I’m love Diet Coke. I rarely go past noon without having had a 32 oz. cup (albeit filled 2/3 with ice first) of that most refreshing of all beverages. My first Diet Coke of the day puts a smile on my face just thinking about it. My 23andme test even said that I am likely to consume more caffeine than average. Am I addicted?
This weekend I went to see Adam Conover who (ironically, since we were in a bar) spent most of his set talking about why he quit drinking. He told a story about his fifteen-year history of having a few drinks most nights, and he added a watershed event that made him decide to quit. Among other things, he discovered that while he was drinking because it was “fun” and he “liked the taste,” it really wasn’t fun–it was boring and commonplace–and he was drinking to get the effect, not actually tasting any of it. He even disputed the idea that you can taste the difference between most alcoholic drinks.
He compared drinking to the effects parasites have on different animals in nature, taking over their body and causing them to do behaviors that benefit the parasite. The idea of parasites has long been one of my favorite Star Trek themes, so my ears pricked right up. He likened both drinking and advertising to a parasite that takes over your free will and causes you to act in ways that benefit the parasite but harm you. You defend your actions as if they are your own free will and choices, but the reality is that you are just defending what the parasite wants.
He also explained that the way we talk about addiction that isn’t quite right. We say that some people are “addicts,” which is a sad disease, but other people are “moderate” and they are fine. He clarified that all potential addictions are on a continuum. Some people go over the line and need professional help and to cut themselves off completely, but others are less affected by the specific thing. Even in psychology, the line between normal behavior and addiction is hard to pin down, in large part because of these rationalizations and justifications for our behavior. We say we are seeking pleasure, but we are really seeking to relieve the negative effects of withdrawal or of not doing the thing. Because addictive behavior starts as a normal behavior but eventually turns into one in which relief from the pain of not doing it is what we are seeking rather than actual pleasure, it’s easy for people to claim their original pleasure-seeking reasons and to deny that they are doing something to relieve symptoms of withdrawal.
At a recent doctor visit, the physician went down the standard list of behaviors and habits with me.
“How many drinks do you have a week?”
“Zero.”
“Smoker?”
“Nope.”
“Any recreational drugs?”
“Nada.”
The doctor laughed and said, “Don’t you have any fun?”
He clearly saw the link between pleasure-seeking and potentially addictive behaviors. I immediately thought of the one addiction most Mormons I know have (if it’s really an addiction): overeating in general and sugar in specific. I have often thought that because we outlaw more common types of pleasure-seeking, church members have to pursue their pleasure by other means. Emotional eating can certainly be an addiction (probably not mine, though, as I tend to lose my appetite when I am emotional).
Within the Church, another commonplace behavior is often referred to as an addiction: pornography-viewing. It was even featured in a really cringe-worthy video shown to BYU students about helping a “fallen comrade” who was going into his room and watching porn. Can people become addicted to porn? Potentially, but only when it gets to the point of no longer being pleasure-seeking and instead to relieve the dependency one has on it. Given that definition, I can think of one way to tell the difference, but it seems like it’s going to rule out most porn use as an addiction.
One study I’ve read showed that people who smoke more cigarettes have a higher tolerance for nicotine. In other words, they have to smoke more to get the same effect. This is likely why my DNA result shows that I drink more caffeine. I know, for example, that I can usually drink a Diet Coke right before bed and still sleep. Other people are more affected by caffeine and therefore may drink less of it to get the same effect. These types of traits tend to be common in families, hereditary tendencies passed on through genetics. As a result, though, the amount of caffeine or alcohol or nicotine that would be addictive to one person would not be to another. One person is still getting pleasure, while the other person is going too far, seeking relief from their addiction.
Some people refer to themselves as having an “addictive personality” or being prone to addiction in general, regardless of the thing to which they are addicted. They claim that they are “all in” on pursuing things: relationships, drinking, whatever, and therefore more prone to be addicted to things they engage in. Perhaps, but this would likely only be the case if they are very disconnected from reality as they pursue these things (which is a feature of addiction anyway). Those who disagree with the theory of “addictive personalities” observe that those who claim to have them also have higher levels of exposure to addictive substances and are therefore more likely to develop multiple dependencies.
But can everything pleasurable potentially be an addiction? Years ago, I was in a leadership training when one of the trainers suggested I needed to go six months without reading a book. I was taken aback. Why would I not want to learn as much as I can in my limited time on earth? He said, “You talk about books the way other people talk about football.” Do I read to relieve the lack of mental stimulation or for the pleasure of learning and ideas? Would my time be better spent watching football (which is totally not my jam)? Or am I finding pleasure in reading and therefore it’s a worthwhile pursuit? Would I be able to tell the difference if I was addicted to it?
