follow-up

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Pirkko, reviewing your email question:
   PH in Finland:  I would like to up-date my understanding on dependency & addiction 
problems. What readings would you recommend?
   Could I find some articles in internet?      My main interest is theoretical.

AB: Hi Pirkko, although there is tons of research that you could access, perhaps using an 
internet search engine,  I dared to take the question and allow myself to think about it. 
What came out was the following:

 There are scores of theories of addiction. Here are some of my own:

      1. Most people are vulnerable because of a fundamental alienation and a desire to 
escape conventional reality. Many things can contribute this, but I think we should 
imagine it as an aggregate experience, with a certain threshold. Each variable might be 
mild or moderate, but when their aggregate reaches a certain point, the escapist feeling 
becomes a strong motivation in itself.
     -- the subcultural tone---do friends think it's okay, and share in the enjoyment?
     -- the level of being part of a group versus being a loner
     -- having something else to do-- a job, family,
            having those as enjoyable or not
    -- having any sense of life purpose
    -- having any strong or guiding religious or spiritual belief
    -- some slight genetic predisposition, perhaps
    -- having feelings of guilt, shame, fear, or other feelings from which one wishes to 
escape (e.g., PTSD)
          (i.e., drugs/alcohol as self-medication for numbness)
    -- having contexts for drug/alcohol use that add to the pleasure... when I'm 
drunk/high, I do x  and that's even more fun
    -- modeling, having had admired people (e.g., a parent) who indulged
   -- accessibility, newness of substance,  being modern, fashionable.
           alcoholism very prevalent and severe in the century after distilling spirits as 
a technology became widespread
   -- cheapness of the source of the high
   -- boredom, are there other things to do, as inexpensively?
   -- dulled by work and other life experiences (and many people feel that way, not 
knowing how to access true vitality and aliveness without intoxicating substance), the 
drug or alcohol at least for a while feels more "alive" and sometimes people not only feel 
numb, but the opposite, more alive, vibrant, excited by life, interested, insightful (even 
if this is illusory and little of it is remembered)
             reinforced if this temporary adjusted state does result in freer performance, 
etc.
    -- 
    -- etc. Might do a sociodrama for this, get others' inputs.

Problem is that papers tend to be scientific to please editors who think that scientific 
is more respectable, prestigious, than case-study approach. Nomothetic versus 
ideographic -- statistical versus case-study--- this issue of what kind of research is 
more appropriate for non-trivial questions in psychology--- this clouds the issue, because 
science can't really assess well any situation in which there may be scores of variables. 
So the problem of saying something obvious: That there isn't one cause, can't get 
published. But it's so obviously true, and why shouldn't it be?

On my website I have a paper about 
http://www.blatner.com/adam/psyntbk/aggregatexperiences.html   that seems to apply here, 
now that you've raised the issue.

What do you think?   Warmly, Adam