#to avoid being subject to manipulation or becoming reactionary

[kindnessoverperfection]

I've found that, when interacting with others (or myself), it's useful to consider the lessons I'd want to teach a growing child.

If a child makes a mistake, I wouldn't want them to feel shame. I wouldn't yell at them, humiliate them, or in any way indicate to them that their mistake is a reflection of their worth or of who they are as a person.

Instead, I'd want them to associate the process with love and joy. If they say something that hurts someone's feelings, or otherwise ostracizes someone in some way, I'd compassionately explain to them. Ideally, they'd walk away knowing why they said / did it in the first place, how to handle similar situations in the future, and would accept the consequences (e.g. if a friend no longer wanted to hang out with them).

While the consequences may sometimes be painful, I'd do my best to instill in them that mistakes are human and natural, and that the process of learning from these mistakes is an opportunity to improve connections with others and express love.

I have a tendency towards excessive guilt. Memories in which I've said / done something ignorant or hurtful are infused with this guilt and shame- but ideally, I'd feel a sense of love and peace, and perhaps happiness, when looking back on them. Because they were moments of growth, moments I learned how to be more compassionate (even if the actual learning came years later).

So I'll put this out into the void:

When you make a mistake, that is not a reflection of you as a person. It is a moment in time, a moment which was informed by your past experiences. Humans are not static labels, or monsters in an RPG game. We are social creatures who live and learn and react and grow and experience and love. Be gentle with yourself and move forward knowing you're doing so in accordance with your values.

[therecoversite]

Does Addiction Relieve Addicts of their Free Will?

New Post has been published on https://therecoverdev.wpengine.com/does-addiction-relieve-addicts-of-their-free-will/

Does Addiction Relieve Addicts of their Free Will?

The argument as old as time, Addiction = disease, or choice? With the factual evidence showing that addiction is in fact a disorder, or disease, does that relieve users of their free will? Are they absolved of their responsibility for their actions while during their use?

Withdrawal symptoms are physical symptoms of the dependence, chills, spasms, excessive sweating, vomiting and mental confusion all come with going “cold turkey.” But unlike cancer, diabetes or heart disease, there is no escape from the symptoms of mainstream diseases, there is no cold turkey for schizophrenia.

Addiction is recognized as a chronic, relapsing disease, similar to other chronic diseases by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Dr. Nora Volkow, the current director NIDA, said that drugs “rob the brain of the capacity to exercise free will.” Even if addicts want to stop taking drugs, they can’t. Before her, Alan Leshner, wrote something similar, saying that drug use throws a “metaphorical switch” in the brain, resulting in compulsive, involuntary use.

Duke University professors of pharmacology Wilkie Wilson and Cynthia Kuhn eloquently summarize addiction this way:

“… addiction is far more than seeking pleasure by choice. Nor is it just the willingness to avoid withdrawal symptoms. It is a hijacking of the brain circuitry that controls behavior so that the addict’s behavior is fully directed to drug seeking and use. With repeated drug use, the reward system of the brain becomes subservient to the need for the drug.”

So which is correct? The thought that by “going cold turkey” one can abstain from drugs or the claim that drugs rob users of their free will?

The answer to this concern is crucial to our understanding of addiction and approaches to drug policy. Since NIDA’s creation in 1974, drug upsurges have followed one upon the other, and the most current one is without a doubt the most fatal. In 2017 more than 60,000 Americans were killed by drug overdoses. Perhaps what is needed is a re-examination of NIDA’s guiding assumption that addiction is a disease. Well established research studies on drug habits and advances in the understanding of the time course of dependency provide the means for screening whether addicts can say no to drugs.

All types of drugs that are capable of abuse, both legal and illegal, reward the brain with floods of dopamine to the brains reward regions (Nucleus accumbens) and the prefrontal regions that control our senses like judgement, decision making and self-control. Once these sections have been surged with dopamine, the brain reacts by becoming less reactive to dopamine, in a process called receptor downregulation. This results in ordinary every day interactions like positive social and physical behaviors that are part of everyday living, become irrelevant to the brains motivation. More than the just the norm is needed to maintain an even level of reward the brain has become used to. It becomes an endless cycle of trying to keep dopamine levels at a high reward level just to feel okay.

