Everything We Think We Know About Addiction Is Wrong

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

What a video that had no scientific basis, language and had no references.

In a field that defines addiction in two categories and never mentioned one.

You can’t possibly be that stupid.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[OhnoParticipant 668]

the video does not do that! .I think you are not smart enough to realize that, or you dont want to because your degree is toilet paper now. Yea im f~~~in stupid with my IQ of 140… bye!

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

german truther: it does do that. I have showed evidence that it does and you’ve offered nothing but vacuous stupidity backed by nothing, you obviously did not understand the video yourself.

You have to be three years old to think just because it’s on YouTube that it is scientific and accurate.

That’s so stupid of five year old would understand that so don’t criticise a 140 IQ when you only rate 30 on the same scale.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[OhnoParticipant 668]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, Cheeky Bastard is also correct in saying that many addictions are based on other factors, mainly brain/dopamine dynamics.

Sure, but the video doesnt deny it. Actually thats a pretty known fact, too. It doesnt change the dynamic though…that the more fulfilling and rewarding life is, the less drugs you will want to take because it makes more sence to stay healthy. I can talk out of experience, but i really dont want to.

Cheeky Bastard wrote:

What a video that had no scientific basis, language and had no references.

In a field that defines addiction in two categories and never mentioned one.

You can’t possibly be that stupid.

theories are not definitions… the video doesnt say ” there are 2 categories of addiction”
theories arent facts… that why u can conform theories to facts
definitions= limitations

it doesnt even say that there are only 2 theories, all it does is comparing 2 theories that base on 2 type of experiments. And that is what the video talks about…studies and experiments.

1:10 our current theory of addiction is based partly on a series of experiments, that were carried out earlier in the 20th century ( cage + 2 water taps )

2:45 “if you believe the old theory of addiction ( thats the theory based on the experiments in the early 20th century, note it doesnt say our current theory of addiction ), this makes no sence, but if u tend to believe in Prof. Dr. Alexanders Theory ( based on the experiments with a ratpark instead of a cage ) it makes perfect sence.

the old theory ( meaning experiment no. 1 and assumptions to be made) would lead to a theory that addiction is about the chemicals.
the theory of Dr. Alexander ( meaning experiment no. 2 and assumptions to be made) would lead to a theory that addiction is about the cage.

Given the fact that people have been using more and more drugs in the past decades, where in the same time our way of life becomes more and more unnatural, competitive, hostile and social contacts are in the decline. Addiction is of course mostly about the cage.

Scientists are getting funded for “proving” a theory thats useful to the funders. Otherwise they often cant live of being a scientest..
“Science” is pretty much rigged. The current theory ( not explained in the video, only that its partly based on the old theory resulting of experiment 1.)… is beneficial to who? the pharmacy of course. business-, international-, nongovernmental- organizations, doctors, neuroscientists and so on.

@ Cheeky: it doesnt matter what i say… you have pointed out in your first comment right in the beginning that nothing can change your mind. So all i say is going to be stupid and out of my ass, if i dont see things like you.

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

That is not true what you did say is perfectly relevant. And is the reason why I added two scenarios that were based on lab experiments but social experiments.

The example a reference for drug addicts coming home and start using drugs again because they are in their environment and they already have an addiction.

If an addiction doesn’t exist in the first place then there’s no reason to believe that it would continue in a natural and positive environment therefore it is not an addiction but medication.

This is why put up second definition for addiction that is psychology rather than neurology or neuropharmacology. The video spends a lot of time explaining that environment has the majority influence over addiction when it really is over drug use. Self-medication is not addiction.

Therefore the social theory within the video is severely flawed.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Anyone wishing to know the scientific basis for Dr. Bruce Alexander’s model of addiction has merely to go to Google Scholar for his studies published in peer reviewed journals. This article points out the fallacies and unscientific thinking behind our medical establishment’s foolish faith in A.A. and other 12-step programs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

What the more concerning thing is the absence of variables within the studies. Dr. Bruce Alexander, highlights one of these variables but fails to connect back to addiction. The social environment and living conditions is one, which is self-medication leading to addiction.

What this article highlights is a singular concern that addiction research does not include home of living conditions, e.g. war, abusive home and negative social progress. Other research has been done to prove that coming in contact with friends that he uses are more likely to go back into addictive behaviour.

If studies were to include data from self-medication studies within addictive behaviour studies we will get a clearer picture.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Alexander does make sure that confounding variables are controlled for and does make a clear connection to self-medication and addiction.. The fact that associating with friends who are users facilitates addictive behavior is NOT a confounding variable but just further proof of environmental influences as Alexander postulates.

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

If this is what he is saying then he is saying nothing new. This interaction has been popular psychological preference and taught in psychological class’s rooms since about 1992. This makes it not even a completely new idea but a repackaging of an old idea.

Escapism is the primary motivator for addiction, to completely differentiate himself all other ideas before. He must prove that all opium users in Afghanistan are addicts and this goes against all previous observations.

We should actually instead be asking the question why are some societies more prone to addictions that includes conditions, availability and prevalence.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[Author]

Posts