In Search of Addiction’s Roots, Part 5

If a situation is to be dealt with, obviously the first step is to name this allegedly un-faceable dilemma; and even here, a person might encounter a surprise. Sometimes, taking the trouble to clarify and really fine-tune the definition of a problem can cast a whole new light on it. For instance, a person might discover that part of the responsibility for a crummy situation is actually their own.

Imagine a fellow named Joe, with a chain of thought that goes something like this:

Being persecuted by the history teacher has become a serious roadblock. That old man is really out to get me. Now, he is going around telling the other faculty members not to write any recommendation letters. Where’s my phone app? Okay, it says here to define the problem. That’s easy. The guy has been out to get me ever since I stink-bombed the classroom… Wait a minute. What did I just say?

It is totally possible that even in the process of accurately describing the problem, some new thoughts might crop up. One might be, “I have been kind of a jerk. I could try to reverse his opinion. Or it might be too late, but you know what? I deserved some payback.”

Epiphanies do happen

Of course, the average BrainWeighve user is not a congenital troublemaker like Joe. Even if Joe takes a step toward maturity by accepting that he is sometimes part of the problem, that alone won’t get him into college. But it might come to mind the next time he is tempted to do something self-destructive that could easily backfire.

A situation could be interpreted in different ways, and the healthy move is to at least consider the possibility. Sometimes, all that is needed is a reinterpretation that the person can wrap their head around. Just following the steps suggested by the app can joggle something loose. The ability to reframe one’s thoughts about a situation is a basic coping mechanism, and can even be the first step toward resolving the problem.

Dr. Pretlow and co-author Suzette Glasner wrote,

A perplexing aspect of the displacement mechanism is why it becomes excessive and destructive in some individuals — that is, why do some people abuse drugs/alcohol and food, yet others do not? We speculate that those individuals may lack basic coping mechanisms and are unable to face, avoid, adapt to, or solve their underlying problems. We further speculate that for such persons, the destructive displacement behavior may become their sole coping avenue, may be self-reinforcing, and may reach a “point of no return.”

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Reconceptualization of eating addiction and obesity as displacement behavior and a possible treatment, NIH.gov, June 2022

In Search of Addiction’s Roots, Part 3

As we learn from Dr. Pretlow’s “A Unified Theory of Addiction,”

Moving the opposing drives out of equilibrium, by avoiding or resolving the underlying problem/stressful situations, theoretically should mitigate the displacement mechanism and the addictive behavior.

Maybe that is what animals know how to do instinctively, with some of what scientists think of as their wacky, inappropriate behavior. When genuinely faced with a fight, maybe calming down is a drive equally important to the fight drive. They have, after all, not only the instinct for individual survival but an obligation to help their whole species survive.

A human, as mentioned in the previous post, can make a choice to stay in a threatening or thwarting situation. Or a human can (generally with little, if any, thought) take the route of converting overflow mental energy into some kind of action that might give temporary relief, but will probably be harmful. In the case of a really unwise choice, the chosen action might even plant the seeds of an addiction.

Or that person can consciously choose a neutral displacement activity that, regardless of whether it does or does not help to solve the instigating problem, will at least not make the situation any worse.

Automatic versus conscious

Another thing a person can do is, deliberately decide to address the problem head-on. Displacing thoughtlessly and unwisely can lead to undesirable results, ranging from useless to addictive. Displacing consciously can give a person a chance to reset and regroup, resolve the initiating situation, and gain a healthy result.

The object is to rechannel or displace overflow mental energy produced by the stressful life situation and the tempting array of competing drives. For animals, the choices include fight, flee, freeze, feed, fornicate, fool around, fidget, and faint. For humans (and lab animals confined in cages with dope dispensers), their options include the possibility of catching an addiction.

If a human can discover a path more rewarding than any of those, and seize the opportunity to pursue it, that discovery and opportunity, and conscious choice, can divert them from a bad path. Humans have the great advantage of being able to willfully choose another drive that carries the potential for some kind of fulfillment — like creating some form of art, or mastering a skill.

