[rayiner]

> I wonder why, when we talk about obesity, there is this tendency to use language that removes responsibility from the person, or at least move it from their mind to their "body", as if they were different entities.

I wonder why, when we talk about obesity, "responsibility" even enters the discussion. Obesity is a nationwide phenomenon, which means for "responsibility" to be the root cause, we have to posit that people as a whole are "just less responsible" than previous generations. It's ridiculous to posit that a basic biological process such as the ability to regulate food intake has changed so dramatically in just one generation.

"Personal responsibility" as the root cause of obesity also leads to questionable conclusions. 20% of black children are obese versus 14% of white children. Are black people just "less responsible" than white people? I think that conclusion requires a special level of justification for obvious reasons.

[bb85]

I'm just wondering why there seems to be more empathy towards people with eating habits problems, than when it comes to other addicts.

Maybe because they cause less damage to other people?

I don't think humans are less responsible, on a society scale obviously the problem is deeper. I'm just wondering why for other problems we blame people, but not for that one.

Maybe it has to do with addictions moving away from some common substances (alcohol, tobacco) and the food industry picking up the slack? And maybe in an evolving world, the number of addicts is bound to increase, as we adapt to the rise of new forms of pressure. Like the ever increasing lemon-squeeze dept system, or in-app purchases??

[rayiner]

> I'm just wondering why there seems to be more empathy towards people with eating habits problems, than when it comes to other addicts.

Because 75% of the country doesn't have a moderate to severe coke addiction. "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve. What the majority of people do is by definition "normal" and so when you have a problem that afflicts the majority of the population, the problem is considered structural rather than aberrational.

[pcwalton]

> "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve.

I don't think the definition of addiction has to do with how many people are addicted. Seems uncontroversial to me that the majority of the population in the early part of the 20th century were addicted to tobacco smoking, for example.

Google brings up this definition of addiction: "physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects." How widespread it is doesn't enter into it.

[rayiner]

That may be factually true. But only now that everyone has stopped smoking do we actually talk about "smoking addiction." Back when everyone did it, it wasn't treated as an addiction with us blaming individual smokers for smoking. It was treated as a public health problem, and ultimately the blame was laid at the feet of the tobacco industry.

[pcwalton]

I think that was more of a linguistic change than anything. If the word "addiction" had been commonplace during the lead up to Prohibition, I bet you that the prohibitionist movement would have constantly used the term "alcohol addiction", despite alcohol use being ubiquitous. Nowadays, for example, you see articles talking about "caffeine addiction", despite the fact that the majority of the population drinks coffee.

I think you're absolutely right that "addiction" has a negative connotation, and all things considered most people are less likely to pass judgment on things that the majority does. But people do criticize popular things all the time too.

[dragonwriter]

> But only now that everyone has stopped smoking do we actually talk about "smoking addiction."

Er, no, we started talking about nicotine addiction long before that.

> Back when everyone did it, it wasn't treated as an addiction with us blaming individual smokers for smoking.

Actually, treating it as an addiction has been exactly the opposite of "blaming individual smokers for smoking" -- while certainly the fact that it has become rarer has coincided with an increase in stigmatization (there's a two-way causal relationship there, in a positive feedback loop), that's separate entirely from treating it as an addiction (that's treating it as something people don't like around them.)

Treating it as an addiction is providing medical and counseling support for people to deal with the addiction, and placing blame on the tobacco companies for deceptively and knowingly marketing an addictive substance for many years.

> It was treated as a public health problem, and ultimately the blame was laid at the feet of the tobacco industry.

You seem to use "as an addiction" and "as a public health problem" as if they were opposites, which is odd, because actual addiction is (and is treated as) a fairly significant public health problems.

[kenjackson]

By that definition we are addicted to water, oxygen, and calories.

[DanBC]

> "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve.

I've never seen a definition of addiction that uses "most people don't do it".

Addiction tends to require:

i) Tolerance

ii) Pre-occupation

iii) Seeking

iv) Continuing when you know it's harmful.

Obesity tends to lack the tolerance and the seeking behaviours.

[DanBC]

Everybody eats food. They die if they don't.

Heroin is not a required nutrient.