quote:
There was much rejoicing when Faeth Es'Braewyn said this:
And, just because, I can see myself getting a little waspish in the last few responces. I appologize for this.Anything you may have seen as a pesonal attack, honestly was not meant as such. I used you for a subject, and obviously that bothers you. And for that I am sorry, it was not my intention to attack or demeen your character.
And just in case we ARE actually on two different topics here, I wanted to clear up what I am actually discussing so you can tell me if we are even on the same page. I came into this discussion on the Addiction aspect of the coversation, and in responce to Addiction and Compulsive behavior making an individual weak. If this is not correct, then Im on the wrong page. If not, this is what I have been discussing thus far.
And the main reason my responces we attached to you, was for your original comments claiming weakness. And even in that, I am not, nor will I attempt to make an attack on your person.
Thank you.
Perhaps my latest will sync our conversation.
Addiction and obsession/compulsion are distict concepts. Addiction is an external driver: no psychological flaw is necessary. Obsessive or compulsive behaviors are psychological problems.
They are not normal behaviors. By definition, people who exhibit these behaviors are defective.
Just as someone with a hearing defect needs treatment, someone with an obsessive/compulsive disorder needs treatment.
The problem arises when people use "addiction" as an excuse not to take responsibility for their actions.
With an addiction, something external to the individual is the problem. And, short of ingesting something, it's not possible to become addicted.
With an obsession, something internal to the individual is the problem. The trigger or focus is not part of the problem.
The recent problem is that it's no longer fashionable--even within psychology circles--to take responsibility for one's actions. My contention is that such thinking denies our very humanity, because it is our ability to choose and to be responsible for our choices that makes us human.
As opposed to lab rats.
The odd notion that all opinions and people are somehow equal, and it's wrong to compare, compete, or judge is part of that same destructive societal trend, but best left for another discussion.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
When a narcotic is put into the body, it forces the brain to react different and promote checmical changes to compensate to where the initial drug is needed in order to triger the same checmical reactions constantly. Hence the dependancy.
The same effect can be achieved by a phisycal stimulous on an individual, given the right circumstances.
Some individuals can kick the habit of heroin, just as easy as some can kick the habit of smoking. It is relavent to each indivduals personal and physialogical make up.
As for the influence. If someone sees someone who is smoking, and they are cool. You make the concious choice to start smoking. Had a person not seen the other "cool" person smoking, it is entirely possible they never would have made the choice to start. So therefore thier choice was effected by an influence outside of themselves. Not dependant on it, but influenced by it. And an addiction can follow. And in the case of smoking, some checmicals effect different people differently. For some nicotine is severe. Just like say I take Benadryll, it does shit for me I dont even feel a thing. Monica takes it and it kicks her ass. Same applies to just about every checmical. In minor dosage or otherwise. It may not be the norm. But that person is not defective, thier makeup is inherantly different. So addiction potential can also vary.
And I never said the behavior was normal, in fact I have repeatedly stated that most people in that state NEED professional help.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Thank you.Perhaps my latest will sync our conversation.
Addiction and obsession/compulsion are distict concepts. Addiction is an external driver: no psychological flaw is necessary. Obsessive or compulsive behaviors are psychological problems.
They are not normal behaviors. By definition, people who exhibit these behaviors are defective.
This I agree with.
quote:
The problem arises when people use "addiction" as an excuse not to take responsibility for their actions.
This I partially agree with. Not on the individuals part, unless they have been made aware of the problem. But definitely on the part of someone else on the individuals behalf, as in this mothers deal. It was the moters responcibility to catch the problems in her child. Or at least point them out to said child.
quote:
With an addiction, something external to the individual is the problem. And, short of ingesting something, it's not possible to become addicted.
Agree with the first part, disagree with the seond part.
quote:
With an obsession, something internal to the individual is the problem. The trigger or focus is not part of the problem.
Agree with this as anything can trigger compulsive behavior.
quote:
The recent problem is that it's no longer fashionable--even within psychology circles--to take responsibility for one's actions. My contention is that such thinking denies our very humanity, because it is our ability to choose and to be responsible for our choices that makes us human.
I agreed with this and have the entire time, my big thing is just that I think a mojrity of the people need help, and cannot do it on thier own. Which doesn't nessesarily make them weak, although for some yes it does, but makes them just a different makeup. Not everyone is a weak willed individual because of how thier brain checmistry, or mental makeup stands.
Yes, it is possible for a game to be a trigger for a chemical change in a person that they can be considered "addicted" to. However, it's not really the game that's doing it. It's being caused by their own abnormal mind/brain function. Any emotional involvement in a game that's intense enough to cause such a chemical reaction is not normal, and needs to be treated. Once it's treated, the chemical part of the addiction can be delt with properly. Playing the game again wouldn't give them their high anymore.
Addicted people need help (sometimes) to deal with an addiction.
Compulsive/obsessive people need help (most times) to deal with their mental problems.
Treating an Obsessive/compulsive by trying to cure an addiction that they may or may not have doesn't fix the real problem.
Obsession/compulsion results from a psychological flaw in an individual. Addiction does not.
