Hacker News Reader

Comment by M_Grey | Hacker News Reader

This was an entertaining read, but it seems like fairly old information in regards the role of the dopamine reward system in addiction in general. We already know with a pretty high degree of confidence, that chemicals and behaviors which act to "hijack" that system are almost inevitably addictive.

What isn't so well understood is why some people are so much more vulnerable to that process, and others so resistant, not to mention the continuum between them. Unfortunately as far as I can read, this article doesn't offer any new information on that critical issue.

View on HN

> What isn't so well understood is why some people are so much more vulnerable to that process, and others so resistant, not to mention the continuum between them. Unfortunately as far as I can read, this article doesn't offer any new information on that critical issue.

"Like most addictions, Townsend-Lyon’s gambling problem didn’t come out of nowhere. Similar to most women with addiction, she’d had a traumatic childhood—including emotional and physical abuse and ongoing sexual abuse by a close family member and another perpetrator. Also, like most women with addiction, she had pre-existing psychiatric problems; in her case, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder.

Studies of addicts show that trauma and certain genetic vulnerabilities—especially the two in combination—increase risk for a wide range of mental illnesses and a bewildering spectrum of addictions that include gambling, sex, alcohol, and opioids. The availability of escapist drugs and activities help determine what form the problem takes. But gambling and drugs themselves don’t cause addiction, a myth that often interferes with getting to the personal root of the problem."

That's more of a list of potential causes rather than working theories to explain them. After all, it's really boiling down to, "Well it's something to do with nature, nurture, or a combination of the two." We know that, what isn't so well known is just how that works and why some people with those risk factors don't seem to have the same problems as others who do.

>what isn't so well known is just how that works

What isn't well-known to me is what you'd accept as an explanation of "just how that works" - are you looking for a psychological explanation? A biochemical one? An anthropological one?

A complete theory which can predict behavior and the correct responses to behavior, and which stands the test of time. I'm not sure how to label that... scientific?

I hope we never achieve that level of proficiency in psychology (and in a way, we already do -- look at ads, and in-game purchasing strategies). I'm not at all interested in a world where individuals can be reduced to automatons for whom we can "predict and elicit the correct responses to behaviour".

A complete theory of the dopamine reward system and its role in addiction, not a complete theory of every human being's psyche... is what I was pretty clearly talking about in context. No need to go all "future crime" on me and drag this so far off topic into the realm of speculation.

instead of awareness about the limbic system I suppose gamblers, smokers, etc just lack statistical reasoning and other abilities that would inhibit the dream of winning.

With the limbic system, maybe the strength varies and some are literally weak. Or, they underestimate the strength, perhaps because of statistical reasoning again. Most likely the effects vary individually.

On the other hand, because of the limbic system everyone can become addicted. some people just take their chances and others are weary.

Sure, let's call it "scientific", but let's not imagine this will ever be "complete".

Here's another question: what's a "complete" catalogue of behavior? What are the "correct" responses to behavior?

These things don't exist; your attempt to produce a complete theory describing them is a doomed effort. Science is a liminal enterprise. Wriggle your little forearms in frustration all you like, you'll never have a "complete" understanding.

I said a "complete theory", but you apparently stopped reading after the word, "Complete".

You're going to have to excuse me now, this isn't a good use of anyone's time.

"Nature, nurture, or a combination of the two" is a gross mischaracterization. You have been given specific risk factors, of course you have to explore the specific mechanisms, but you have got a starting point.

It is like saying that because some smokers don't get chronic respiratory disease, all observations of correlation are meaningless until someone proves the exact biochemical effects that link tobaco with such diseases.

I said nothing even remotely like that.

I would have liked to know more about those "certain genetic vulnerabilities". Detailing THOSE would have made this article much more interesting. I'm disinclined to read the writer's book because of how rehashed her theory is.

As far as I could observe, on myself and others alike, it's about wether the transition happens under the radar or not. Being warned at the right time, forced to look at one's own condition and admit the degree of danger it carries if left as is, is usually enough to save the victim. There is more than that, of course. It all boils down to the amount of available willpower, which can be affected by a lot of factors. That willpower is also what prevents one's relapse, which an obvious fact for everyone, I suppose. What I'm not sure everyone is aware of is that willpower can be trained, the best starting from an early age. (Also, the willpower is not the same as discipline. Discipline is taken care of in schools, willpower training not so much.)