Yet and still, the most appropriate and helpful choice, of course, is to address the problem. That is where the saying “Face It Don’t Displace It” comes into play. A person has an option that is not granted to an animal — the opportunity to utilize the smartphone app called Brainweighve. We are talking about a new therapy that holds out the possibility of being adaptable to any addiction. It consists of…

(1) helping the individual identify the problems or stressors that form the basis of the opposing drives (displacement sources), and (2) creating strategies to either avoid or effectively resolve these problems/stressors. Success does not depend on totally resolving or avoiding the person’s problematic situation, it is just necessary that the opposing drives are pushed off dead center (either face or escape) and no longer in equilibrium.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “A Unified Theory of Addiction,” Qeios.com, 03/09/23
Image by Carsten Tolkmit/CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED

In Search Addiction’s Roots, Part 1

Dr. Pretlow has published “A Unified Theory of Addiction,” a paper presenting evidence that the universal source of addiction is the displacement mechanism. On this page, the paragraphs in red print are quotations from that work.

Displacement behavior represents a bio-behavioral mechanism that essentially allows an animal to displace stress. Theoretically, the mechanism rechannels overflow mental energy built up by the brain’s attempt either to deal with or to avoid the stressful situation.

The expression “deal with” here is encouraging, because sadly, many writers about animal behavior seem to imply that the choice is only binary; that in a jam, an animal is limited to choosing “fight or flight.” Rarely are other possibilities mentioned. However, in addition to those two, scientists have identified several other options, including freeze, feed, fornicate, fool around, fidget, and faint. Any of these could be equally valid displacement behaviors.

The energy rechanneling occurs to another behavior or drive (e.g., grooming drive), typically whatever drive or behavior is the most readily available.

But in discussing these matters, there seems to be some underlying attitude, an assumption that in the moment of stress, when an animal feels threatened, anything they might do (except maybe fight) would be incorrect in the judgmental eyes of humans. There seems to be an implication that any displacement behavior is somehow shameful or wrong, or some kind of cop-out.

Fool around or fidget

Fool around or fidget? Grooming would probably fall into one of those categories. It is something to do, that rechannels the overflow of mental energy into a behavior that certainly qualifies as “readily available.”

The word “groom” has traditionally been used by the profession, and this is unfortunate because, to a layperson, it implies a value judgment. It gives the impression that the animal is only doing something superficial, like the equivalent of a human brushing lint off its suit or waxing a mustache. But in the wild, such practices as removing nits, straightening feathers, etc. are not trivial vanity projects, but essential upkeep of the mechanism, the creature’s body.

Appropriate according to whom?

Behavioralists tend to brand all these possibilities as “inappropriate” and it is not clear why. There seems to be an assumption that stalling, for instance, in the hope that the threat might dematerialize, is shameful or wrong. But not all threats are from predators. Animals of the same species will compete over food or mates or territory. Maybe they have an equally strong inborn inclination the other way, too.

Why shouldn’t they seek to avoid conflict with their own kind, or shrink back from murdering each other — even if scientists think they are cowards, and brand their peacemaking attempts as “inappropriate”? If two birds stop glaring at each other and peck at the grain on the ground — “even if they are not hungry,” as a human observer might jot down in the notebook — why do humans feel justified in labeling that as an incorrect response?

And how do they know whether a bird is or is not hungry?

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “A Unified Theory of Addiction,” Geios.com, 03/08/23
Image by amenclinicsphotos ac/CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED

Areas of Confusion

In the addiction field, one of the confusing aspects is trying to encompass all the different manifestations of addiction, and how someone can develop an addiction to a substance (even a harmless one like Earl Grey tea) or to a habit, or a quirky behavior, or even a person. How does one disorder assume such an astonishing number of forms?