Measuring voluntary behaviors and free will

Habits vary in the degree of which theyare affected by impinging stimuli, as those take place in reflexes, and by costs and advantages, as occur through learned activities. Consider the causes and reaction in everyday occurances, kicking a ball and the patellar reflex, causing one to kick the ball back. A blink of an eye and the reopening of the lid to keep continuous sight. The previous reaction guided by the reactionary feedback from the original task. One is a cost, the other the advantage, or reward from the action. Obviously more complex activities, are a mixture of elicited processes and feedback-driven choices like drug use that requires more planning and deception, as well as action to obtain the drug to begin the process of using. Therein lies the question of choice over response related behavior, “Is drug use in addicts more like a series of elicited responses or more like a series of consequence-guided choices?” To answer that question, one must consider the two variables that predict the course of addiction.

According to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) criteria for “substance use disorder” the negative consequences of drug use must outweigh its positive ones. As if to compare shooting heroin daily is the same as a daily dose of prescribed medication and drinking daily is just a part of long term self-care.  In terms of drug abuse, the common denominator of all abused substances is the immediate reward slowly followed by negative consequences that prove to be problematic in the long run.

The argument between economists and psychologists debates the delayed consequences versus the more likely outcomes from continued drug use, and which one of those outcomes are the driving force to seeking sobriety. But if drug use is then explained as voluntary, and the benefits from drug use become less rewarding than the “cost” of the drug use, that means addicts should be capable of quitting on their own, without outside intervention. Self-destructive behaviors discontinue due to the havoc reached within the person’s life. Outside interventions then only speeds up the process of recovery instead of being the only chance of improvement.

But if addicts are then slaves to involuntary decisions due to chemical dependence, just how much power does the dependence have over the brain, and at what point does drug use become compulsory?

Most studies have been practiced on addicts that sought treatment in clinics and recovery centers. But many do not seek treatment, which makes it hard for clinic-based studies to provide the best picture of addiction for all addicts. Researchers took this information into account and conducted nation wide studies that spoke to a larger array of subjects, including thouse who had never sought treatment.

Prior to the first of these studies (1991), the editor of the Archives of American Psychiatry wrote, “Here then is the soundest fundamental information about the range, extent and variety of psychiatric disorders ever assembled.”

One of the key conclusions answers the question regarding the timeline of addiction: 76 to 83% of those who met the APA’s criteria for a lifetime addiction to an illicit drug had discontinued use by 42. Further to show that addicts have more free will than involuntary reaction, most of those ex-addicts who quit drugs did so without the aid of professional help.

Which leads one to think that those who quit drugs on their own were not, in fact, addicts. That relays the old adage, once an addict, always an addict. But that is where further investigation is needed. There is little information to compare to show the difference between addicts who make use of treatment and those who do not. With the evidence that is available, addiction usually persists because of two reasons, drug availability and the absence or presence of other psychiatric disorders. For instance, the most recent national psychiatric survey shows that dependence on cigarettes and alcohol persists for much longer than does dependence on illicit drugs, and that among the illegal drugs, dependence on marijuana is most persistent, both due to its accessibility.

Understanding Free Will

The philosopher Harry Frankfurt argued that among the many creatures susceptible to the influence of costs and benefits, humans are unique in that they can evaluate whether they have the desires that they want to have and can change their behavior to better match the desires that they desire (so-called “second-order” desires and “second-order” volitions). Further research on addicts offers an opportunity to test the “second-order” ideas.

In a study conducted some years ago at the McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, evaluated whether heroin addicts can modify their cravings for heroin. The experiment manipulated drug availability, allowing addicts to use as much heroin as they wished on some days (with a two-hour break between injections); on other days, heroin was removed or was combined with an opioid competitor or similar substance. On days that heroin was consistently available, craving increased; on days that heroin was unavailable, or its effects blocked, craving decreased. Depending on the circumstances, heroin addicts were able to regulate their drug cravings.

Who is right?

According to the aforementioned study, addicts can say no to drugs and even regulate their cravings. Both are affected by the availability of the drug of choice and the alternative availability of equally rewarding non-drug of choice options. If free will requires the capacity to make choices and reflect upon them while also regulating their desires, addicts still possess free will.

Addicts and the public need to know that although addiction is a disease, addicts still retain the capacity to say no to drugs. To assist those suffering from addiction, preventative programs and interventions should focus on the availability of opportunities for rewarding nondrug activities and promote taking advantage of nondrug opportunities.

In conclusion, yes, drugs “hijack” the brain. But the extent of which is not reserved to just illicit drugs, as there are other things that can affect someone’s mood, thought and action. While addicts may be at the mercy of their disease, free will is not completely taken away.

Source : The Recover Newsroom

[glimpseofbeing-blog]

A Long Reflection on a Short Trip

Home with a chance to reflect after my first solo travels abroad in 4 years. I bent my previous rule of never leaving for less than 3 weeks in order to re-engage a passion (traveling) that has driven my life choices while quietly settling in my mind's memory as I have more recently explored additional interests that require a more settled existence . Contrary to my assumption that held traveling as the most rewarding pursuit of life, I found my recent experience to suggest community engagement and unrestrained exploration as equally important endeavors.

The trip, even after arriving home, continues to be challenging in requiring problem solving at every turn and without regard for my comparative wealth previously absent earlier in life. My more youthful self made choices in pursuit of experience while lacking the resources provided by my professional salary from the past 3 years.

I found that traveling cannot be regarded as absent of tourism and that the tourism industry in developing countries is skilled in re-appropriating the personal resources that westerners are entitled to offer today in exchange for a comfortable glimpse into foreign cultures.  This seems at least fair as the histories of the developing world are forever inseparable from the colonial legacy of resource exploitation and strategic cultural influence purposed upon the creation of consumers who will never have the opportunities that industrialization provided to the European and American societies.

I had to pay much more than ever before, and although much safer than others due to wealth, gender, and nationality, I was still forced to think my path through consciously and quickly as time is money under global capitalism. I am grateful for the persons I met who simultaneously assured my previous appreciation for all peoples while more loudly suggesting the unique rarity of my community in San Francisco. It has been humbling to meet great thinkers limited in life options for personal growth by a lack of access to communities of similarly minded friends with shared values and a culture of executing together the dreamy ideas of individuals vulnerable enough to share thoughts that require social cooperation for realization.

There is so much beauty and knowledge to be gained in traveling and I don't hesitate in continuing to urge everyone to take the leap.

It's taken me years to appreciate the American legacy as uniquely impressive while bearing witness to the global oppression enacted by the American government to ensure a high quality of life for domestic citizens. I've been ashamed to have the life of American enjoyment after so many discussions with foreign citizens who struggle daily under realities resulting from neoliberal economic policies imposed under Western influence. I've questioned capitalism in response to my experiences. But examination of alternative economic theories has found most to be reactionary comments on the failures of a socioeconomic system that aligns with the biological nature of all beings to act in self interest no matter how complex the cooperative relationships emerging from necessity become.

I've come to hold great respect for economic approaches that engage capitalist relationships to momentarily achieve the selfless gift of entertainment and expression that the economic model seeks to repress and remove from continual social relationships. I don't know how capitalism can work globally, particularly when I reflect on my personal experiences in traveling. My interest in history has led me to research many of the societies I've been fortunate to witness. It has been impossible to gain perspective on the uniqueness of each cultural without considering the framework of struggle ultimately resulting from manipulated relationships that produce inequality upon misleading promises of enhancing the quality of life via exchanges along economic resource chains.

I've found many grim realities, few of which can be completely separated from the American legacy abroad. But this trip more than ever, revealed a world where the victims of capitalism are more empowered to compete for resources. Technology is changing the developing world faster than ever. While admittedly disappointed at the level of "phone hand" and resulting decline of engaging strangers, I experienced people whose opportunity to fight institutional poverty is enhanced by digital access to information and the decentralization of technology expansion. In other words, Photoshop and copyright violations are everywhere and making real money for rural communities who would otherwise have no option other than accept the exploitation pursued by companies like Monsanto.

