Are all addictions - by definition - harmful...or are not all harmful...??

[bloke]

I agree the term addiction is thrown around liberally and without context. Thanks for the reminder

...just as some people attempt to shoehorn "addiction" and "illness" into the category of synonyms.

[GC]

And on the question of addiction, I have to question whether an addiction to mild pain relievers is worse than living in constant, debilitating pain (not me, by the way).

To me, an addiction is something that takes on a life of its own, and for your pain reliever thing to be an addiction you would need to continue to take them (in escalating doses) even if you no longer had pain. So in my book, you don't sound like you're addicted, and I kind of hope you were joking. I've been known to take things for sleep that I know to be addictive, and what I do is make sure I am well past several half lives of that stuff before I take it again. I gots 'nuf problems w/o adding an addiction on top.

As I said, not me. It's someone I know who lives life in nonstop pain who other meds, physical therapy, surgery, etc., has not been able to stop. The only thing that seems to help at all is pain meds, and this person will not go beyond the low level stuff because of the realistic fear of addiction.

[Doc]

According to the ASAM, American Society of Addiction medicine, an addiction is defined:

"Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences. Prevention efforts and treatment approaches for addiction are generally as successful as those for other chronic diseases."

https://www.asam.org/Quality-Science/de ... -addiction

So, with that definition, any addiction is harmful. In modern parlance, the word "addiction" is associated with substance abuse, but this is not always the case. Compare the eleven criteria for an addiction diagnosis of DSM 5, which focus on the effects of substance abuse, and defines the other compulsive behaviours which we may in layman's terms call an addiction, but are classified otherwise.

The Integrative Life Center discusses the difference in these two categories of behaviors, which yes, are similar:

https://www.integrativelifecenter.com/w ... addiction/

All familiar to me because of my job duties for the last 20 years. My earlier comments were intended to convey my belief that what the op described was very likely not addiction. I’m sure you would agree that discussing addiction in any detailed or comprehensive way (criteria, stages of, treatments, applicability to music, etc) could be its own thread (as would one for compulsive behaviors).

I suggest that people feeling the increased need to play music because Coronamadness has everything on hold is NOT withdrawal symptoms from a bona fide addiction. Simply missing something, or even missing something a great deal, does not alone qualify as addiction or compulsive behavior. Even if it can bring us joy and fulfillment (playing music), and in some cases for remuneration, addiction is not as simple as “I miss...,” “I wish...,” “This friggin sucks.” Enduring unpleasant, uninvited, or life-altering change can be a b***h of the highest order, but the desire to not experience that change doesn’t equate to addiction. Feeling compelled to play and having compulsive behavior are also two different things.

Another possible angle that may be true for some:
People, particularly males, can also define themselves by what they do - in this case as musicians or through music. And this absence of making music in a public/corporate setting - the inability to do what defines us - can challenge our identity or make us feel like we aren’t ourselves without it. But that‘s a different rabbit hole of psychological discussion that could also be its own thread.

Doc (noting that laymen’s terms/explanations aren’t always accurate or helpful)

[gwwilk]

I would caution you that DSM-5 is full of unsubstantiated opinions which justify various empirical/anecdotal diagnoses and treatments that may in fact be counterproductive. For example, see syndicated columnist John Rosemond's take on 'psychological' diagnosis and treatment.

When I was practicing medicine I watched the DSM-5 true believers prescribe amphetamine analogues to patients we treated in common. By and large I refused to be complicit with this practice because I felt that the diagnosis and the addicting treatment were suspect. If they wanted a refill of their 'uppers', I sent them elsewhere. As William Osler said, 'We must educate people not to take medicine' and by implication not to listen to mental health gurus who would have us willy-nilly abandon millennia of proven effective child-rearing practices.

[bloke]

I would tend to view psychiatry/psychology as even more in the "arts" category than are the rest of the medical "arts".

[iiipopes]

I would caution you that DSM-5 is full of unsubstantiated opinions which justify various empirical/anecdotal diagnoses and treatments that may in fact be counterproductive. For example, see syndicated columnist John Rosemond's take on 'psychological' diagnosis and treatment.

When I was practicing medicine I watched the DSM-5 true believers prescribe amphetamine analogues to patients we treated in common. By and large I refused to be complicit with this practice because I felt that the diagnosis and the addicting treatment were suspect. If they wanted a refill of their 'uppers', I sent them elsewhere. As William Osler said, 'We must educate people not to take medicine' and by implication not to listen to mental health gurus who would have us willy-nilly abandon millennia of proven effective child-rearing practices.