Features of addiction include a dependency or inability to quit without professional help (according to professionals, natch) as well as harmful side effects. Addicts claim they can quit any time they choose and that the effects are pleasurable and not harmful. That doesn’t make it true, whether they say it to themselves or to others. But under that definition, a whole lot of things that start as something good can become an addiction.
Have you ever heard someone claim in testimony meeting that they know they’d be dead if it weren’t for the Church because they are the sort of person who would become addicted to something and die? Often they will say that this is because they have a relative who was an alcoholic. First of all, no, you don’t and can’t know any such thing. I have to think that there’s a reason you got where you are, with or without the Church’s influence. But secondly, maybe some folks are addicted to the Church in the same way they could have been addicted to drugs or alcohol, acting to relieve negative side effects like guilt rather than to find peace and fulfillment. I’ve certainly met a few people at Church who are pretty zealous and yet don’t seem to be enjoying themselves a whole lot as a result of their involvement. Presumably that’s not how they started out.
You can theoretically tell something is an addiction if you are dependent on it and it has harmful side effects to you. It can be hard to tell when the pleasure you originally sought had sufficiently diminished returns to no longer qualify as pleasure, though, since addicts fool themselves into thinking their behavior is normal or moderate or beneficial. Besides which all behaviors have positive and negative side effects. Very few are purely positive or negative.
- Do you think the term “addiction” is overused or underused?
- If one is genetically predisposed toward an “addiction” or higher use, are they equally accountable or not?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Addiction language is definitely overused, especially in the Church. The idea of “porn addiction” has caused more problems than it has solved. Certain addictive behaviors, like substance abuse, have associated psychopathology and are best treated as medical problems, not criminal problems.
As for accountability, it’s case by case. There are instances of people trying to evade or mitigate accountability for criminal behavior by blaming an addiction (e.g. the Twinkie defense), and I’m generally not ok with that.
There is a substantial body of literature on the topic, starting with Don’t Call it Love by Patrick Carnes based on a his study of 1000 people who had successfully done 12 Step Recovery. It was not a therapist going to patients with a theory about what they should do, but one who had had his own issues striving to understand what they they had done, and why they had done it. I’ve done it myself, and can tell the difference. I’ve been involved with LDS Addiction Recovery for many years, and other 12 step groups for years before that. I have seen addiction’s effects in many lives and I have seen recovery’s effects in many lives. It’s not just abstract musing.
From an essay of mine at Square Two:
In all addictions, whether chemical or behavioral, the damage involves the enlargement of the dopamine receptors in the mid-brain, which produces increased craving, and a corresponding shrinking of the areas of the cerebral cortex associated with weighing risks and benefits in any action. Bluntly speaking, addiction involves actual brain damage. That damage affects cravings and the capacity to weigh consequences in a way that Alcoholics Anonymous pioneers accurately labeled as “cunning, baffling, and powerful.” Pelting the symptoms of that damage with disapproval or indulgence, excommunication or enabling, shaming or celebration does nothing to address the fact of the damage. All addiction involves the presence of a physiological basis for the combination of craving and impeded judgment. Readers of the narratives in our Mormon Rashomon should ask, “Do any of the key figures display powerful cravings? Do any of the figures display impaired judgment regarding the risks and benefits of their choices in regard to those cravings?”
One potent argument against describing sexual behavior as addiction has always been that drug addiction involves putting foreign substances into the body whereas sexuality is natural. This overlooks the importance of naturally occurring chemicals in the brain, such as the endorphins, (which are natural opiates chemically resembling heroin and morphine), serotonin, and dopamine. Donald Hilton explains:
In the brainstem, a chemical called dopamine is produced in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), which has been found to be important in the brain’s pleasure and reward system. When activated by a pleasurable stimulus, the VTA causes dopamine to be released in an area of the thalamus called the nucleus accumbens. Other chemicals such as the brain’s natural opioids, the endorphins, also stimulate the nucleus accumbens. It may be that dopamine is more important in wanting pleasure, whereas the endorphins are more important in liking pleasure. These pathways are important because without them we would not value appropriate pleasures. An area of the cerebral cortex called the frontal lobe helps control the amount and context of the pleasure. It also helps us weigh the benefits and risks of a pleasurable stimulus. For instance, uncontrolled eating may be pleasurable, but it is unhealthy. Unrestrained sexuality may be pleasurable, but it destroys relationships and spiritual power and insight. It is the frontal lobe that tells us to judge these risks and benefits.