Writer Stephen Greenhut points out that the specter of social media addiction threatens such widely divergent groups as liberal academics and social conservatives. In the eyes of critics, he says,

[…] new technologies are exactly like narcotics, gambling or alcohol — in that they rewire adolescent brains and lead to depression, self-destructive behaviors, sleep disorders and mood swings.

One problem with this is that various groups and individuals expect the government to solve the problem by regulating tech platforms as if they were substances like tobacco or alcohol, which is a wild idea. Greenhut writes,

We should all be skeptical that the same government that can’t balance a budget can revamp the dominant form of modern communications and boost young people’s self-esteem…

Anyone who thinks legislators are clever enough to craft meaningful regulations controlling technologies they don’t understand has never paid close attention to the legislative process.

This started back in the early years of the century, when evidence seemed to point to an increase in aggressive behavior caused by violent video games. Subsequent research has caused that fear to calm down somewhat. There has been a dawning realization that maybe children are being over-protected in ways that don’t really contribute to any kind of betterment in their general well-being, in either the mental or physical sense.

The author also points out how dangerous it has become to let kids be more on the “free-range” side, what with parents being arrested for endangerment and neglect if a child is allowed to walk farther than the front yard. A lot of parents have stopped letting children enjoy such free and informal social activities as… just hanging out.

Prepare for a jaw-dropping pronouncement — kids need something to do! More and more, the American trend has been to prevent them from taking part in real, routine, mundane, everyday life, and nobody is benefitting from that loss.

Social media is a tough institution to worry about because it really includes two enormous areas. There are the beguiling devices themselves, and there is the connectivity to other humans, which can lead to bonding, animosity, or anything in between.

And how much of it is FOMO? Fear of Missing Out can keep a person scrolling or refreshing the screen in hopes of staying current with the same concerns that other people are currently obsessed with. Aside from feeding food obsession and encouraging such disorders as anorexia, electronic socializing can even spill over into other potentially problematic areas like sex addiction, gambling, and more. To get this all sorted out is a huge challenge.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Social-media moral panic caused by infantilizing teens,” Diatribe.org, 09/20/23
Image by Marco Verch Professional/CC BY 2.0 DEED

The Mystery of Tarrare

Tarrare was a real historical character who looked like an addict and behaved like an addict — but probably was not. Born in the late 1700s, he soon showed an insatiable appetite, and his parents gave up and turned him loose. One source says he could eat 20 pounds of matter per day, even if part of it was dirt and stones. He stole garbage, and scraps from businesses that converted hides to leather, and reportedly ate cats and dogs alive. He would eat literally anything.

As a teenager, he allegedly could consume his own body weight (or half a cow) within a day. For a period of time, the youth was able to make that voraciousness pay for itself, by working as a busker or street performer. It was obvious to the audience that he “found a twisted sort of joy in shocking those around him with his bizarre behavior.” On the pragmatic side, the performance distracted the onlookers’ attention while Tarrare’s friends picked their pockets.

Naturally, the alarming omnivore became infamous. The public scorn that obesity sometimes meets today is typified by the people of the 18th century, who characterized him as “a true manifestation of one of the seven mortal sins known as Gluttony,” an attitude that continues into the present. But here is a twist: Apparently, in spite of all this, Tarrare never weighed more than 100 pounds.

Curiosity

Of course, medical experts tried to figure out what caused this strange fellow’s polyphagia, the medical term for extreme overeating. Experimenters brought him snakes, lizards, and all kinds of repulsive offal, which he dutifully devoured. Then, he was recruited into the military, and we are not even going to tell you what mission they assigned him. At any rate, the experiment failed, partly because of his fault and partly because it was a dumb idea. Also, he ate enough of the army rations to keep several soldiers well-fed, so it was a bad deal all around.

The next stop was a hospital where the experts experimented on Tarrare with uppers, downers, and every other sort of drug, which only increased his appetite. We won’t even go into that. Then a local baby went missing, and although nothing was proven, the researchers kicked him out. For several years his status was “whereabouts unknown,” before he wound up in a hospital to die of tuberculosis at age 26.

So?

