"The conflict is really between the higher brain == the prefrontal lobes, and the base brain == the amygdala, or limbic system. The base brain is a wonderful machine, and it is very good at keeping us alive. It is the brain that never sleeps, the brain that remembers to keep us breathing all night long, and the brain that monitors the heart and keeps it going at the correct rate day and night. And the base brain is also the thing that says it is time to eat, and time to reproduce, and base brain says those things quite often, like nearly all of the time.
Everything that a dumb animal needs to survive for millions of years is found in the base brain; ask any frog, turtle, or lizard. Base brains can handle the five basic F's: Feed, f***, Fight or Flee, and Feel Good. (Feel good and avoid feeling bad, especially including avoid getting eaten by a big toothy predator, which really feels bad.) But we great apes have grown huge higher parts of the brain, and we have the ability to think in other channels. And sometimes, what the higher brain thinks is the opposite of what the lower brain thinks. We can logically conclude that we will get greater long-term happiness if we refrain, at least for right now, from pregnancy, or overeating, or intoxication, or drug consumption, while base brain thinks just the opposite, "Do it right now." Base brain doesn't understand "tomorrow" very well. Base brain has always demanded instant gratification. "Food now! Sex now! Feel good now!" Base brain is totally incapable of logically thinking about the long-term consequences of drinking, smoking, and drugging. Base brain can't do that any more than the toad or frog in your back yard can solve math problems.
Sam and Kermit
Medieval Christianity liked to explain the conflict between the higher brain and the base brain in terms of angels versus devils, of higher angelic desires versus bad low desires. Those medieval theologians declared that people were half angel and half devil. But I think that biology got a bad rap there: If old base brain had not been extremely good at getting our ancestors to eat and reproduce, then we wouldn't be here at all. Base brain, with all of its basic urges, isn't bad; base brain just isn't terribly intelligent. Again, ask Kermit the Frog.
This base brain / higher brain conflict is still a huge problem when we are dealing with problems like excessive consumption of, or addiction to, drugs and alcohol. In the addict, base brain has come to believe that more drugs and alcohol means more pleasure, and base brain is all for it. And base brain also associates cigarettes, dope and drink with pain-killers, and wants to grab for them at the first sign of hunger, pain, fatigue, or other physical discomfort, or even mental discomfort like nervousness, anxiety, stress, tension, or some other emotional upset. But base brain cannot think logically about the long-term consequences of such consumption; that isn't how base brain works. Base brain just wants its hungers filled right now, period, and its pain killed right now, period.
The only time that base brain is a big help in breaking habits and escaping from addictions is when strong negative feelings have built up, like from getting really sick, being seriously ill and in great pain, nearly dying, as a result of using drugs or alcohol. Then we build up a strong aversion to those things. Otherwise, base brain is all too likely to forget the pain, and just remember the pleasure.
You can even end up in a funny state where, after you have quit, just the smell of alcoholic drinks, like the smell of stale beer, makes you want to barf, because your body remembers what the stuff did to you, how sick it made you for so many years, but you still crave a drink anyway.
Or, after you've quit smoking, just the smell of somebody else's cigarette smoke makes your whole body cringe and rebel, because parts of you clearly remember what that damn stuff did to you, how it nearly killed you, but you still crave a cigarette anyway. Stupid, but true. Now that's one mixed-up system.
A big part of the problem is just what the addiction machinery in the brain really is. Some doctors were once contemplating destroying the addiction center in the brain. That sounds drastic, and it is drastic, but considering how many addicts kill themselves, it would be doing some of them a favor. Just insert some long, thin, wires into the brain, and burn out the brain cells that cause addictions and cravings. But the doctors found out that they couldn't do it. The parts of the brain that cause addiction and cravings are the same parts of the brain that cause us to eat food when we are hungry. That's really deep-seated, basic stuff, and we can't just wipe it out.
Food is our first addiction. We have to get a fix every day, preferably two or three times a day. If we don't get our fix, we start to experience withdrawal symptoms like stomach aches and headaches, and then we develop a snappy short temper, and feel weak and shaky. Then we will start feeling desperate, and start thinking about stealing or mugging someone to get money for a fix. And the longer we go without a food fix, the worse it gets. That sure sounds like a strung-out junkie to me.