When we overuse pleasure centers, the cells that produce dopamine are overworked, and in what may be a defensive reaction, the brain decreases the amount of dopamine available for use and also causes shrinkage in the cells that produce the dopamine and in the frontal control areas. Paradoxically, the pleasure cells in the nucleus accumbens may actually enlarge in the addicted state because they have less dopamine available for pleasure and are seeking to extract every possible molecule. These physical changes in the brain have been called long-term potentiation and long-term depression. Thus, in addiction, normal pleasures are not enough to alleviate the craving for dopamine, and this craving in the newly reset pleasure thermostat in the brain is likely key in the desire to relapse. The shrinkage in the frontal control areas also contributes to the compulsivity and impulsivity seen in addiction. Interestingly, as neurosurgeons, we see these same characteristics in frontal lobe shrinkage from traumatic brain injury, and this has been recognized by addiction scientists. Sexual addiction obviously involves other neurotransmitters, two of which may be oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin is important in bonding and increases trust in humans, and vasopressin may be important in sexual bonding, particularly in males. [42]
So sex addiction not only involves behavior but potent drugs that the addict carries in their own body. In Hope and Freedom for Sex Addicts and their Partners, Dr. Milton Magness reports that crack cocaine addicts have consistently reported that recovery from sex addiction is much harder to manage than recovery from drug addiction. [43] I recently heard the lament of a man who had managed a year of sobriety from his alcohol and narcotics addictions, but couldn’t manage a week of sobriety from sex. The addictive behavior–in whatever form–is not an end in itself but a means to access that internal drug supply.
[T]he sexual high comes from the neurochemical release that is found in the compulsive sexual behavior. Even if the addict finds a partner whose appetites are similar to his own, continued sex with the same person over a period of time results in more normalized neurochemical levels. What some call the ‘adrenaline rush’ or more accurately an increased level of dopamine, cortizol, norepinephrine, and other neurotransmitters diminishes. The lower level of chemical reinforcement does not satisfy the addiction.” [44]
So the addict eventually goes elsewhere to satisfy the addiction. For this reason, marriage is not a cure for sex addiction in either heterosexuals or homosexuals. [45] Steven’s disclosure, for example, came in a period of what Carnes describes as “de-escalation,” when he is not binging, but is still guarding the secret world:
The addict makes every effort to make life manageable and to live an honorable life. …there is a rapid de-escalation to safe or acceptable behavior…They continue to guard their secret world, either to hide their obsession (which convinces them they are not curable) or to keep intact the web of lies they wove during the time they were acting out. Thus de-escalation is not recovery. Honesty with oneself and others, self-acceptance that includes one’s illness, and support for change by people who know the addiction’s power to delude are prime determinants for recovery. [46]
In addiction the brain is tricked into treating the object of addiction as equivalent to survival. [47] Subsequent cravings and impeded judgments reflect that distortion of values. Something that should be optional or, worse, taboo and/or dangerous, feels necessary. The distortion of values leads to impaired choices, aptly described in recovery literature and experience as “bargains with chaos.” Addiction in this model is not a moral issue to be addressed by either shaming or punitive approaches directed at symptoms. It is not a matter of a “true self” to be nurtured by an enabling society that strives to protect people from the consequences of their impaired choices. Compulsive acting out accompanied by impaired judgment is a symptom of addiction, not the disease itself. I see aversion/reparative therapy as an attempt to re-direct the symptoms while failing to recognize and treat the actual damage.
And addiction is a progressive disease. A person may begin with subtle cravings and slightly impaired judgment. Such things do not go away with neglect or shaming or imprisonment or suppressing or social disapproval or legalization and enabling. To do comparisons and say, “I’m not as nearly as bad as some other addict” can be a way of saying, “I am only slightly brain damaged so far, and my consequences aren’t bad yet.” To do comparisons and say, “My modes of acting out are more socially acceptable than some conveniently extreme example,” also serves addiction. Periods of de-escalation are not the same thing as recovery. [48] It can get much worse.
http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html
Also recommended viewing, the DVD Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction. When I showed it to a group of skeptical addicts at a 12 Step meeting, they began with skepticism, but ended fighting over who got to take it home to show their wives.
For all the anxiety about misdisagnosis (something easily handled by actually reading the relevant material), I would love to see an equal anxiety about the consequences of a failure to diagnose and treat something that can be successfully healed.
FWIW,
Kevin Christensen
Canonsburg, PA
^ What he said. Brilliant. I don’t understand the 4 downvotes on Kevin’s response. Teaching the brain to form its own rewards is probably a long road to travel.
If you are a sex or drug addict and I choose to distance myself for reasons of safety (for instance) that is not “punishment” but prudence. I don’t have much problem with reasonable accommodation as it applies to the Americans with Disabilities Act; some of those accommodations benefit me, as well. But some accommodations do not seem reasonable.
I can’t believe the down-votes for Kevin’s comments either. What in the world are they down-voting? Addiction is pretty complicated and truly understanding it has got to be important to overcoming it.
