[ifyoubuildit]

> I find the tone of the article a bit annoying. It reminds me of people on LinkedIn going on about how much better they feel since they gave up alcohol.

I'm curious about this. I notice this sentiment on any topic where someone quit somebody else's drug of choice.

Someone says they improved their life by dropping weed, the responses will be full of people telling you that alcohol is legal poison (nevermind that nobody was talking about alcohol) and weed is a miracle drug, and they are perfectly high functioning thank you very much.

Someone says they improved their life by dropping booze, everyone has to tell them how nobody lives forever, and didn't you see that study that says moderate drinking is healthy?

And so on for all the other substances people consume.

Its like a lot of people secretly feel like they have to justify their own usage whenever someone does something differently, as if they feel attacked for some reason. But you don't have to. You can put whatever you want in your body for whatever reason you choose. And if other people choose not to (and maybe even choose to write about it), why should that be a bother to you?

[graemep]

I would flip that round and ask why people need to feel they have to talk about overcoming any personal problem on social media? Particular as I see it most often on LinkedIn which is supposed to be for business, and mostly used for business. Is it an appropriate venue to discuss something as personal as overcoming an addiction?

The other thing is that there is a strong element of trying to encourage others to do the same. This article is better than most but its intent is still "you should do the experiment for yourself."

It also presents some supposed science that is very misleading. No mention of studies that show any group of people benefit. No mention of differences between long and short term reactions. No mention of possible benefits. No mention of the dangers of suddenly stopping taking it (it is an anti-depressant, you should not suddenly stop anti-depressants).

> Its like a lot of people secretly feel like they have to justify their own usage whenever someone does something differently, as if they feel attacked for some reason.

Maybe sometimes, but quite a lot of the time there is an implicit, moralistic, criticism - the intent is very clearly "this is a bad thing to do" and everyone should stop doing it.

I certainly think people should avoid substances they find they have a tendency to abuse. If you cannot be moderate, then quit. If stopping taking it has an immediate noticeable effect then that is strong evidence you have a problem and should stop taking it. The problem is the assumption that everyone else would have the same benefits if they gave up too.

[ifyoubuildit]

> I would flip that round and ask why people need to feel they have to talk about overcoming any personal problem on social media? Particular as I see it most often on LinkedIn which is supposed to be for business, and mostly used for business. Is it an appropriate venue to discuss something as personal as overcoming an addiction?

I think that's just like anything else: either for kicks or for clicks. Give people an outlet and they'll use it, either because it feels good or it makes them money or both.

To me the more interesting thing is why people feel compelled to engage, especially so when it comes to substances.

> Maybe sometimes, but quite a lot of the time there is an implicit, moralistic, criticism - the intent is very clearly "this is a bad thing to do" and everyone should stop doing it

I think people tend to perceive the "everyone should stop doing it" whether it's there or not with these topics. If I just say "I don't X", some portion of people will undoubtedly hear "and nobody else should either" and get their hackles up.

It's really just a topic best avoided if you don't want to offend people or risk making them think poorly of you, even if you aren't the one bringing it up. Which seems a little sad.

[graemep]

> To me the more interesting thing is why people feel compelled to engage, especially so when it comes to substances.

My experience is that people do not. I almost always see these in LinkedIn where I do not respond because I do not think it would be appropriate to do so - any more than it is to discuss it there. People who do respond are uniformly supportive.

I might respond there to a discussion about whether this is something appropriate to post there.

I responded here with this comment because I saw a parallel and this is a more general discussion.

> If I just say "I don't X", some portion of people will undoubtedly hear "and nobody else should either" and get their hackles up.

Again your experience differs from mine. I do see similar comments else where and a simple "I don't do X" is invariably ignored. Even on Facebook! I saw someone say "I do not drink alcohol myself" in a discussion on FB recently and it did not affect the discussion (parents talking about teens drinking) at all and the same with a similar discussion on LinkedIn (although I read that thread less closely). I do see responses when someone makes particular claims, most commonly about vegan diets - e.g. making specific claims about health etc.

I think the responses depend on the audience and the context. If it is made on Twitter by someone widely followed I would expect lots of such responses (not seen anyone say it on Twitter that I can recall).

> It's really just a topic best avoided if you don't want to offend people or risk making them think poorly of you, even if you aren't the one bringing it up. Which seems a little sad.

I think discussing personal issues on social media is a bad idea generally so its no loss.