What caused this unfortunate freak to eat so much? Contemporary medics were stumped, and modern academics do not have access to the victim’s lab samples, or any other solid evidence. Was it a tapeworm? Prader-Willi syndrome? Pica? Extreme iron deficiency, which makes the victim actually crave iron in the diet, even if it means eating horseshoes? A damaged amygdala, which can cause a number of disorders?

Dr. Don Moore hypothesizes that Tarrare suffered from…

[…] hyperactivity of hormones and dysfunction of components of the brain. His sensor that would let him know he was full was damaged. If he underwent a brain study, he would have probably been identified as having had an enlarged hypothalamus… He most likely had a parasite as well… a hookworm or roundworm, perhaps.

Despite the behavior, which fulfilled such criteria as destroying health and relationships and causing life to become unmanageable, it does not seem like addiction as we now understand it. Modern opinion is on the side of polyphagia, an outcome resulting from hyperthyroidism, which was unknown to the medical science of the victim’s time. (This could cause speculation about whether any of what we now call addiction could result from as-yet-unsuspected physical causes.)

A relatively undisturbing version of Tarrare’s biography is conveyed in a 3:44 animation titled “The tragic fate of the man who couldn’t stop eating.”

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “The Strange Life of Tarrare, the Insatiable Glutton,” HistoryDefined.net, 01/30/23
Source: “The Medical Mystery of Tarrare, a Cannibalistic French Spy,” Ripleys.com, 05/20/19
Source: “The tragic fate of the man who couldn’t stop eating,” BBC.com, undated
Image by STAF/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Goodbye to Pleasure?

Washington Post staff writer and “lifetime food fanatic” Laura Reiley interviewed a patient who had lost 55 pounds on tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Branneisha Cooper told the journalist, “I thought everyone woke up thinking about breakfast, lunch and dinner. In the past I tried everything to lose weight, but the food voice would always win.” People trying to escape obesity have even mentioned how they can’t even enjoy their dinner properly, because of obsessing over the anticipated dessert.

Childhood Obesity News has said a lot about the part played by new drugs in the industry’s recent success with stifling food noise. But Reiley was made uneasy by the fact that her source’s “food voice” had ceased its chatter. She wrote, “I find the silence ominous.” Why? Because,

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around a higher quality of life that doesn’t have food and its many pleasures at the center of it all.

Think of all the holidays a disinterest in food would kill: Thanksgiving, dead. Christmas and Passover, major body blow. And all those other universal things? Birth and death and love and sex? Food had a place in every one of them.

Reiley also points out the role that food plays in important social interactions: when it’s time to welcome new neighbors, make an apology, offer condolences, support the lonely elders, show appreciation to a host, and so forth. She writes,

Cooking for someone is an act of love completely different from doing their laundry or driving them to the airport. It’s about giving pleasure, not doing a solid. Cooking someone a meal is a way of saying: I see you, I’m paying attention, I know what you like.

The food writer feels empathy for the food adventurers, always ready to sample some new flavor or texture. Why should they forego this happiness, just because others want eating to be a boring task instead of a celebration? Reiley does not want to see the day when food has become just physical fuel, instead of so many other things — like pleasure. She reminds readers,

Satiation is but a small part of the driving force behind this consumption… If this class of drugs rewires our brains and guts to think of food as just sustenance, the world will be so sad.

The author connects all this with a rare and pertinent autobiographical detail — she was a marshmallow girl. This refers to the renowned Stanford Marshmallow Test Experiment conducted decades ago by psychology professor Walter Mischel and quoted countless times since.

This and other academic experiences convinced him that, as Reiley phrases it, “One’s ability to quiet the wanting mind is a central ingredient in the recipe for success.” That sounds a lot like what we now call shushing the food noise.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Food is one of life’s great pleasures. Will weight-loss drugs end that?,” WashingtonPost.com, 10/02/23
Source: “Stanford Marshmallow Test Experiment,” SimplyPsychology.org, 09/07/23
Image by Lua Pramos/CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED