It's not the morphine, it's the size of the cage: Rat Park experiment upturns conventional wisdom about addiction
http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morp...-addiction
'And so rats that are born into extreme conditions in small cages are clearly more likely to self-medicate.'
Environment can play a big role in addiction.
To think it took science this long to understand something so fundamental as "If an individual feel trapped it will do whatever it takes to feel free" is daunting. Setting/environment will always play a large part in how we deal with consumption of virtually anything.
Science are, in quite some areas, very far away in regards of 'wisdom'. Researching common wisdom is also a rather ardous task for science in general with the outlook it has today...
(12-04-2013, 04:30 AM)ChickenInSpace Wrote: [ -> ]To think it took science this long to understand something so fundamental as "If an individual feel trapped it will do whatever it takes to feel free" is daunting. Setting/environment will always play a large part in how we deal with consumption of virtually anything.
Science are, in quite some areas, very far away in regards of 'wisdom'. Researching common wisdom is also a rather ardous task for science in general with the outlook it has today...
Actually, the significance of environmental factors in behavior has been understood for some time now. The significance of this particular research is that it has now illustrated the limitations of the theory that negates environment as a significant factor in understanding drug use (but here it's only rat behavior).
Can you see the social justice aspect of deducing behavior to merely physiological factors like addiction? If our social policies subscribe to drug use as merely being physiological addiction, it would limit our ability to take into consideration the role of poverty,thus we may not see policies that target poverty in treatment. Empirical evidence (which is the basic requirement for giving rationale to how we treat problems) is necessary, even if it seems intuitive or common sense. We have one theory that takes a very narrow perspective, but now that we have data on an alternative theory, so we can broaden our scope of treatment.
I would suggest to people who are critical of empirical evidence/research to also find the strength in this type of activity. That would create more balance than being just dismissive of the scientific process. The point of scientific process is to set a standard in how we understand a phenomenon or to demonstrate the validity and utility of theories on human behavior. Without this minimal standard we would not have a coherent way of understanding things. You will have people attributing psychological phenomenon as something purely physiological bc to them environmental factors are not significant at all. And maybe some would attribute drug use behavior as being a psychic attack or whatnot.
Most people who are severely depressed have a low sex drive because of their depression, so I doubt the two can be strongly connected.
Setting strict standards/policy also may produce the deleterious effect of ostracising the 'off-kilter' individual who may actually be existing in equilibrium at a stable state which is far other-than said norm. This scenario often does result in outcasting and generalized discriminatory jurying.
Although I am a fan of 'controlled' experimentation, the results in our science seem to favour (be flavoured by) the biases of the researcher and his/her intended path of findings.
Which may also ring 'true' regarding the seeker of experience within drug-induced states.
You are what you seek..
safa, your statement could also be read truly in the reverse, mayhaps I think.
What are these biases people keep talking about apart from the materialist reductionist issue?
I wouldn't say that I really have depression, although I have Weltschmerz. A german term saying that there is a depression that arises when we compare the world as it is to an ideal world in our mind. I heard it on the Big Bang Theory.
But because of this my sex drive isn't what I'd like it to be. My orgasms aren't that great. I like to live in a fantasy world, where the characters of my dreams are real. It makes 3D life bearable.
(02-10-2014, 02:31 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]What are these biases people keep talking about apart from the materialist reductionist issue?
clinging to theoretical ideologies, creating experiments to prove them.
I can use the confederation philosophy to frame spiritual understanding and I can use psychological theory to frame human behaviors and inner workings. We all base our understanding thru theories/philosophies. We can ascertain the limits of theories and use multiple theories to cover a wide range of explanations. We can use discernment via understanding limitation of theories. The scientific process accounts for these limitations and researchers are transparent about what frame they use and why their findings may not be applicable to everyone. More medical/physical complex only type theories I see big limitations bc it's so narrowly focused on the body... too bad they don't know about this 'mind/body/spirit complex' thing.
The irony is that often instead, it is the non-disciplined, non-scientist who is the one not aware of their bias and unfounded assumptions. From such an utterly ignorant, bed-wetting, armchair position they interpret experience as they will, with lazy dissatisfaction and blame, reinforcing unfounded prejudicial notions.
(02-10-2014, 10:07 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]The irony is that often instead, it is the non-disciplined, non-scientist who is the one not aware of their bias and unfounded assumptions. From such an utterly ignorant, bed-wetting, armchair position they interpret experience as they will, with lazy dissatisfaction and blame, reinforcing unfounded prejudicial notions.
You are correct that in many cases the non-scientist is unaware of their own bias. However, the relationship between the scientist and non-scientist is often more complex - "trust" of the scientist by the non-scientist is a large factor. Consider how a scientist and non-scientist relate: Often, a scientist makes a discovery or breakthrough that has the potential to change the non-scientist's life. Many examples, microwave ovens, artificial sweeteners, vaccines, hell even you could say air conditioning. Whenever something new is introduced into the non-scientist's life from a scientist's work or discovery, the first question often is: Is it safe?
In seeking to gain an answer to the question to "is it safe" seldom does the non-scientist actively read and understand studies and the theories behind the device because the non-scientist often lacks the expertise or the time to understand the new device at such a deep level. The non-scientist who is interested in researching the new device will often read media reports, summaries of the studies, and as well as anecdotal evidence in coming to a conclusion. For a random example, I'm betting very few people here actually understand the sub-atomic interaction of microwaves with various types of matter and how that ends up heating up your food or water. Or how the combustion engine in your car actually works an alternator to generate electricity and recharge your car battery. In a certain sense, a large part of the determination as to whether something is safe turns on "trust" - trust in the media reports and their authors, trust in the summary of the study and the conclusions of the researchers, and often trust in governmental bodies which make recommendations concerning these (which is later augmented by experience by personal use). As anyone who is familiar with the traditional concept of trust, once trust is breached, or called into question, it is *very* difficult to regain.
If one looks to the scientific field as a whole, looking for instances for where scientists made "the wrong call", one does not have to travel far to see shocking and harmful instances of scientists being "wrong", and non-scientists, rightly or wrongly but definitely understandably, start to loose trust in all scientists in general - a very short, brief list (googling can reveal many more, but some I am familiar with):
Thalidomide. Irradiation For Enlarged Thyroid. Vioxx. MMR vaccine in Japan.
Once trust has been lost, it's very hard to gain. But you see this frustration play out at large in the public whenever a new media article comes out talking about how a new study reverses some finding. Just read the comments: "First they say alcohol is bad for you, now they say it's good for you." Trust is a huge part of the problem in the relationship between the non-scientist public and the scientist. At the end of the day, people are suspicious of many claims by scientists. They don't have the time to read or understand the theories involved. They look at the recent history, and they no longer have trust in these experts.
That's a big part of the problem. Understanding that it goes deeper than unawareness of biases is important in order to truly begin to bridge the gap between these two mentalities.
If someone is unwilling to learn due to lack of time, then how can they be helped?
(02-10-2014, 10:48 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]If someone is unwilling to learn due to lack of time, then how can they be helped?
I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. Modern life almost requires that a non-expert rely or trust experts/scientists because of complexity of modern technology.
It's not realistic to ask everyone in modern society to learn the actual mechanisms, theories, and studies involved in every piece of technology we have or use. That's why we have experts - if everyone understood everything, everyone would be an expert (or no one would be) and that term would have no meaning. Having specialized experts or scientists serves a very real purpose of allowing others to benefit from their discoveries and research without the time needed to learn the concepts involved, so that the saved time can be put into learning things more interesting or important for a given individual (for example - spending time learning lessons of balance stemming from an argument that day with a loved one instead of digging through studies about MMR Vaccine safety.)
The problems arise when the non-expert considers that reliance or trust of experts in general to be questionable or potentially misplaced in the light of previous bad advice given some particular expert.