Anecdotally I absolutely agree with you; the role of "mindfulness" can't be understated.

On the other hand, this doesn't align with my experiences or what I read at all. Alcohol seems to be extremely dangerous for certain groups of people, which is why they often choose not to drink at all, ever. While many other people can have the occasional drink and it doesn't go beyond that.

In fact, that's a pattern I've noticed: there are people who will often not touch certain substances, activities, etc., for fear that they will get addicted to it. It seems to take less willpower to just not do it compared to doing a moderate amount of it.

Meanwhile, I don't seem to get addicted to anything whatsoever and I don't think awareness or willpower has anything to do with it. The key thing is just that I don't develop much of reaction and I can easily forget about the substance/activity. It just doesn't stick. It's not that I'm actively resisting a desire, /I just don't have one/. Another thing that doesn't stick for me? Habits. I wonder if these two are related. Most people seem to develop habits much faster and better than I do.

> What I'm not sure everyone is aware of is that willpower can be trained, the best starting from an early age.

I'm very curious what you're basing this on. I would say that is quite a claim to make. And how far? For whom? Is there a cap? Does it depends? Last time I tried to look up willpower trainability, hoping for some solid resources, I came up short.

I haven't observed that my willpower ever increased. If anything, it decreases over time if I try to apply it to the same thing. If I went to do something for a month, it's harder to do it next month. I can make a given activity take less willpower. I can become more efficient at it. I can apply motivational tricks. But the amount of actual willpower seems to stay roughly the same and relying on it is a recipe for disaster in my case.

Willpower trainability is in the same bucket as things like ego depletion and stereotype threat and smiling causes happiness and all those other things that I would take with a pound of salt due to the complexities of studying such things.

"The key thing is just that I don't develop much of reaction and I can easily forget about the substance/activity. It just doesn't stick. It's not that I'm actively resisting a desire, /I just don't have one/."

That's exactly the end result of the actively trained willpower for me.

"I'm very curious what you're basing this on. I would say that is quite a claim to make. And how far? For whom? Is there a cap? Does it depends?"

All I can give you for sure are my own experiences and the methods my parents used in this regard. However, these are close to what I've seen in martial arts training and other domains. Since my childhood years my parents were very watchful for my instincts and urges and intervened most of the time. They made me aware of my impulses and what triggers them and when I failed to control myself they actively pushed me to slip into a harsh or painful lesson. I remember one of them when I had a definite plan for my hard raised money and they exposed me to a good salesman. I knew what salesmen do and they warned me that that one was better than the others and I had to resist or risk my money on some overpriced unimportant thing for me. I lost, but the lesson stood and now I'd say it worth both the money and the bad feeling that came after. I had many lessons, starting from addressing the appetites for sweets (like any kid) to resisting the provocations for violence (where I had to consciously know when it is or isn't necessary), but usually it didn't come to the hard part.

I think the most important bit was that I developed a sense of my own willpower resistance and its limits. Of course there is a cap, but I kind of sense when I'm about to slip, and I routinely test those limits in a controlled environment. The willpower is not there to be abused, it's there to buy you some time to change course when you realize you're going to be trapped. And yeah, it depends on a lot of things.

"I haven't observed that my willpower ever increased. If anything, it decreases over time if I try to apply it to the same thing. If I went to do something for a month, it's harder to do it next month. I can make a given activity take less willpower. I can become more efficient at it. I can apply motivational tricks."

I think here you confuse willpower with motivation. Willpower is the ability to exert self control regarding your urges, when you have them. What you describe here is a case where you don't have any urges at all. It may involve willpower if you abstain from something when you push yourself to do something else, but it's not used directly. Motivation is another thing that it's addressed enough in our society.

I read a book once ("change anything") that was convinced that willpower practically "always loses" so you have to attack it differently, like modifying your environment/social environment/tools you know how to use, etc. Good read :)

Selection bias. Assuming will power to be a trainable trait...

It'd be clear our current society does not recognize this fact, and that it would lack methods to train in effectively. People that seem to have reasonably high will power would be those that either won the genetic lottery or stumbled on some way to (informally) train themselves while trying to do something else.

It would be as if a bunch of tall, reasonably fit guys in their 20s went to play a basketball match against an NBA team. The fact that they would have no chance has more to do with their lack of (serious) trainning that with their innate lack of basketball talent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com