Addiction to some other drug is just confusing the base brain about what food we need to eat now. Notice that, after you have quit your addictions, your cravings are always at their worst when you are hungry. The old A.A. warning about being in danger when you are "HALT -- hungry, angry, lonely, tired" is true. Old base brain starts saying, "It's time to get a cigarette, or some of that drink or drug, and eat it, because we are hungry." Base brain is obviously confused. "
For more on this visit http://www.orange-papers.org/orange...e-addmonst.html
Find interesting facts on addiction and critical reviews on Alcoholics Anonymous. Great website, those of you who enjoy reading please go!
answers,
you're not really buying into the orange papers are you? they've been around so long, and disproved so many times. Now, Stanton Peele does have some interesting viewpoints, but I don't take what he claims to be 'the truth' either.
you're not really buying into the orange papers are you? they've been around so long, and disproved so many times. Now, Stanton Peele does have some interesting viewpoints, but I don't take what he claims to be 'the truth' either.
Also, your lizard brain, the whole part about what the base brain is saying, and the emotions, guess what that is in a different form, yep you got it, right from the Big Book of AA, just in more simple style.
well, according to statistics, AA/NA works 4% of the time.
I don't think it is so false, the guy seems pretty knowledgable and bases
a lot of his information on statistics and studies done at Harvard.
what makes you say he's a phony?
I don't think it is so false, the guy seems pretty knowledgable and bases
a lot of his information on statistics and studies done at Harvard.
what makes you say he's a phony?
tell me then, what is the truth?
im not saying I believe every word and agree with everything that is
said, but I can not allow myself to believe that AA/NA is really the only
way AND- the majority of his stuff is actually pretty believable. as a recovering
addict, i have never once used rehab or medication to cure my addiction, i simply use time and "life things" to keep my busy,sober and happy. i never once believed i was powerless, and to this day, i refuse to believe i am.
unfortunately not enough is known about addiction....it's all theory and
talk, if you ask me. it is all debatable.
im not saying I believe every word and agree with everything that is
said, but I can not allow myself to believe that AA/NA is really the only
way AND- the majority of his stuff is actually pretty believable. as a recovering
addict, i have never once used rehab or medication to cure my addiction, i simply use time and "life things" to keep my busy,sober and happy. i never once believed i was powerless, and to this day, i refuse to believe i am.
unfortunately not enough is known about addiction....it's all theory and
talk, if you ask me. it is all debatable.
agreed, no one way is the only way, as long as we are sober and trying/willing to change addict behaviors it's all good. the AA way works for many, and has saved lives. but so has many other ways. i just don't see the reasoning for putting down any way that may lead someone to recovery. we can both pull up facts and opinions that support both sides of the debate, but what's the point? it's all about recovery, getting well, staying well and living life each and every day to it's fullest. agree?
AGREED!
I by no means think AA/NA doesn't work for ANYONE. It works
for those willing to work it. I just agreed with a lot of things that orange
mentioned, as far as addiction not being a disease, and not being
powerless over our addictions. It strengthens my spirit to believe
I can control my addiction. I don't like the idea of using a crutch,
but that is just me. EVERYONE is different.
He is definitely a critic of AA, and I found a lot of humor in his writing.
Brings out a totally different approach to addiction, and I like that.
If you are working the program, I hope that it works for you!
If not, then know that there are other things out there!
This is all I was preachin, brother. Not trying to start arguments, Just
conversations. : )
I by no means think AA/NA doesn't work for ANYONE. It works
for those willing to work it. I just agreed with a lot of things that orange
mentioned, as far as addiction not being a disease, and not being
powerless over our addictions. It strengthens my spirit to believe
I can control my addiction. I don't like the idea of using a crutch,
but that is just me. EVERYONE is different.
He is definitely a critic of AA, and I found a lot of humor in his writing.
Brings out a totally different approach to addiction, and I like that.
If you are working the program, I hope that it works for you!
If not, then know that there are other things out there!
This is all I was preachin, brother. Not trying to start arguments, Just
conversations. : )
Answers,
I for one would like to thank you for your post. It took a long time for you to put that on the board and since you had the information for yourself, I find it to be a genuine effort on your part to share it with those of us (like me) that are looking for different ways to battle and win over our addictions. Thank you again for a JOB WELL DONE!!!
