrating for you.
   
   there are multiple factors and causal relationships.
   
   -the biological physiology of
   
   -predisposition to addiction to a SoA
   -the physiological set points which can causaly have an effect, low set mood, high set anxiety, etc. Also a predispostion to addiction
   -stress levels leading to unhealthy coping skills
   -trauma and situational stress leading to unhealthy coping skills
   -family and peer supports to addicted behaviors
   -the physiological response to stimuli and conditioning
   - the 'psychological' factors of 'addicted behaviors' and 'addicted thinking'.
   
   There you go Sir Philip there are only two potential causes that are strictly behavioral, and unfortunately each category contains subcategories. I know you like monocognition as a solution, so I am sure it makes you unhappy.
   

   [*]If addiction isn't caused commonly by a simple series of events, then what is the alternative explanation.

   The alternative is that life ain't so simple, but often the changes that need to be made are. I am sorry that you want to say that there is a single simple common sense reason for a complex human situation.
   Addiction is caused by a simple series of events, howver there is more than one chain in the series. So while it would be nice to say, "This is the simple and obvious cause of addicted behavior", reality is what it is, complex , interdependant and containing a lot of parts.
   
   Fortunately, the modifications to behavior are rather simple and easy to understand.
   

   [*]What purpose would going into exhaustive detail about someone's behavior over their lifetime serve, when the reason for the addiction existing is not difficult to understand, and that is not required to treat it.

Did I say an exhaustive history of behavior, it is much simpler than that.

Now that is funny, when you find any data or research that supports your claim than you can say that "when the reason for addiction existing is easy to understand".
I sense a Nobel Prize in your future, go out and earn it. Prove that you are right.
Yes the treatment of addiction is easy and can be very simple. About four simple rules will do.

These three points I originally made have not been refuted, no alternative explanations have been offered. That is how it happens. I'll compliment you one last time, and just factor this as writing clarity. But it's the last time. Now what the heck is your point.

I am sorry you don't like the nature of reality, you haven't demonstrated or found any evidence for your single cause of addiction.

Find the data and research, buck up lad, the NIAAA and PubMed are a great place to start.

If you wish i can post the multiple refutations of your simple ideas.

Take the idea:

"Addiction is caused by issues like sad mood or frustration".(My paraphrase, not your statement.)

Well then why is there a segment of the population that has a good life and very few issues but they still become addicted?

(Maybe because there are many paths to addiction?)

 

[Dancing David]

No disagreement.

Obviously, I don't disagree - it's why I think that telling alcoholics that they have a disease is very bad, because it reinforces that behavior.

You obviously didn't read the third post in the thread.

Which 'exists' and you don't factor in. So how would you describe this, differently than I have in a useful context to someone suffering from an addiction?

..well?

I believe in free will, but can't prove that there is free will.

The simple explanation to someone with an addiction.

"Forget all the moral crap about life priorities, you need to change your choices. Starting healthy habits is good but you need to identify when you want to use and what choices you have." Is that simple enough?

This is simply reductionism though; like telling a smoker how in physiological terms they became that way. It's purely academic. Addiction fundamentally operates on simple dynamics, that ultimately, you are forced to address in treatment. How seeing it as a jigsaw puzzle - which anything can be, is useful in this context is something only you know. Look, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't get the point. It's like someone giving me a 1000 page scholarly analysis on George W Bush, I don't need one because his surface behavior and summarized biography tells me enough useful information about why he behaves that way.

Discussing things on a bulletin board is academic, especially when someone says "I have the magic bean that answers all questions".

Sorry but telling someone "You need to get your life priorities straight" is very vague advise.

What the causes of addiction are is academic, and is not something you usually discuss in treatment. (Except in a substantiative, clear and direct part of 'psycho education'.)

But when someone claims to have obvious magic answers to complex reality, well that is academic.

Right, which is why the cause is simply important, not the effect (the details).

You haven't demonstrated that there is a single cause yet. You have asserted it, but not shown that there is evidence of its validity. Yes there are simple causative factors, but they are multiple.

Had I fell for example into alcoholism this approach would be useless. I would have to resolve two things: the appeal of the substance, and the cause of it, which was due to an event. This is how it generally always happens. A therapist is then tasked to clear a path for someone who can't manage to do it themselves.

Causality and approaches to treatment are related but not the same. It is not helpful to discuss the causal factors. So yes if you put straw in my mouth that makes sense.

But then it is also not helpful to say "I have the One Ring to Rule Them All."

This statement is humorously oxymoronic. Does this mean you are going to finally link common sense causes to predictable behaviors, like addiction, then? The "Human behavior is super complex and I know all the important angles which you only scratch the surface of.." crap is getting boring, but then clarity isn't your strength. Or perhaps it is, but you have a bad habit with transparent debate tactics.