Yes, but DSM5 is still used, especially as a means of helping determine if a particular situation is one that the criminal defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility applies in the particular case. But you missed my main point: as Doc observed above, lay persons should not be throwing around terms that have very serious and consequential definitions, however and whatever branch of the profession defines the terms.

[gwwilk]

I would caution you that DSM-5 is full of unsubstantiated opinions which justify various empirical/anecdotal diagnoses and treatments that may in fact be counterproductive. For example, see syndicated columnist John Rosemond's take on 'psychological' diagnosis and treatment.

When I was practicing medicine I watched the DSM-5 true believers prescribe amphetamine analogues to patients we treated in common. By and large I refused to be complicit with this practice because I felt that the diagnosis and the addicting treatment were suspect. If they wanted a refill of their 'uppers', I sent them elsewhere. As William Osler said, 'We must educate people not to take medicine' and by implication not to listen to mental health gurus who would have us willy-nilly abandon millennia of proven effective child-rearing practices.

Yes, but DSM5 is still used, especially as a means of helping determine if a particular situation is one that the criminal defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility applies in the particular case. But you missed my main point: as Doc observed above, lay persons should not be throwing around terms that have very serious and consequential definitions, however and whatever branch of the profession defines the terms.

If it's in the dictionary, it's fair game for use by all, properly or improperly. There are no legitimate 'English language' police that I'm aware of. In other words, you needn't be a credentialed expert to use specialized terminology. In most such cases these terms eventually reach the common parlance anyway. To wit: RAM, AI, laser, power cycle, addiction, psychosis, PCP, tetrahydrocannabinol, CRISPR, COVID-19, and so on and so forth. (See the logical fallacy argumentum ab auctoritate.) My only comment on the propriety or impropriety of the use of DSM-5 in our criminal justice system is that it should only be used to avoid capital punishment.

[iiipopes]

I would caution you that DSM-5 is full of unsubstantiated opinions which justify various empirical/anecdotal diagnoses and treatments that may in fact be counterproductive. For example, see syndicated columnist John Rosemond's take on 'psychological' diagnosis and treatment.

When I was practicing medicine I watched the DSM-5 true believers prescribe amphetamine analogues to patients we treated in common. By and large I refused to be complicit with this practice because I felt that the diagnosis and the addicting treatment were suspect. If they wanted a refill of their 'uppers', I sent them elsewhere. As William Osler said, 'We must educate people not to take medicine' and by implication not to listen to mental health gurus who would have us willy-nilly abandon millennia of proven effective child-rearing practices.

Yes, but DSM5 is still used, especially as a means of helping determine if a particular situation is one that the criminal defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility applies in the particular case. But you missed my main point: as Doc observed above, lay persons should not be throwing around terms that have very serious and consequential definitions, however and whatever branch of the profession defines the terms.

If it's in the dictionary, it's fair game for use by all, properly or improperly. There are no legitimate 'English language' police that I'm aware of. In other words, you needn't be a credentialed expert to use specialized terminology. In most such cases these terms eventually reach the common parlance anyway. To wit: RAM, AI, laser, power cycle, addiction, psychosis, PCP, tetrahydrocannabinol, CRISPR, COVID-19, and so on and so forth. (See the logical fallacy argumentum ab auctoritate.) My only comment on the propriety or impropriety of the use of DSM-5 in our criminal justice system is that it should only be used to avoid capital punishment.

This has nothing to do with "English Language Police." It has everything to do with misapplication of terms, which can cause disinformation, misunderstanding, stigma, all to the detriment of society generally. As for the last comment, yes, we are all entitled to our opinions. Having been both a prosecutor and defender, I am absolutely, totally, and completely against the death penalty, for many religious, humanitarian, and other reasons that go beyond the political.

[gwwilk]

This has nothing to do with "English Language Police." It has everything to do with misapplication of terms, which can cause disinformation, misunderstanding, stigma, all to the detriment of society generally. As for the last comment, yes, we are all entitled to our opinions. Having been both a prosecutor and defender, I am absolutely, totally, and completely against the death penalty, for many religious, humanitarian, and other reasons that go beyond the political.

In other words, there's no room for disagreement once the 'Language Police' have arrived and declared by fiat what our reality should be. One branch of philosophy besides ethics, logic, and metaphysics, is epistimology. You have your ideas about how knowledge is acquired, and I have mine.