But more than ever, I found myself missing home. Not for the comforts but for quality of people. I cried many times over the loss of my friends, something I am really grateful for as I have struggled to process at home while being surrounded by others who have much deeper connections that suggest my grief to be insignificant in comparison. I found relief in the opportunity to engage my lessons in vulnerably pursuing emotional expressions rather than suppressing for fear of judgment. This is truly a skill gained from the role models my social network generously provides. I felt good in sharing my loss with those who knew nothing of the depth of pain but supported with kind words common to those who have traveled or lived in the hard realities most people experience daily. I was never questioned about my grief even when most people I met had lost a father, brother or even more from simply being born to an economically disadvantaged country where loss of loved ones is inherently structured in development models that put cost of production over protection of body.

I feel fortunate to see how built structures are sited and developed without the oversight of the boring bureaucracy definitive to the American city planning model, which I've come to criticize for institutionally protecting the status quo rather than supporting sustainable advancement of community pursuits for equality in quality of life. The movement to urbanization is undeniable. The developing world lacks resources for government oversight to ensure safety and equality. But I witnessed the human drive to build even when corruption boldly influences the timeline to achieving success and requires greater commitment to your goals than generally required of any Western individuals seeking to invest in their dreams. No structure operated without a function regardless of stage in the building cycle. A home that might easily be thought of as abandoned is a place to hang laundry and a shelter providing enhanced privacy even while those building it may be considered homeless for years to come.

I looked at the great minds I know in my daily life and see the opportunity for work at home to be shared in a positive manner abroad. We can't stop consumerism, but application developments for smart phones definitely enhance the global diffusion of knowledge and access to resources in a way that challenges the dominant legacy of Western culture to take without regard for benefiting the whole of human life.

Hate is still big, violence is still a universal reality and it is unquestionably male in gender. But I met individuals providing support for transgender peoples in Myanmar. This is pursuit unimaginable before internet connections allowed dispersed groups of marginalized people to connect and express a unified voice important at a global level while being subject to discrimination by localized power structures that easily suppress voices when communication is limited.

I met a 22 year old Indonesian girl who traveled by herself from her Muslim nation to a predominately Christian nation and experienced the act of dance for the first time in her life. To witness her regard for the freedom in body movement by the man I judged as drunk and sloppy was humbling. Maybe he was drunk, but he wasn't hurting anyone and her lack of judgement was moving in suggesting that even the most basic freedoms of human life can be removed by dogma and political restraint.

Trump was discussed. I even heard of American travelers who were Trump supporters. Surprising in theory as the conservative agenda spreads fear of the "other" or "unknown" and suggests safety in avoiding exploration. But the tales as related were all too familiar in depicting antagonistic political expressions that lacked consideration for alternative perspectives.

I found traveler and Filipino alike to be welcoming to individuals as persons separate from their governments. When appropriate and comfortable, I engaged the opportunity to gain a local perspective on the political challenges that have left more than 8000 Filipinos murdered in the last year. I found the story more complex than suggested in global media, and I experienced people who feel their lives are safer under unrestrained government support for mercilessly pursuing those identified by the sociopolitical culture as hazardous in existence and unmanageable. Some folks simply had to disregard compassion when facing a grim reality that is likely highly influenced from a historical poverty associated with economic policies that promised the best but only benefited the West.

Still, others shared my perspective on compassionately approaching drug policy from a state perspective because that is what people should do. It felt good to meet people who share what feels like an uncompromising ideological position. Yet I left noting that this perspective is likely influenced by my access to resources and the foundation my geographical location fortunately provides in assuring that most people around me have access to bear minimum resources and some form of opportunity without the need to employ violence in pursuing their daily needs.

World over, poverty suggests that being what we consider "good or kind" to others is necessarily compromised for personal survival under capitalist systems. Everywhere I've been has shown that our economic model suggests individual responsibility for resource pursuit rather than consideration of social relationships that highlight personal struggles as institutional failures. I believe we are capitalist at the cellular level but the result is a global failure of coming together for maintaining our shared existence.

While continually impressed by my global experiences, I remain pessimistic with regard to achieving even a minimal form of sustaining what we've come to assume as our species' intended form of life on Earth. We are unquestionably impressive, but our intellect is most likely our downfall. And it feels like we spin faster everyday on this path.