Not too long ago, I listened to the book “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction” by Gabor Mate, M.D., a doctor who spent his career working with drug addicts in Canada, and it was his belief that most, if not all, addiction is developed as a person is unconsciously trying to alleviate pain (caused by previous trauma), rather than a simple pursuit of pleasure that ran amok. A lot of people use drugs who never become addicts. His belief is that those who do become addicts have experienced trauma in the past that has modified their brain chemistry such that there’s become an underlying pain that is temporary relieved by behavior that to others would just be pleasure seeking. He also didn’t seem to think that addiction to drugs or gambling or pornography or, in his personal case, the purchase of classical music (it’s a long story, and you may laugh, but he shared it to demonstrate how it was a real problem), were all that different from each other. It’s been a while since I listened to the book, and I have a terrible memory, but I found his explanations of the ins-and-outs of addiction to be compelling.
On a different note, I found it a little startling how impassioned the rhetoric has been with regards to addiction and pornography. I know some people define addiction as being whether or not the body dies (or goes through physical withdrawal) if a foreign substance is withheld, and so they’re adamant there’s not such thing as pornography addiction. On the other hand, most people seem to consider compulsive behavior that interferes with normal life that a person finds very difficult to shake to be addiction. The consequences of this compulsive behavior can be severe, if not physical, so I’m not sure why some feel it so important to discount it.
Martin wonders “The consequences of this compulsive behavior can be severe, if not physical, so I’m not sure why some feel it so important to discount it.”
Among other possibilities it has legal implications. Where a thing is physical it can activate Fair Housing and ADA requirements, non-discrimination rules. But if it is a mere behavioral choice, these requirements do not exist and you can exercise your choice in response to someone else’s choice.
Argumentum ad absurdum; in other words, take the argument to the extreme, and you get where no one is responsible for anything since ultimately it is chemicals, neurotransmitters, that decide *everything* a person does moment by moment. But these synapses can be trained to do some things and not do other things; and that is where choice becomes relevant, and my behavior should be unconstrained except where it intersects with your behavior and then some compromises will have to be made.
A real world example is the dramatic increase in ESA’s, Emotional Support Animals, and their imposition on society; such as a person that demanded to take her miniature HORSE on an airplane, Southwest Airlines if I remember right. It created a disturbance in the force. https://www.businessinsider.com/southwest-airlines-allows-mini-horses-in-service-animal-policy-update-2018-8
“Southwest has now formally said that it won’t allow insects, spiders, rabbits, ferrets, or rodents to travel with passengers.”
“In January, United Airlines rejected a woman’s effort to bring a peacock on a flight as her emotional support bird. Delta airlines changed its policy in January after what they said was an 84% increase in reported incidents with animals like biting and urinating since 2016.”
To me this is simply incredible that any animal would be permitted at all for any reason.
ALL pets are ESA’s, that is the function of a pet. A person that cannot go two hours without a pet has a problem.
I’m going to try and point the comments in a more productive direction, as this post and this topic are certainly relevant to current LDS discourse. I’m just going to throw out some quick points that sharpen some of the items raised in the post.
1. There’s a narrow medical definition of addiction that doctors use, a broader and rather flexible definition that therapists and counselors use, and an ad hoc definition that varies from discussion to discussion that is used in LDS discourse that sometimes bears little or no relation to the other two definitions. It’s not clear most LDS commentators who use the term really know what they are talking about.
2. The couples called to run the LDS 12 step program generally have no professional training related to addiction and often no personal experience either. It’s not clear these counselors really know what they are doing, despite good intentions and despite helping some who participate simply by being good supportive listeners.
3. It is probably a good thing that behaviors which were previously categorized as sin, pure and simple, in LDS discourse are now often deemed addictive. It’s not clear that bishops know what to do with addiction scenarios, but at least they are more likely to think that someone, somewhere can help a member with an addiction problem as opposed to simply denouncing sinful behavior and applying LDS discipline.
4. On the positive side, it is a little surprising that LDS leadership has embraced professional therapists and counselors, in LDS Social Services, and has embraced the 12 step program approach, with the LDS-sponsored version thereof at the local level. So often the leadership won’t acknowledge any professional or secular expertise when it comes to areas that speak to LDS doctrine and practice. So leadership does deserve some credit for building up some helpful resources under the official LDS umbrella that bishops can refer people to.
Honestly, I don’t understand the down votes on Kevin’s comment either. It’s very helpful and interesting.
Having said that, I think there’s a lot of “addiction fatigue” among progressive Mormons, particularly as relates to behaviors that may not have progressed to addiction. Is every time someone looks at pornography having an addiction? No. Is every time someone has a few drinks alcoholism? No.