To elaborate, I view the scientific method in the strictest sense, i.e. the hypothesis to be accepted must be testable via a valid double-blind controlled study, preferably with crossover. Anything short of this just amounts to blowing smoke and proffering opinion as 'fact'. For example, I was taught, and all the experts agreed, that peptic ulcer disease was a 'psychosomatic' illness that was basically incurable. Enter some bright investigators who discovered a bacterium, helicobacter pylori, in the gastric lining of most of those so afflicted. Interesting, but not definitive proof. The proof came not when after treatment with an appropriate antibiotic regimen the bacterium was documented to be absent, but when the ulcer recurrence rate was shown to be negligible. It is thus that new knowledge is acquired.

[donn]

You can read all about it in The etymology and early history of ‘addiction’. As might be expected, the word appeared in English usage long before the ASAM presumed to define it, and it has meant various things over the centuries.

In better established natural sciences, there's a preference for domain-specific terminology. For example, if you want to call some tree a "tulip tree", that's no problem for your botanist friend - suit yourself - but there can be no question as to whether it's a Liriodendron tulipifera or not. There will always be some overlap, too, but that's understood and ordinarily you won't see them trying to make everyone for example stop calling a strawberry a "berry" or "fruit" instead of the morphologically correct "receptacle."

[iiipopes]

Fine. Hash gnats all of you will. When you have seen, interacted with, represented, prosecuted, and defended as many people destroyed by real addiction and real compulsive behavior as I have, you will change your tunes. Pun intended fwiw.

For example, one case I represented in my prior life: I was sent to represent a person in jail two counties from where I lived at the time. When I got there, I was escorted into the client conference room at the jail. When the jailer brought the guy in, he didn't look that bad, just a rather tall, lanky young man. I sat down with him. We talked about his case. Then he said: "I screwed up. I got hooked on meth. While on meth, I sexually assaulted my toddler son. (language in this sentence modified from the vernacular for the benefit of the forum) Now that I've been in jail and cleaned up, I realize how horrible it is. Please just do what you can for me." Of course, he went up the river for a term of years.

Think about that the next time any of you want to willy-nilly throw terms around without thinking about what they mean or try to parse out how one branch of a profession or science may define a term opposed to what another profession might.

[Three Valves]

When the jailer brought the guy in, he didn't look that bad, just a rather tall, lanky young man. I sat down with him. We talked about his case. Then he said: "I screwed up. I got hooked on meth. While on meth, I sexually assaulted my toddler son. (language in this sentence modified from the vernacular for the benefit of the forum) Now that I've been in jail and cleaned up, I realize how horrible it is. Please just do what you can for me." Of course, he went up the river for a term of years.

The moral to the story has not gotten thru to me. Can you be more specific?

[bloke]

The moral to the story has not gotten thru to me. Can you be more specific?

this.

[iiipopes]

The moral to the story has not gotten thru to me. Can you be more specific?

this.

I would, but it would fall on deaf ears. I'm done with this thread at this point. The rest of you: don't cheer too loudly - you will spill your beer.

[Three Valves]

I’m not cheering. I’m interested.

Everyone is free to speak here. Even Donn!!

[bloke]

Returning to the topic (rather than quibbling over dictionary/textbook-vs.-common usage definitions of words),
I believe I'm finding that the more shut-in people are (depending on their local rulers) and the less space they have as their own (particularly: outdoor space) the more "distressed" (if that word triggers fewer people...??) they tend to be.

We know that not all of our American immigrant ancestors (150 - 200 years ago) moved from the east coast to settlements and towns, and that some of them moved out to places where there were very few people at all. I suspect that their "busy-ness" (ie. their daily struggle for survival) kept them "company" far better than "glancing over the tops of books at one another in Starbucks" and (so-called) "social media" do, today...

...and whereas those who clustered in cities and towns were concerned with typhoid, malaria, "yellow jack", influenza, and other contagions, those who were very isolated dealt with completely different lists of threats, but (again) were too busy struggling to dwell all that much on their own "loneliness".

[Doc]

Returning to the topic (rather than quibbling over dictionary/textbook-vs.-common usage definitions of words),
I believe I'm finding that the more shut-in people are (depending on their local rulers) and the less space they have as their own (particularly: outdoor space) the more "distressed" (if that word triggers fewer people...??) they tend to be.

Cabin fever on steroids.

