Rationalization, and other cop-outs
One of the many things I touched on in this post was my irritation with the way people rationalize decisions. My frustration with rationalization is that it’s a way for people to deny responsibility for the choices they make to varying degrees, whether by claiming that they had been convinced that their choice was the right one (Adam vs. Eve, anyone?) or by claiming they had no choice altogether. I just caught the special report on ABC last night, Help Me! I Can’t Help Myself! with John Stossel. If you didn’t catch it, you should really check out the link and at least read what amounts to a summary of the show.
The report directly relates to the American tendency to label addiction as a disease or genetic predisposition. However, it also contains some very astute observations that are applicable to thinking outside the realm of the covered material, extending to decision making in general. I’m just going to throw out some food for thought, and try very hard not to mention my opinion — by now, I’m sure those who care about my opinion can extrapolate them, anyway. This is a touchy subject, and tends to bring out indignation in people. As a friend of mine says, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, baby.”
The most commonly held belief today is that addiction, along with many other behaviors, is genetically determined, or a disease. This is in line with a modern evolutionary thought process which inevitably leads to the assumption that man is an animal, perhaps more mentally advanced but still subject to the same physiological triggers that direct behavior in other animals. However, this message robs people of a sense of empowerment over their actions. The problem is that this is one thing that some people, whether willing to admit it or not, seem to want to be robbed of. As soon as a particular choice becomes rationalized, whether in their own mind or by a team of scientists, they will disavow their actions to some degree. However, no matter how supposedly intrinsic a behavior is, it is possible to find people who once engaged in the behavior and later “kicked the habit.” Does this mean that these people were not really addicted, genetically predisposed, or whatever? Maybe they were faking. Let’s do some brain scans and see what kind of activity shows up now. Of course, who says the brain activity seen isn’t a result of thoughts about the behavior the person wants to engage in rather than the cause of the desire?
Something that, at its core, is a question of whether or not people have free will becomes a different creature. Now it is relevant to consider whether or not the existence of people who have turned from a particular behavior indicates that the behavior is not really some kind of genetic imperative, or whether the existence of people who have not quit indicates that it is. And so philosophy enters the realm of pseudo-science.
During the Vietnam war, thousands of soldiers became addicted to heroin. After 3 years of being tracked by the government upon their return, 88 percent of the soldiers tracked were no longer addicted. Once removed from the situation, their addiction disappeared. So, they weren’t ever addicted to begin with? Because if their addiction was solely biological, and these soldiers weren’t given any special help aside from being tracked, wouldn’t they continue using the drug? And what about the other 12 percent? Is it possible that they simply chose to continue using heroin, or perhaps lacked the willpower of the other 88 percent, or were they just more afflicted by the disease?
In fact, a majority of heroin and cocaine addicts have quit. 60 percent of American smokers have quit. This doesn’t mean that nicotine, heroin, and cocaine aren’t addictive, but it does mean that it is possible to stop using the addictive substances, and that people in large numbers have done exactly that. Does this evidence mean that perhaps these addictions aren’t a disease, but instead indicate that some Americans are simply making bad choices? According to psychologist Jeff Schaler, yes. But the fallout from this assertion doesn’t end with bursting America’s collective bubble, and forcing a lot of people to start taking responsibility for their choices. He says, “If you say it’s a choice, not a disease, well then insurance companies may not reimburse for that. ? If you say it’s a choice, then the tobacco companies may not be slammed for millions of dollars.”
All in all, though, despite this possibility being hard to swallow for some, it would be a positive message in the long run. As former addict (to multiple substances including narcotics and alcohol) James Frey says, “You can’t tell people, ‘This is all your fault and there’s nothing you can do about it.’ You have to tell them, ‘This is all your fault and you can make it all better if you want to.’ ”
That’s a pretty liberating way to look at things.
Nopal:
If there were a medicine for alcoholism, similar to medicines for depression, would you advise people not to take it because the addiction is caused by their weak willpower? One could very well make an argument that depression should be cured not by medicine or psychologists, but by the people that are depressed, after all, if they want to be happy, they only need to have a sunnier demeanor. I doubt you would. Alcoholism is a disease, caused by a so-called “addictive gene” which causes its possessors to become overly indulgent and dependent. In response to Mr. Frey’s comment, tell people, “It’s not your fault you became an addict, it is in your power to walk away. It will be your fault for picking up the bottle next time, but you can still walk away.”
[ Neo responds. ]
Hang on a second. I didn’t say their addiction was caused by their weak willpower, nor did the people in the documentary. The question being posed here is whether the situation of being addicted relieves a person of their capacity to make choices. We still do not fully understand the “addictive gene,” or DRD2, which supposedly determines the makeup of a part of the brain that responds to dopamine. There are also studies linking it to a “thrill-seeking” trait that influences a person’s impulsivity as well. It may well be involved in determining the function of all sorts of neural pathways.
In a study cited in the documentary, some zebrafish were genetically engineered with an altered addictive gene. These fish showed no inclinations towards hanging around an area of their tanks that had been previously drugged with cocaine, while unaltered fish hung around waiting for their next high. The thing is, the behavior patterns of fish are hardly complex enough to decide what other aspects of their behavior might have been altered by this change. Dopamine receptors are heavily involved in the reward pathways, and as such, who knows what kind of positive habit forming abilities might be impaired in the process?
This is to say nothing of the dangers inherent in labeling particular genetic makeups as in need of repair. Where do we draw the line between what constitutes a disease, what might make decision making a little harder for someone, and what would make someone more amiable? Sounds a little too much like Brave New World for me.
April 22, 2003, 9:52 pmNeo:
I have deleted two comments to this post — I’m really against censorship, and didn’t want to do it, but the posts were more emotional than logical. Maybe I’m biased because I kind of know Nopal, but his was the only comment that was at least civil. Nobody seemed to comprehend that this post was just a commentary on a very thought-provoking documentary which contained input from many people who are qualified to make the statements I’m making, and they made them (with regards to addictive behaviors). I expected it to hit some nerves because this is a sensitive subject (and in fact that is why I posted it) but if we can’t keep it civil I will turn off comments for now or start banning IPs. People, remember — I’m not making any statements that aren’t backed up by information in the show I was commenting on. The post was about my thoughts after a show I watched — if you read the article linked, you’ll see I’m not just making the stuff I’m saying up. Your beef is more with the experts making the statements to begin with than me, and they have a message board set up at the ABC news site — go post there (and read some comments while you’re there — I’m not the only one who found the documentary fascinating). Just because what they say backs up what have said, and what I have said matches with what they say, doesn’t make their statements wrong, no matter how big an idiot I may be. ;)
Please, keep the non-constructive comments to e-mail. You can be as insulting as you like there.
April 22, 2003, 11:22 pm