To show some personal lack of trust and/or personal biases: I think many psychologists are full of BS. This is mostly from my personal experience of working with forensic psychologists and a small part from reading random media articles and random summaries of psych studies. I try to keep an open mind, but in general, I am very skeptical about any psych claim. If it's important to me, yes I read, and study it. But because of my own personal experiences with crazy psych evaluations of my clients, I can totally understand why someone who is has spent less time in math and science to feel "burnt" by some science recommendation (see above), and then decides to disregard the bulk of scientific finds due to a lack of trust. Understanding vaccine or drug studies is no trivial task and it would take me a lot of time (though I definitely do heavy research before deciding how/when to vaccinate a child given the stakes involved). People these days have trouble finding time outside of working; it's understandable that they don't dig deep into scientific claims and findings and choose to live their life without them.
Classic misunderstanding of polarity, of-course a view of scientists/non-scientist in a static sense is going to result in a power struggle. I mean how does an artist learn to draw? a musician learn to play? a preacher learn to preach? through the scientific method of-course. It's literally how we function.
To scared and lazy to illuminate bias's towards how we actually function every moment, I mean a lot of us know on this forum from experience there are no complex requirements for this be identified, you don't need a degree in physics engineering or psychology just as much as you don't need to be in a famous band or paint the mona lisa.
People use the personalities there minds and senses pluck from time/space as an excuse to forego personal development hence the shadow that unconsciously controls us as a society.
As influential as environmental and socioeconomic factors are, I would say the roots of addictive tendencies lie within the psyche (and of course environment plays a role in the psyche).
People with mental illness seem to be very susceptible to addiction, smoking in particular
https://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationM...llness.htm
Also what is the difference between addiction and habituation. And if a person is really not actually compelled to do something, are they actually addicted?
(02-10-2014, 11:38 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2014, 10:48 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]If someone is unwilling to learn due to lack of time, then how can they be helped?
I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. Modern life almost requires that a non-expert rely or trust experts/scientists because of complexity of modern technology.
It's not realistic to ask everyone in modern society to learn the actual mechanisms, theories, and studies involved in every piece of technology we have or use. That's why we have experts - if everyone understood everything, everyone would be an expert (or no one would be) and that term would have no meaning. Having specialized experts or scientists serves a very real purpose of allowing others to benefit from their discoveries and research without the time needed to learn the concepts involved, so that the saved time can be put into learning things more interesting or important for a given individual (for example - spending time learning lessons of balance instead of digging through studies of MMR Vaccine safety.)
The problems arise when the non-expert considers that reliance or trust of experts in general to be questionable or potentially misplaced in the light of previous bad advice given some particular expert.
Is that not what the purpose of life is ? To become an expert, is an expert not by definition someone largely conscious of what they are doing?. Lessons of balance can be seen in everything, reading statistical studies and learning lessons of balance can consciously become the same thing.
It's ironic when people criticize scientists for being to mechanical when it's actually there own view of science they are unconsciously criticizing.
(02-10-2014, 11:58 PM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ]Is that not what the purpose of life is ? To become an expert, is an expert not by definition someone largely conscious of what they are doing?. Lessons of balance can be seen in everything, reading statistical studies and learning lessons of balance can consciously become the same thing.
It's ironic when people criticize scientists for being to mechanical when it's actually there own view of science they are unconsciously criticizing.
I don't believe the purpose of life has anything to do with becoming experts in all available fields. Even experts in one field (say astrophysics) rely on other experts (chemists,etc) when they decide to take a new drug that just got approved by the FDA for their high blood cholesterol.
Just because lessons of balance can be everywhere, does not mean all lessons of balance are equally effective.
Those who spend time meditating, contemplating, praying, actively examining their belief systems, finding love in the movement, will find balance faster than someone who dedicates every working hour to reading statistical studies. That's also why Ra makes suggestions about what one can do in their free time in order to achieve greater balance, and that their harvest on Venus was aided by the fact that they had more leisure time to contemplate these concepts.
I think you're confusing the philosophy of gaining expertise with the term experts/scientists which as used here describes people with a given skillset. My discussion has been about why two distinct subsets of people (those with scientific expertise in an area, and those without) can have trouble working with one another.
Quote:Also what is the difference between addiction and habituation. And if a person is really not actually compelled to do something, are they actually addicted?