As the world is changing everyday, my entitled physical access to others in distant places appears to be far from assured in coming years. In the end though, I found myself surprised as my experience suggested that what I have at home is far too special to overlook simply for the opportunity to touch life's endless wonders at a casual level. I feel I will always travel but a brief stint with a lifelong passion leaves me excited to further jump deeply into opportunities with the wonderful people I feel so lucky to currently have abundantly present in my daily life.

I'm so lucky in life, love, and experience and after 8 months of unemployment I finally feel refreshed and ready to move beyond the negativity of past professional pursuits. Excited to head back to work soon and contribute something to the art we all create.  Life is worthy of regard even when we pause with awareness to our minute existence and the likelihood for us to extinguish ourselves as our biological beings aggressively place the personal ego over the us.

[therecoversite]

Does Addiction Relieve Addicts of their Free Will?

New Post has been published on https://therecoverdev.wpengine.com/does-addiction-relieve-addicts-of-their-free-will/

Does Addiction Relieve Addicts of their Free Will?

The argument as old as time, Addiction = disease, or choice? With the factual evidence showing that addiction is in fact a disorder, or disease, does that relieve users of their free will? Are they absolved of their responsibility for their actions while during their use?

Withdrawal symptoms are physical symptoms of the dependence, chills, spasms, excessive sweating, vomiting and mental confusion all come with going “cold turkey.” But unlike cancer, diabetes or heart disease, there is no escape from the symptoms of mainstream diseases, there is no cold turkey for schizophrenia.

Addiction is recognized as a chronic, relapsing disease, similar to other chronic diseases by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Dr. Nora Volkow, the current director NIDA, said that drugs “rob the brain of the capacity to exercise free will.” Even if addicts want to stop taking drugs, they can’t. Before her, Alan Leshner, wrote something similar, saying that drug use throws a “metaphorical switch” in the brain, resulting in compulsive, involuntary use.

Duke University professors of pharmacology Wilkie Wilson and Cynthia Kuhn eloquently summarize addiction this way:

“… addiction is far more than seeking pleasure by choice. Nor is it just the willingness to avoid withdrawal symptoms. It is a hijacking of the brain circuitry that controls behavior so that the addict’s behavior is fully directed to drug seeking and use. With repeated drug use, the reward system of the brain becomes subservient to the need for the drug.”

So which is correct? The thought that by “going cold turkey” one can abstain from drugs or the claim that drugs rob users of their free will?

The answer to this concern is crucial to our understanding of addiction and approaches to drug policy. Since NIDA’s creation in 1974, drug upsurges have followed one upon the other, and the most current one is without a doubt the most fatal. In 2017 more than 60,000 Americans were killed by drug overdoses. Perhaps what is needed is a re-examination of NIDA’s guiding assumption that addiction is a disease. Well established research studies on drug habits and advances in the understanding of the time course of dependency provide the means for screening whether addicts can say no to drugs.

All types of drugs that are capable of abuse, both legal and illegal, reward the brain with floods of dopamine to the brains reward regions (Nucleus accumbens) and the prefrontal regions that control our senses like judgement, decision making and self-control. Once these sections have been surged with dopamine, the brain reacts by becoming less reactive to dopamine, in a process called receptor downregulation. This results in ordinary every day interactions like positive social and physical behaviors that are part of everyday living, become irrelevant to the brains motivation. More than the just the norm is needed to maintain an even level of reward the brain has become used to. It becomes an endless cycle of trying to keep dopamine levels at a high reward level just to feel okay.

Measuring voluntary behaviors and free will

Habits vary in the degree of which theyare affected by impinging stimuli, as those take place in reflexes, and by costs and advantages, as occur through learned activities. Consider the causes and reaction in everyday occurances, kicking a ball and the patellar reflex, causing one to kick the ball back. A blink of an eye and the reopening of the lid to keep continuous sight. The previous reaction guided by the reactionary feedback from the original task. One is a cost, the other the advantage, or reward from the action. Obviously more complex activities, are a mixture of elicited processes and feedback-driven choices like drug use that requires more planning and deception, as well as action to obtain the drug to begin the process of using. Therein lies the question of choice over response related behavior, “Is drug use in addicts more like a series of elicited responses or more like a series of consequence-guided choices?” To answer that question, one must consider the two variables that predict the course of addiction.