Common sense again?

How long have you been on this board and you still talk of common sense?

I sense a thread with your name in the title soon, not in this sleepy little tide pool, but in the deep water.

Some behaviors are more predictable than others. The more predictable, the easier the cause is to determine. Addiction is a very predictable behavior and has common causes, and common solutions. If you want to approach it like particle physics be my guest, it'll be a good read - just don't think it will have any practical use.

Again causality is more complex than the changes in behavior, I am not the one saying "Here is the single universal cause of addiction". That is a subject of debate, and a separate issue than "What Can An Addict DO?"

(At this point, I'm almost inclined to stop making sense so he will take it up as a position..)

You made the dumb statement about anorexia nervosa that will be the first thread with your name in the title, you had a chance to explain yourself in this quiet little tide pool, how will you fare in the deep water?

Antique? It's the longest running craze in Hollywood!

yeeees?

Think for a moment, if you are capable of it, exactly why I am not doing that in the first place, David. Human behavior isn't a string of artificial intelligence calls written in genetic code, waiting for someone smart enough to map out.

I don't believe that is what I said either.

As you correctly pointed out earlier, it is largely the result of learning.

Duh, what do you think behaviorism is, look before you leap much?

When someone becomes habituated to a behavior, however, it becomes deterministic to varying degrees.

More duh?

This is constantly exploited by marketing corporations all the time, especially those targeting youth. NPD's and ASP's are also observed to have very predictable, deterministic behaviors (they are easily diagnosed by a set criteria).
What are NPD's and ASPs, I am not in knowledge there.(Narcissistic Personality Disorder?)

You again make no real sense.

Human behavior isn't newtonian physics however, you dolt. (That is, unless you have NPD or ASP)

Hmm, are you saying that physiology is based in something other than physics, are you a dualist?

You utterly fail to make any sense.

You are the one saying "there is a universal and single cause of addiction". Not me. "There is one single and universal elementary particle?"

Yes (!), and in fact it has a shape, a bell curve.

Source, citation, I made a different point, that there is order and predictability to an addicts choices.

"to compensate for that deficit of meaning or order in their lives" was your statement about why an addict uses, I just pointed out that the addiction provides that order and meaning in their life. But again the treatment is much easier than any vague statement like "You need better priorities and some order and meaning in your life" and similar moralistic and useless crap.

Gosh, I wonder...

Wonder away, show your evidence?

 

[SirPhilip]

Now that is interesting, what is there besides empricism? Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

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.

Now that is funny, just state you are right, especialy when you overgeneralize and can't find data or research to back you up.

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.

The obvious is not by any means going to be science.

The obvious is human nature isn't robotic but bizarrely you fail to comprehend this.

Then use data to refute the statements and arguments. That is easy. Common sense is not science.

Science is the mysticism of common sense, and math it's symbology.

And how do you know you are right, is there data, is there research or just the obvious fact that the world is flat and god exists?

Desperation. Well, you really don't bow to anyone...

I see, you are so clear and it is so obvious that you can't find data or research to support your common sense argument.

I am not disputing the obvious.

Oh poor human, can't find science with both hands and a flashlight. Try the sources mentioned before. The NIAAA and NIMH and PubMed are a great place to start.

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.

..there are multiple factors and causal relationships.

Thank you..

There you go Sir Philip there are only two potential causes that are strictly behavioral, and unfortunately each category contains subcategories. I know you like monocognition as a solution, so I am sure it makes you unhappy.

Of course it contains subcategories, but that is irrelevant, isn't it. That isn't going to tell me anything useful.

The alternative is that life ain't so simple, but often the changes that need to be made are. I am sorry that you want to say that there is a single simple common sense reason for a complex human situation.

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.

Addiction is caused by a simple series of events, howver there is more than one chain in the series. So while it would be nice to say, "This is the simple and obvious cause of addicted behavior", reality is what it is, complex , interdependant and containing a lot of parts.

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.

Now that is funny, when you find any data or research that supports your claim than you can say that "when the reason for addiction existing is easy to understand". I sense a Nobel Prize in your future, go out and earn it. Prove that you are right. Yes the treatment of addiction is easy and can be very simple. About four simple rules will do.

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.

I am sorry you don't like the nature of reality, you haven't demonstrated or found any evidence for your single cause of addiction. Find the data and research, buck up lad, the NIAAA and PubMed are a great place to start.

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? No, they know why they are that way. They just don't want to stop. It's essentially, an existential and philosophical choice they make.

If you wish i can post the multiple refutations of your simple ideas.
Take the idea:
"Addiction is caused by issues like sad mood or frustration".(My paraphrase, not your statement.)

You think?

Well then why is there a segment of the population that has a good life and very few issues but they still become addicted?

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.

(Maybe because there are many paths to addiction?)

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?