Good point. I would say that the reinforced habitual action and accompanying thought pattern can develop into an addiction, so addiction I guess is that next level of dependence on a certain structure of thought and action. Edit: and of course the reaction that follows.
(02-11-2014, 12:05 AM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Also what is the difference between addiction and habituation. And if a person is really not actually compelled to do something, are they actually addicted?
Good point. I would say that the reinforced habitual action and accompanying thought pattern can develop into an addiction, so addiction I guess is that next level of dependence on a certain structure of thought and action. Edit: and of course the reaction that follows.
But is it ever an addiction or just a relative lack of choice due to some kind of separation? Is a choice not taken due to comfort afforded by a habit, a choice not ever available?
(02-11-2014, 12:05 AM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Also what is the difference between addiction and habituation. And if a person is really not actually compelled to do something, are they actually addicted?
Good point. I would say that the reinforced habitual action and accompanying thought pattern can develop into an addiction, so addiction I guess is that next level of dependence on a certain structure of thought and action.
You could say habitual action dominates the lower triad with the concept of addiction rising when the self is mirrored and becomes conscious with green ray. I.e there is no choice in habituation.
I think addiction is misused in the sense that it's not really a reliable valid concept but rather a greater awareness of habituation with the realization of choice tacked onto the end vaguely to dissolve blame.
(02-10-2014, 11:58 PM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2014, 11:38 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2014, 10:48 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]If someone is unwilling to learn due to lack of time, then how can they be helped?
I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. Modern life almost requires that a non-expert rely or trust experts/scientists because of complexity of modern technology.
It's not realistic to ask everyone in modern society to learn the actual mechanisms, theories, and studies involved in every piece of technology we have or use. That's why we have experts - if everyone understood everything, everyone would be an expert (or no one would be) and that term would have no meaning. Having specialized experts or scientists serves a very real purpose of allowing others to benefit from their discoveries and research without the time needed to learn the concepts involved, so that the saved time can be put into learning things more interesting or important for a given individual (for example - spending time learning lessons of balance instead of digging through studies of MMR Vaccine safety.)
The problems arise when the non-expert considers that reliance or trust of experts in general to be questionable or potentially misplaced in the light of previous bad advice given some particular expert.
Is that not what the purpose of life is ? To become an expert, is an expert not by definition someone largely conscious of what they are doing?. Lessons of balance can be seen in everything, reading statistical studies and learning lessons of balance can consciously become the same thing.
It's ironic when people criticize scientists for being to mechanical when it's actually there own view of science they are unconsciously criticizing.
Is that the same in the opposite manner, with scientists criticizing non-mechanical or spiritual perspectives?
Well if a scientist is doing the criticism from a professional position, then you can be sure that they'd have to back it up. And all the info would be available to vet by anyone. If they are doing to criticism from a personal position, then it's not about science, but rather something like philosophy or morality.
(02-11-2014, 12:21 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2014, 11:58 PM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2014, 11:38 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2014, 10:48 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]If someone is unwilling to learn due to lack of time, then how can they be helped?
I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. Modern life almost requires that a non-expert rely or trust experts/scientists because of complexity of modern technology.
It's not realistic to ask everyone in modern society to learn the actual mechanisms, theories, and studies involved in every piece of technology we have or use. That's why we have experts - if everyone understood everything, everyone would be an expert (or no one would be) and that term would have no meaning. Having specialized experts or scientists serves a very real purpose of allowing others to benefit from their discoveries and research without the time needed to learn the concepts involved, so that the saved time can be put into learning things more interesting or important for a given individual (for example - spending time learning lessons of balance instead of digging through studies of MMR Vaccine safety.)
The problems arise when the non-expert considers that reliance or trust of experts in general to be questionable or potentially misplaced in the light of previous bad advice given some particular expert.
Is that not what the purpose of life is ? To become an expert, is an expert not by definition someone largely conscious of what they are doing?. Lessons of balance can be seen in everything, reading statistical studies and learning lessons of balance can consciously become the same thing.