Interesting comments. For the record, I, too, find Kevin’s comments illuminating, though I don’t think the case he makes is airtight. Thank you, Kevin, for your wisdom and insight, though. Very helpful.
When it comes to “addiction”, it’s clear to me exactly what Dave B suggests in his first point. Mormons throw the word around as a kind of catch-all for any kind of behavior (compulsive or not) that doesn’t exactly fit expected Mormon norms. Are you “addicted” to porn if you view it once or twice a month and it doesn’t interfere with your professional or personal life? Are you “addicted” to food because you’re hungry a lot of the time and you have trouble controlling your cravings? Are you “addicted” to sex if your partner has a lower sex drive than you and you pleasure yourself occasionally? I don’t think any therapist would use the word “addiction” in any of these cases, but Mormons sure would. In some sense, the use of “addiction” is a way to shame or explain away behavior that is too complex or seemingly deviant to understand. It’s also a way to allow one’s self to feel superior to “those” addicts.
Also to Dave B’s second point, I’m absolutely stunned that we have people running so-called addiction recovery programs who are not professionally licensed and qualified. That’s an extraordinarily unethical practice and a terrible idea generally. IMHO, so much more harm than good could come out of that. I think there’s a kind of Mormon mistrust of “the world” going on there, perhaps as well. But it’s just astounding that someone would choose to work with folks with no professional training or background.
I agree with Dave B’s other points, too, but to me, it’s still a case of either too little, too late or a case of still not having any kind of trained clergy who can really help people with substantive issues.
I appreciate the mention of sugar and overeating addiction, as I inherited those growing up in the church. Those, plus an addition to video games were all pretty much acceptable in my Salt Lake valley community. It’s only within the last few years that I realized these are activities I do out of compulsion and dependence, not pleasure. Living in California, I get some laughs when I mention these as stereotypically Mormon addictions, but I think they’re worth treating seriously. Thanks for shining light on the topic, hawkgrrrl!
Fwiw, I didn’t downvote Kevin’s comment but I didn’t read it either because it’s loooong and looked copied/pasted. Maybe that’s why it’s getting downvoted.
There is a fuzzy line between “bad habits” and “addictions.” Whichever term you use or however you conceptualize it, if a behavior is impacting your ability to function, it should be addressed. If you are drinking on the job and experiencing impaired performance as a result, it should be addressed. If you are viewing pornography so frequently that you neglect job and family, it should be addressed. (I’m setting aside spiritual ramifications of both types of behaviors for now). I would also suspect that those who are most compulsive in their use of whatever it may be are using these substances and behaviors as a coping mechanism (an unhealthy one to be sure). Does the term “addiction” help us address these issues or not? If yes, then let’s keep using it. If not, maybe we should jettison the term altogether. (I don’t have the answer by the way…just throwing out the question).
I down voted Kevin’s comment. I broke to rules I have set for my self when I did so. I generally don’t down vote without reading the whole comment, and I try to avoid down voting purely for disagreeing with someone. Both of those were not provide true when I downvoted.
I went back and read the whole comment. I still don’t like it, but shouldn’t have down voted accurate to my own rules. I’m not willing to undo my vote by turning it into an upvote.
There have been several podcasts on this topic, including a very recent Mormon Stories episode with John Dehlin and Natasha Helfer Parker. Perhaps some of Kevin’s down votes are from their followers, like me.
I don’t have the time or expertise to read the scientific papers myself, so I have to make judgements from other people’s reading. Here are some of my third hand observations:
– the LDS addiction recovery program, as mentioned above, is run by amateurs with no professional training
– anecdotally, the LDS addiction recovery often treats very normal behaviors as serious addiction issues.
– the literature that compares sexual response and addictions to drugs like opiates may not be scientifically rigorous. For example, does it also compare other normal pleasurable activities? I believe according to Natasha Helfer Parker, it does not. I don’t think that these comparisons have much traction on the scientific community
– the treatment of normal behaviors as a serious addiction is harmful, and can cause a shame cycle that actually decreases a person’s ability to control their behavior.
Now I don’t want to claim that sex addiction or porn addiction do not exist or shouldn’t be treated seriously. But I am inclined to believe that the LDS addiction recovery program is overused, and can actually cause harm. In the LDS context, I think people are inclined to describe perfectly normal behaviors as addictions.