According to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) criteria for “substance use disorder” the negative consequences of drug use must outweigh its positive ones. As if to compare shooting heroin daily is the same as a daily dose of prescribed medication and drinking daily is just a part of long term self-care.  In terms of drug abuse, the common denominator of all abused substances is the immediate reward slowly followed by negative consequences that prove to be problematic in the long run.

The argument between economists and psychologists debates the delayed consequences versus the more likely outcomes from continued drug use, and which one of those outcomes are the driving force to seeking sobriety. But if drug use is then explained as voluntary, and the benefits from drug use become less rewarding than the “cost” of the drug use, that means addicts should be capable of quitting on their own, without outside intervention. Self-destructive behaviors discontinue due to the havoc reached within the person’s life. Outside interventions then only speeds up the process of recovery instead of being the only chance of improvement.

But if addicts are then slaves to involuntary decisions due to chemical dependence, just how much power does the dependence have over the brain, and at what point does drug use become compulsory?

Most studies have been practiced on addicts that sought treatment in clinics and recovery centers. But many do not seek treatment, which makes it hard for clinic-based studies to provide the best picture of addiction for all addicts. Researchers took this information into account and conducted nation wide studies that spoke to a larger array of subjects, including thouse who had never sought treatment.

Prior to the first of these studies (1991), the editor of the Archives of American Psychiatry wrote, “Here then is the soundest fundamental information about the range, extent and variety of psychiatric disorders ever assembled.”

One of the key conclusions answers the question regarding the timeline of addiction: 76 to 83% of those who met the APA’s criteria for a lifetime addiction to an illicit drug had discontinued use by 42. Further to show that addicts have more free will than involuntary reaction, most of those ex-addicts who quit drugs did so without the aid of professional help.

Which leads one to think that those who quit drugs on their own were not, in fact, addicts. That relays the old adage, once an addict, always an addict. But that is where further investigation is needed. There is little information to compare to show the difference between addicts who make use of treatment and those who do not. With the evidence that is available, addiction usually persists because of two reasons, drug availability and the absence or presence of other psychiatric disorders. For instance, the most recent national psychiatric survey shows that dependence on cigarettes and alcohol persists for much longer than does dependence on illicit drugs, and that among the illegal drugs, dependence on marijuana is most persistent, both due to its accessibility.

Understanding Free Will

The philosopher Harry Frankfurt argued that among the many creatures susceptible to the influence of costs and benefits, humans are unique in that they can evaluate whether they have the desires that they want to have and can change their behavior to better match the desires that they desire (so-called “second-order” desires and “second-order” volitions). Further research on addicts offers an opportunity to test the “second-order” ideas.

In a study conducted some years ago at the McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, evaluated whether heroin addicts can modify their cravings for heroin. The experiment manipulated drug availability, allowing addicts to use as much heroin as they wished on some days (with a two-hour break between injections); on other days, heroin was removed or was combined with an opioid competitor or similar substance. On days that heroin was consistently available, craving increased; on days that heroin was unavailable, or its effects blocked, craving decreased. Depending on the circumstances, heroin addicts were able to regulate their drug cravings.

Who is right?

According to the aforementioned study, addicts can say no to drugs and even regulate their cravings. Both are affected by the availability of the drug of choice and the alternative availability of equally rewarding non-drug of choice options. If free will requires the capacity to make choices and reflect upon them while also regulating their desires, addicts still possess free will.

Addicts and the public need to know that although addiction is a disease, addicts still retain the capacity to say no to drugs. To assist those suffering from addiction, preventative programs and interventions should focus on the availability of opportunities for rewarding nondrug activities and promote taking advantage of nondrug opportunities.

In conclusion, yes, drugs “hijack” the brain. But the extent of which is not reserved to just illicit drugs, as there are other things that can affect someone’s mood, thought and action. While addicts may be at the mercy of their disease, free will is not completely taken away.

Source : The Recover Newsroom