It's ironic when people criticize scientists for being to mechanical when it's actually there own view of science they are unconsciously criticizing.
Is that the same in the opposite manner, with scientists criticizing non-mechanical or spiritual perspectives?
Of course.
(12-04-2013, 11:01 AM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]I would suggest to people who are critical of empirical evidence/research to also find the strength in this type of activity. That would create more balance than being just dismissive of the scientific process. The point of scientific process is to set a standard in how we understand a phenomenon or to demonstrate the validity and utility of theories on human behavior. Without this minimal standard we would not have a coherent way of understanding things. You will have people attributing psychological phenomenon as something purely physiological bc to them environmental factors are not significant at all. And maybe some would attribute drug use behavior as being a psychic attack or whatnot.
I think most people I've met in real life who are critical of evidence/research more because of a lack of trust of scientists due to past missteps rather than due to a rejection of the scientific process.
Btw, I am a great believer in taking an empirical/evidence based approach to life and it has yielded innumerable benefits for me personally. But that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically trust, believe, or rely on a given study published by Scientist A without doing my own research (see bit about psychs in my post above). In short, i think a lot of time its not as much about trusting a method as it is about trusting/not trusting a subset of experts (psychologists for me, perhaps drug company researchers for the next person).
That being said, I can see that there could be some new age type of thinking that rejects the scientific method completely. But on a more immediate level, the large amount of disregard of science that you see from even non spiritual people against vacinnes or global warming (or insert other hot button issue here) is a part of the issue of trust rather than a rejection of the sp. Just look at the comments on any news articles on these topics - you will see very few people who just reject the sp, and many people who reject the researchers and the researchers conclusion in that given case because of a lack of trust in those researchers themselves.
(02-11-2014, 12:31 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Well if a scientist is doing the criticism from a professional position, then you can be sure that they'd have to back it up. And all the info would be available to vet by anyone. If they are doing to criticism from a personal position, then it's not about science, but rather something like philosophy or morality.
Exactly why the general term "scientist" as it is used is quite misleading.
What happened to being able to trust that people will use their common sense, like recognizing when they are putting themselves in the position of blindly sucking at the tit of popular culture, herd mentality and an evolving, conventional wisdom. This is all an experiment after all and we are free to either contribute or complain, but either way nothing effective will ever be done without bothering to learn about what is necessary for one's health.
(02-11-2014, 12:43 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]"blindly sucking at the tit of popular culture"
Awesome quote haha. It has a nice zing to it! +rep
Quote:But is it ever an addiction or just a relative lack of choice due to some kind of separation? Is a choice not taken due to comfort afforded by a habit, a choice not ever available?
I'd say personally yeah there is always the choice, but it gets clouded as to what it is. The more reinforced the habit the more it becomes mechanical. There is less and less of a choice until it functions on a survivalist level with the same perceived need and thus meaning as eating or other necessary functions. Of course there's still the choice when it comes to eating but why would you choose not to when you perceive it as necessary? Less choice is available when the action is afforded less conscious evaluation.
Of course there is always the opportunity to stand back and look into oneself and change a fundamental pattern after realising it's harmful but that is not too common a practice.
Edit: On re-reading your post I see I may have missed the mark of what you were conveying, sorry lol
Yeah I'd say you're right, you're always right lol
I know people have given this rebuttal, 'well, science is bullshit so your point is invalid,' but they rarely give any details about why it's bullshit in context of the specific discussion. Then I'm thinking maybe person is just tapping into teet sucking popular meme of being anti something.
In green vmeme, there is a phase where people access their intuitive knowing & embrace this value of being egalitarian and whatnot. They begin to reject all kinds of status-quo things such as scientific research. Kind of like the anti-vaccine movement, for example. The danger is that 'mean green' vmeme folks have the risk of reverting to lower valuing memes like attempt to overthrow 'authority' (blue vmeme) to replace old authority with their own authority. Then there is complete rejection of science to prefer superstition and magical notions and get very angry when challenged (purple/red vmeme). Kind of like Ra's 'revert to orange ray to seek self' kind of deal here. Reverting is like regressing backwards.