The professional people organizing the LDS addiction recovery program do have professional training, in social work and psychology, as appropriate. And in selecting people to participate locally, they make an effort to get people with experience in recovery, targeting people who have either been addicts, or who have had family members affected. And they do appropriate training before turning people loose. I got called because my stake and ward leaders saw that I had read and experienced a lot that they did not know or understand, and so rather than pretend my experience and reading did not exist, they started to see me and people like me as a valuable resource. So they asked me to first train the bishops in the stake. Then I got called to ARP and they started using me for training as well. We’re not supposed to replace therapists and professional literature or other treatment. We provide support, personal experience, guidance, and accountability. My wife and I have gone from Stake callings to regional callings, providing support and training for Bishops and Stake presidents. A big part of any addiction is shame, the feeling that “if people knew me for who I really am, they would reject me.” This is not an unjustified fear. But a properly run recovery group helps people release that toxic shame, by getting to know people who do not reject you, and who can model the path to healing. We’re not at a moral remove saying, “This is what you need to do.” We say, “We’ve been there too, and this is what we have done to change and heal and it works.” In Healing the Shame that Binds You, John Bradshaw distinguishes between toxic shame (“I am defective, I am a mistake”) and healthy shame (“I am human, prone to make mistakes, and therefore, I need boundaries.”) It also makes a difference in who we decide is best place to set important boundaries. The issue does come up in the temple, if we pay attention.
And I have learned over the decades that while not all local leaders have equally apt backgrounds, training, expertise and insight, that is also true of therapists and authors. I recall a confident counselor in California, with prestigious plaques displayed, his beard perfect, and his leather elbow patches completing his authoritative and wise appearance, saying, “If you don’t want a fat wife, get a skinny one.” I never went back. I remember reading a couples therapy book which said of sexuality, “Wants are needs.” Soothing at the time, but ultimately, I found, not helpful. I remember a New Age Earth Mother type going over the MMPI results with us, treating my results as simply a fairly extreme point along a bell curve in which I just happened naturally to fall. I could have easily been diagnosed then, based on the information at hand, but was not. And personally, when one of my close friends started telling me that he was going to a 12 step group, I talked him out of it because “sexuality is natural, not like foreign substance injected into the body.” That was dead wrong I later learned, and that made an amends situation that took a me long long time to resolve. And later, even after I had read some Carnes and Marsha Means and Barbara Steffans, and Milton Magness, and finally saw my own addiction for what it was and started working recovery, I remember a LDS PhD. in psychology telling my wife, “Twelve step groups are for people with worse problems than your husband.” That limited my progress for a while. But after a mistake, I started going to 12 step groups, and found that they can make a difference in providing accountability, setting boundaries, focusing the mind, reducing shame, and providing motivation to lift and help one another as part of a community. At this point, I don’t have to measure things just by how they affect my personal desires, but how my life has intersected and touched and affected many others. It’s not just my life, or my marriage, but also my family, even the existence of my granddaughters who would not otherwise be hear, and several other marriages helped because of my participation in the groups and programs, and children born to secure families, rather than unborn or to broken families. As Clarence puts it to George Bailey, “Each life touches to many others…” Or as the Ancient One puts it to Doctor Strange, “You have failed to see this one truth… It’s not all about you.” That is the whole point of the law of sacrifice, an acknowledgement that it is not all about what we want for ourselves but that we live in a society of intelligences.
Given that the Book of Mormon contains the 12 Steps of Addiction Recovery (see Colleen Harrison, He Did Deliver Me from Bondage), and that basically, it is how we all ought to do repentance (the word repent actually means “to turn your mind,” which has important implications in this context), I think that paying attention and using the steps is a very good idea. The difference between Alma seeing an angel and repenting and Laman and Laman seeing an angel and not repenting cannot be the angel. The difference is that Alma does his personal searching and fearless personal inventory (his life review, his fourth step), and Laman and Lemuel rationalize their own behavior based on their personal fears and grievances and resentments. So pay attention to whether people prop up behavior based on a searching and fearless personal inventory (removing the beam from their own eyes that they might see clearly), or whether they just provide grievance stories, that is, complain about Nephi being young, obnoxious, unqualified, Jerusalem being righteous, and all the pleasures and company to be had there that should be could be enjoyed, as opposed to the unreasonable hardship of following Lehi off into the desert, having to thereby sacrifice pleasures that could other wise have been enjoyed, and about Laban being able command fifty, yea, he can slay fifty. Recovery, in obvious contrast, involves dismantling grievance stories, which is what removing the beams from our own eyes is all about.
If a person is concerned about misdiagnosis, read some of the serious literature, and do a personal inventory, rather than just deflect via skeptical anecdote. That is, check your own eye for beams first. For men, I point to Carnes, say “Out of the Shadows” or Milton Magness (“Hope and Freedom for Sexual Addicts and their Parters”), and for wives I point to “Your Sexually Addicted Spouse” by Marsha Means and Barbara Steffans. This last offers a trauma model, rather than the codependent model that is used by Al Anon. The overt symptoms are similar, but the underlying causes are different, so treatment is different. Codependents seek control. The traumatized seek safety. Means and Steffans describe the path to safety.