That's why it's important to separate the concepts.
That's why expanding the definition of addiction to cover obsessive behaviors is a cop out.
Someone playing a game is not, by definition, addicted. They are obsessed. A different thing entirely.
When it comes down to it, all behavior is a function of chemicals in the brain. It makes no sense to deny free will or excuse weak-willed behavior as a result.
And you're still not making sense on the "outside influence" thing. Your definition would classify everything as influenced by external forces.
Which defeats any point in mentioning it.
Simply because one choose to emulate someone or some thing does not place any of the responsibility of the resulting behavior on the person or thing emulated. Sole responsibility for the actions, and their resulting consequences, rests with the individual.
Saying there was "outside" influence places all or part of the responsibility for the behavior on that influence. By definition.
Such thinking denies the essence of humanity, making us no better than lab rats conditioned by our environment to act in certain ways without thought or responsibility.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I don't have the least problem characterizing someone as weak, if their personal mental defect renders them unable to resist destroying their lives in situations where the majority of people would have no problems.
And too many people these days say, "I can't!" when they mean, "It's hard, and I lack the self-discipline to inconvenience myself in pursuit of my goals!"
I call that weak, also. Unashamedly.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
I suppose we can agree to disagree then.I don't have the least problem characterizing someone as weak, if their personal mental defect renders them unable to resist destroying their lives in situations where the majority of people would have no problems.
And too many people these days say, "I can't!" when they mean, "It's hard, and I lack the self-discipline to inconvenience myself in pursuit of my goals!"
I call that weak, also. Unashamedly.
And I can't do that. So yeah..
Been down that road too many times personally, to feel otherwise.
"The And too many people these days..." comment is however for the most part correct. And in that case I would see those people as weak. Because then they were faced with it and still chose not to do anything about it. Getting into someothing in the first place is the only part I wouldnt call someone weak.
I kind of rambled there. I really don't want to get into an arguement or debate. I mearly wanted to interject the definition of addiction.
This is why stupid people should be eradicated from society.
Addiction has nothing to do with how you get into it, whether you call it a habit, addiction, conditioned response whatever.
Addiction has everything to do with how you get out of it, or if you get out of it at all.
"It's something even the Masters don't reveal about the hidden nature of the universe... the deepest and darkest of all that the Force lets you see... the universe has a sense of humour." Callista, Children of the Jedi
quote:
Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Plato said that the unexamined life is not worth living.
That would be Socrates, actually.
If games were addictive then there'd have to be something directly connecting electrochemical receptors to the game. And there aren't. When we can wire a game directly into our head, yeah, maybe. But not now. If you think you're addicted to a game and blame EQ or AO or AC or AO or DAoC or anything else, then you're full of shit. Your symptoms may resemble those of an addict, but they're not the same thing. Sleep deprivation can cause symptoms similar to being drunk, but they're not the same thing. One is internal, one is external.
That's why you can't treat the two the same. If you're addicted, you have to go through body detox. Going cold turkey almost never fully works. You have to reduce your intake, stabilize your body chemistry gradually, and ease yourself out.
Curing yourself of a problem with a video game is almost the exact opposite. A video game "addiction" is actually a lack of consideration. You actively decide that you want to pursue self-gratification rather than fulfilling your responsibilities. You choose to do what's easier. You choose to sit in front of your computer or video game console and play a video game that gives you easily-attained rewards that in the end mean nothing rather than real rewards that take work and the fulfilling of obligations. To the degree that in some games there are groups of people who pay money for the opportunity to gain prestige that doesn't matter (see many of the ultimate uberguilds in EQ where they call you any time of day to go raiding).
As for the idea that video games are the cause of violence or whatever, there hasn't been a single case where a more important factor was in disarray. In Columbine, the gunmen's parents were negligent in keeping track of what their kids were up to, for instance. And if a parent doesn't know their child has a gun and is getting ready to kill themself, then they're not involved enough. There's another reason, not game influence.
My stepbrother Ruffin, for instance. He killed himself in December. We all thought he was a happy guy. Funny, easy going, raised much in the same manner I was. He killed himself and no one can say why. He didn't kill himself because a video game influenced him. He didn't kill himself because he read about it in a book. Or because he was addicted to a certain TV show. He killed himself for an unfathomable reason. Something he never explained or hinted at to anyone. And much as we would love to be able to point to a reason and say "That's why" we likely never will.
In a lot of cases parents who make these sorts of attempts to sue are looking for money. But even the most noble (believe it or not there have been a number who have sued just to change laws and not to seek monetary recompense) do it out of the unfortunate propensity for people to just want there to be sense in the senseless. Deep down they know that the reason isn't clear cut or simple, but they need something to blame in order to get closure. And it's sad. It's terrible. When you commit suicide it's the most selfish act you can make. I pity Ruffin for feeling so confused or so bad that suicide was the answer, but in the same sense I think what he did was a horrible thing because it hurt so many of us who have to keep on going.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about Optimus Prime:
That would be Socrates, actually.
According to Bartlett's, where I looked it up just prior to posting, it was Plato.
Neener. [ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
