Search Ideas

Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.

Yes. I've moved a copy to #733, feel free to delete.

Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.

Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.

Over time, the substances or activities change your brain chemistry, and you become desensitized to their effects. You then need more to produce the same effect.

There could be a small grain of truth in this explanation when translated into epistemologically proper terms and divorced from hardware specifics.

Usually, when something is fun, that means you engage with it and learn from it. As the fun wanes, you learn less and naturally direct your attention elsewhere. Think of a video game you’ve gotten really good at: first it’s fun, then it gets boring. Boredom means the game doesn’t solve your problems anymore, it doesn’t fit into your problem situation anymore. So you play another game or do something else entirely.

But with addiction, this feedback mechanism seems to work differently: instead of getting bored and looking for stimulation elsewhere, the addict looks for more stimulation from the same activity.

Did you mean to criticize #733 instead?

There is also a definition by Gabor Mate that is similar to this. I will add a link when I find it.

Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.

Hmm could you give examples of such addictions between implicit and explicit short-term preferences?

If we view addiction as entrenchment of ideas (in the broad sense), why can't you have conflict between implicit and explicit preferences, which are both short-term preferences? Something in your body is addicted to a substance, but you could simultaneously, consciously, not want to take the substance because you don't like how it feels.

If we view addiction as entrenchment of ideas (in the broad sense), why can't you have conflict between implicit and explicit preferences, which are both short-term preferences? Something in your body is addicted to a substance, but you could simultaneously, consciously, not want to take the substance because you don't like how it feels.

Always, because of the underlying uncertainty about the future. Please criticise!

Interesting. Do you think the conflict is always between short vs long-term preferences, or could there be addictive conflicts between two short-term preferences or even two long-term preferences?

Elaboration:

The conflict in addiction is between short-term and long-term solutions.

The preference for short-term in addiction is caused by uncertainty/an inability to make predictions based on explanations.

This uncertainty can be real (e.g. increased heroin addiction during the Vietnam War) or learned from insecurity during one's early years.

I am a life-long nail-biter. I am thinking a habit like nail-biting can be thought of as an addiction in this way.

I have a preference for letting my nails grow normally, and a preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible (which I often enact by biting my nails automatically/uncritically/mindlessly).

I have an … inexplicit/unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …

This preference is neither inexplicit nor unconscious, at least at this point. You have made it explicit, and you are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)

…this part seems entrenched…

Well, both preferences are entrenched as a result of the conflict between them being entrenched.

We could just as well say that the other preference, the one for letting your nails grow normally, is entrenched.

I’m sensing a bias in favor of explicit preferences and against (what you think are) inexplicit/unconscious preferences.

If you carried a nail clipper or nail file with you at all times, would you use them instead of your teeth?

I have an … unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …

This preference is not unconscious. You are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)

I am a life-long nail-biter. I am thinking a habit like nail-biting can be thought of as an addiction in this way.

I have an explicit preference for letting my nails grow normally, and an inexplicit/unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible (this part seems entrenched).

My Conjecture

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.

If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.

Solutions for the conflict may need to be found creatively, case by case. It depends on the nature of the particular entrenchment and the preferences involved. A more overarching answer for how to cure addiction might involve Randian ideas around introspection and getting one’s reason and emotions in the proper order.

There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in The Biology of Desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind."

There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in Biology of desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind.

What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?

Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.

The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they feel conflicted about? In school.¹

What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?

Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.

The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?¹ In school.²