And there is the Serenity Prayer: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” I’ve used the same principles to loose and keep off 27 pounds. That did not involve sin, just changes to my body with age that meant I could no longer indulge without consequences. I could have decided, “This is just the way I am.” But when when I looked at myself honestly, I could see that there were things I could, and should change.
These have been some great discussions. Thanks Kevin for bringing some science to the table, although I still think there is a big difference in the effects on the brain between introduced substances and naturally occurring neurochemicals, of which anything pleasurable we do will release, be that eating, sex, exercise, or looking at puppies. If a couple enjoys intimacy and has sex every day is that problematic for all that dopamine released? I highly doubt it. What about a young single male who likes to masturbate regularly or uses porn on a regular basis? I’m not talking about personal moral values that might make that behavior undesirable for an individual but just the effects on the brain. Does regular masturbation (with or without porn consumption) result in reprogramming of receptors in the brain? What about other pleasurable activities that are more acceptable within church standards?
I have no problem trying to better understand unwanted compulsive behavior or using addictive language to describe some of that behavior, but I still feel that comparing things like pornography consumption to illicit drug use is misguided as well as the “porn is the new drug” campaign.
“I still feel that comparing things like pornography consumption to illicit drug use is misguided”
I hear you! I too am never wrong about the things I like to do. Convincing others how right I am is not always successful.
The problem (in this context) is the body’s response to excessive levels of neurotransmitters; it slows production of its own natural neurogransmitters and/or reduces sensitivity to these chemicals. Furthermore, the intended purpose of these pleasure responses is defeated, possible with little or no consequence but if these things are natural then they have natural purposes. When Nephi said “man is that he might have joy” I think he wasn’t talking to the hand.
If this adjustment in production is sustained, especially during adolescence, the adjustment could become permanent at which point the person requires artificial doses for the rest of her life just to maintain adequate levels of neurotransmitters. Things that would make you or I naturally happy do not have that effect on such a person.
I commend Kevin for his commentary on shame. It is one of the most powerful tools in the adversary’s tookit because it is self-sustaining; once you feel ashamed about something, you keep it a secret, and by so doing, ensure that you are never far distant from that shame.
Not only that but a lifetime of shame becomes comfortable; it becomes scary to let go the shame and try something. It takes courage because some, maybe many people will contribute to your continued shame; if you are fat or have other visible departures from normal this becomes a target of Other People’s Opinions.
Attempts to reduce shame by calling a thing “normal” doesn’t really work since that is a different axis. One axis is right versus wrong (morality), the other axis is frequency. So you are telling me that my wrong behavior is common (normal). That’s nice and also well known; doesn’t make a wrong thing right, assuming of course that my sense of right and wrong is correct, which it may not be.
I’ve mentioned here in the past about a roommate I had in the Navy that thought he had committed the unpardonable sin by having sex with his wife. He’d gotten married and tried to remain celibate, lasted a whole week before yielding to temptation. In this case, explaining that his behavior was “natural” or “common” wasn’t helpful. He needed an Authority that he respected to know and judge. I persuaded him to go see my bishop to get it sorted out. I had the same knowledge but not the same authority.
In one sense the story is amusing, but in another it is tragic. People kill themselves over this sort of thing and perhaps worse, thinking they are unredeemable then embark on courses of action that really come close to making it so.
My thoughts on pornography are not aligned with what seems to be church alignment. I was surrounded by in during my Navy career and it is a vast realm from exceptionally high quality, virtuous and praiseworthy stuff from Playboy in the 1970’s to some pretty bad stuff that should not even be described. My own perhaps excessive avoidance of temptation resulted in greatly delayed marriage and family starting, and that for lack of authoritative counsel. Opinions exist in vast numbers, trustworthy opinions are rare.
I liked the but about diet Coke, and I can really relate. A few years ago I was drinking a lot of that nectar of the gods. Typically, a 32 oz on the way to work, 2-3 cans before lunch, a 32 oz and a free refill at lunch, and I would keep going like that.
On Sundays, when I wouldn’t get my large drinks and refills, I started getting headaches as withdrawal symptoms. I solved that with ibuprofen. But when I started getting bad heart burn I decided to switch to caffeine free, because caffeine can cause heart burn. Not long after that I had a kidney stone and switched to water.
I now drink a moderate amount of diet Coke. One could say I had the symptoms of addiction. Withdrawal symptoms, refusal to quit, health ramifications, I could probably think of more. But when the came came that I saw consequences, I was able to quit without too much trouble. So I would say it wasn’t an addiction for me, in this case.
