Search Ideas

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

Entrenchment

Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.

When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.

The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.

Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):

Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.

And:

[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]

And:

There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]

And:

[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.

And:

[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].

And:

A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.

Entrenchment

Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.

When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.

The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.

The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.

Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):

Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.

And:

[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]

And:

There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]

And:

[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.

And:

[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].

And:

A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.

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

¹ I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke and doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know part of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.
² This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of the major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.

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?*

* I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke and doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know part of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.

If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping or continuing.

If he knows he doesn’t want to do it, that sounds like he doesn’t feel conflicted about wanting to do it. Being conflicted is simultaneously wanting it and not wanting it.

(Amaro Koberle)

If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping or continuing.

(Amaro Koberle)

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?

Working on it. My preliminary answer is that it’s case by case. It depends on the nature of the particular entrenchment and the preferences involved. A more overarching answer might involve Randian ideas around introspection and getting one’s reason and emotions in the proper order.

I’ll leave this marked as a criticism until I flesh these thoughts out more.

This doesn’t explain how to solve the entrenchment, ie cure the addiction.

Entrenchment

Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.

When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.

The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.

The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.

Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):

Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.

And:

[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]

And:

There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]

And:

[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.

And:

[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].

And:

A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.