Sincerely, Brad
I for one would like to thank you for your post. It took a long time for you to put that on the board and since you had the information for yourself, I find it to be a genuine effort on your part to share it with those of us (like me) that are looking for different ways to battle and win over our addictions. Thank you again for a JOB WELL DONE!!!
Sincerely, Brad
Answers:
Before I unsubscribe ... we would like to invite you to Internet Infidels!
We will soon be discussing nontheistic responses to addiction!
It's a fabulous group! All are welcome. We turn *no one* away!!!
There is an excellent thread at this time: Pascal's Wager. There is an enormous philosophy forum there as well. My husband is one of the moderators (until he begins veterinary school). Par excellence is ubiquitous there.
Best of Luck, Ally
Before I unsubscribe ... we would like to invite you to Internet Infidels!
We will soon be discussing nontheistic responses to addiction!
It's a fabulous group! All are welcome. We turn *no one* away!!!
There is an excellent thread at this time: Pascal's Wager. There is an enormous philosophy forum there as well. My husband is one of the moderators (until he begins veterinary school). Par excellence is ubiquitous there.
Best of Luck, Ally
Lost me on the whole food addiction thing. You don't eat food you die. Simple as that. The article was fine until that point. What next compare it to breathing since that was really the first "addiction".
Here is a site with the same basic viewpoint but without the silliness of the food arguement. http://www.rational.org/html_public...way_groups.html
But here is a counterpoint to the statistics against AA/NA. Using the same points that around 95% fail in the first year and 50% drop out in the first month. The same can probably be said for self-help methods. Throw the court ordering them to just quit (like the court ordering AA/NA) what do you think the statistics would be?
The point is there is no 1 size fits all to recovery. Some need groups and some don't. Some need structure and some don't. The whole point is to quit using. How it happens is up to the addict. The commitment is the key. Find a path you are comfortable with and follow it.
Here is a site with the same basic viewpoint but without the silliness of the food arguement. http://www.rational.org/html_public...way_groups.html
But here is a counterpoint to the statistics against AA/NA. Using the same points that around 95% fail in the first year and 50% drop out in the first month. The same can probably be said for self-help methods. Throw the court ordering them to just quit (like the court ordering AA/NA) what do you think the statistics would be?
The point is there is no 1 size fits all to recovery. Some need groups and some don't. Some need structure and some don't. The whole point is to quit using. How it happens is up to the addict. The commitment is the key. Find a path you are comfortable with and follow it.
hurtdad- I don't believe they are saying that eating food will kill you. I believe they mean eating food in abundance, also known as OVEREATING...CAN and WILL kill you.
No guest that isn't what the article says.
He is trying to compare the act of eating to sustain your life with an addiction. Actually he called it an addiction. Once I read that every thing that is said became suspect.
| QUOTE |
| Food is our first addiction. We have to get a fix every day, preferably two or three times a day. If we don't get our fix, we start to experience withdrawal symptoms like stomach aches and headaches, and then we develop a snappy short temper, and feel weak and shaky. |
He is trying to compare the act of eating to sustain your life with an addiction. Actually he called it an addiction. Once I read that every thing that is said became suspect.
I've been thinking about this for 24 hrs. before replying to this post--WHO is this wack-job who thinks food is the "first addiction"?Is he a recovering person himself ? Or just some...Doctor talking hogwash? 'Cause as far as I can recall from High School Biology, cells NEED food,as FUEL,to replace themselves.It's not a question of addiction,its a function.And I'm sorry but hunger pangs are NOT the same thing as withdrawls,not the same at all.Anyone who has kicked would not make such an inane comparison.That's why I ask if this cat is a Doctor;it sounds just like the same sort of noodle-brained theorising a Doc would do.I think a person can become addicted to certain kinds of food;I was a sugar addict,I liked it,I ate it cause it tasted good.But it finally made me sick & nutty & I had to give it up.I also happen to think that a lot of other folks have the same problem but don't quite realise it yet.I won't start beating that horse again.But food as the first addiction--what a load of codswallop,I'm sorry.