Title of post: Are you an addict? Yes, I’m probably borderline addicted to exercise. I started running to lose weight and it’s gradually turned into marathon races and longer races, to the point of requiring two hours every weekday and 4 hours every Saturday. My daughter who is studying medicine said I need to be careful about developing body dysmorphia and eating disorders. When I miss a day of exercise I feel guilty.
On a related topic, and which I haven’t seen much about in this post, is the “addiction” to mobile phones. I’ve heard it speculated that the physical act of swiping produces some sort of connection between the swipe motion (up / down with Instagram for example) and the pleasure centers of the brain. I have no idea if it’s true but I find it plausible and possibly worrisome since we may be unknowingly introducing small children to habit forming activities. I personally know a dozen young people who’d rather play on their phone than engage with real people doing genuinely fun things.
I suspect that our clinical definition and understanding of addiction will continue evolving in the near future.
Kevin,
Reading and some experience do not a therapist make. Sure, someone like that might have knowledge of some tools, maybe even some training, and might even be a good communicator, but how those compare to a licensed therapist with 2-3 years of coursework, the two 6-9 month internships/residencies, plus the post-Masters requirement of 2000 supervised hours (varies by state), and the exam. Please.
Your silly anecdotes notwithstanding, let’s not pretend that someone reading and talking about these topics has anywhere near the equivalent skills of a licensed therapist. It’s nonsense. You might as well have someone go talk to a “life coach”.
Please stop propagating this kind of nonsense.
Toad, I suspect you’re right on the money. There’s a new podcast you might like called “Your Undivided Attention”, put together by former tech employees who regret building some of the software that has addicted populations of people, including kids. First episode titled “What Happened in Vegas” really shocked me and woke me up to the fact that we basically have slot machines inside our pockets… How could our children _not_ get addicted? The power dynamics are stacked against them: one child versus teams of advanced software engineers intent on increasing “engagement.” Go figure–of course kids are on their phones.
Pass the Chips.
If I claimed to be the equivalent of a trained therapist, your comments directed my way might have a point. However, I’m just a service missionary with a different role, and those who asked me to act in this role are trained therapists. They seem to think my readings and 16 years of recovery experience have some value. And the formal opening statements for all 12 Step groups (not just LDS, but including LDS) contain explicit reminders that we are not there to provide therapy, and we typically encourage one another to seek applicable professional help. I found Milton Magness to be very helpful.
Another set of points worth mentioning in considering the notion of sex addiction as a legitimate concern. Patrick Carnes looks at sex addiction from the perspective of courtship gone awry. (Facing the Shadow, 66-67). He cites the 12 components of courtship as 1- Noticing, 2- Attraction, 3-Flirtation, 4- Demonstration, 5- Romance, 6- Individuation, 7-Intimacy, 8-Touching, 9-Foreplay, 10-Intecourse, 11-Committment, 12- Renewal. Problems arise when people have issues or get stuck at particular points. He makes a case that different compulsive behaviors correspond to getting stuck at different points of what should be a path to deepened intimacy. (How far along the path get masturbation get a person?) So it’s an intimacy disorder. So healing involves opening a path to true intimacy rather than applying temporary medication to stress or loneliness.
In The Recovery Zone: v 1, Carnes also highlights the difference between Flow and Addiction:
Task completion vs. Addiction objective
Focus vs. Obsession
Clear goals vs. Immediate purpose
Feedback vs, Reality distortion
Remove worries vs Anxiety reduction
Sense of control vs. False empowerment
Stronger self-connection vs. Disintegration of self/relationships
Duration of time vs. Timeless
Meaning vs. Anomie (meaninglessness)
All of this makes for real differences in the quality of life.
Kevin, the concept of “sex addiction” is controversial, as is Carnes’ work. Even BYU researchers dispute the notion:
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5239843&itype=cmsid
Yes. And being a Mormon is controversial. And voting Democratic as a Mormon is controversial, yet I persist. Yet life goes on despite different thinking, and one of the great consistencies of life is that in order to find greater light and knowledge it is necessary to put both fears and desires at risk. In this, and in many other things, the issue for me is not whether my opinions are orthodox, but whether they have any reasonable substance behind them, whether they are productive and fruitful. I have changed my thinking on many subjects in the past, and expect to do so on the future.
One thing that is not controversial for me is that recovery work changed my life for the better. Changed my thinking, and actions, and experience. Its rather like the bones I saw in the rocks during a childhood visit to the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. Much about how I understand the bones has changed, but whatever happens, the bones are real, and they remain something real to be accounted for, and not just dismissed by means of a poll of the most popular fashions.
I have a few questions:
Can you become addicted to “feeling the Spirit”?
Can you become addicted to sports? exercise? ice cream?
Can you become addicted to Fox News?
Wally asks if I can become addicted to each of a short list of things.
Yes.
Your mileage may vary.