We know that not all of our American immigrant ancestors (150 - 200 years ago) moved from the east coast to settlements and towns, and that some of them moved out to places where there were very few people at all. I suspect that their "busy-ness" (ie. their daily struggle for survival) kept them "company" far better than "glancing over the tops of books at one another in Starbucks" and (so-called) "social media" do, today...
...and whereas those who clustered in cities and towns were concerned with typhoid, malaria, "yellow jack", influenza, and other contagions, those who were very isolated dealt with completely different lists of threats, but (again) were too busy struggling to dwell all that much on their own "loneliness".

Hanging at Starbucks (or most of the other things people do in the modern rat race) is a false or manufactured "busy," and in nearly all cases unnecessary. Committing your mind, body, and spirit to physical survival (a REAL and NECESSARY busy), leaves little to no time for being distressed about/preoccupied with anything that isn't necessary. The importance of all those things not directly necessary for survival goes away. There is certainly no time to fret over not being able to play music. `

In between college and career, I spent two years subsisting on hunting, fishing, gardening, and the occasional gig. It was a lot of work (thankfully, I didn't have to build my own house, fight off bears, cats, or Indians), and I barely had a pot to p in, but it was the most stress-free I have ever felt. No worldly stress or worries. No cares or concerns about what society wants to put on us. Just being a free man relying on God and myself. Didn't have much, didn't need much (there's a life lesson in that). I often want to return to that type of simplicity (maybe not that amount of work LOL), and having a simple, uncomplicated life is definitely my goal for retirement.

But people are people - we like what we like, we want what we want, and the modern era has made us spoiled, weak people in that regard. And the "always got a trophy/unearned self-esteem/always protected from adversity" generations seem to be struggling the worst. While empathic to a great degree, especially for those who have a genuinely hard life, I struggle to feel too sorry for folks who fuss or are distressed about the loss of things that, in the big picture, don't amount to much.

Doc (Who likes lots of things, but certainly can survive, and has survived, without most of them)

[Three Valves]

While I consider myself easy going, convivial and in possession of a high tolerance for offence, some things will set me off!!

Food;

Don't put lettuce and tomato on a cheesesteak!!

Don't put mayo on an Italian sub!!

Don't eat bacon with your pancakes!!

How can anyone eat ice cream after drinking beer??

Language;

When did "buttons" become "buh-ENS?"

Mountains become "mount-ENS?""

And when did "stricter" replace "more strict??"

Why I oughta...

[Doc]

Don't put lettuce and tomato on a cheesesteak!!

Don't put mayo on an Italian sub!!

Seems to be understood most places.

Don't eat bacon with your pancakes!!

Is this a regional thing? Never heard of such a thing before. Bacon (or sausage) in the syrup is good. But if it ain't your thing, it ain't your thing.

How can anyone eat ice cream after drinking beer??

Do people do this? Never seen/heard. I like both, but not simultaneously. Not at the same time either. Maybe trying is believing??? (don't wait for my review, btw)

When did "buttons" become "buh-ENS?"

Mountains become "mount-ENS?""

Because people are lazy and slovenly. Heathens. Pop culture hasn't helped.

And when did "stricter" replace "more strict??"

I don't think "strict'" is an exception to the "one syllable word/add er or est" rule. (Examples of exceptions: "realer" and "wronger") I don't think I've ever said "stricter," but "She's the strictest teacher in school" sounds fine. "Strict" could be one of those words that, despite the rules, is used either way. And the popularity of the style used could be a regional thing. Of course, all things regional suffer to some extent of homogenization (language, music, culture), so who knows?

Why I oughta...

Make it count the first time, but I'll still back you up.

A couple of my own come to mind...

- Don't put beans in chili in Texas and call it chili, but if you want to add noodles, cheese, onions, and call it a four-way, you need to invite me.

- Despite tomato being a fruit, don't put it in fruit salad. Just sayin...

[bloke]

The spoken word (and knowledge of customary/traditional pronunciations) has deteriorated at least as much as has the written word.

Dictionaries do not "dictate" these things, but only document them, and - when enough people embrace an ignorance-based mispronunciations - dictionaries include those as alternates, or even as preferred pronunciations.

Just two examples of this are

often - (traditional pronunciation: "of-fen") ...but (which - in the past, was a grade-school pronunciation error, when reading aloud) now, it seems as though a majority of (younger) people pronounce it "off-ton".

forehead - (traditional pronunciation: "far-ed") ...My daughter (who would rate as "highly-educated") mocks me when (albeit it's not a word that needs to be uttered particularly "off-ton") mocks me when I pronounce "forehead" as "far-ed", so (in exchange) I ask her if linguists at the University of Rochester taught her to say "four-haid".