[dns_snek]

> Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.

I am not denying you anything. If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.

Dualism is what's behind harmful attitudes towards addiction and every other psychological disorder. People use the same exact reasoning to delegitimize depression, ADHD, anxiety, or whatever else they can use to feel superior.

> I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either. You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

[FlameRobot]

> I am not denying you anything.

You are. No ifs, not buts.

> If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.

This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.

I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices. That is obvious. The point is that people have their own agency. I had to accept I had an issue and decided to face up reality, everything after that was relatively straight forward IME.

This process took a year, so it wasn't like I woke up one morning and my mind was changed.

> Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

You are trying to latch onto anything to invalidate my point of view on the matter, based on an incorrect preconceptions of my beliefs. Which is unfortunate.

The fact is that moral judgements made by people are often for very good reasons. Even if they can't verbalise them effectively. Rather than dismissing them because you politically disagree with them, it is often worth finding out why they exist.

https://theknowledge.io/chestertons-fence-explained/

[dns_snek]

> This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.

No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds. If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.

> I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices.

This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.

[FlameRobot]

> No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.

Yes you are. Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.

From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism" (like that would matter at all), you've lost any good will I may of had with you in this discussion.

> Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.

Brain / Mind are synonyms for the most. I don't even think you know what you are saying.

> If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.

I think psychiatry can help some people. However it isn't the be all and end all of how deal with addiction or the human condition in general.

> This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.

Obviously. That doesn't mean that addicts don't have agency.

[dns_snek]

> I was an addict. I know what I am talking about.

You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.

> Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.

You're just repeating truisms. Yes of course people have to want to quit, but out of the people who want to quit, most are unable to follow through. They relapse despite fighting like hell inside their own minds.

> From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism"

You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?

That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.

P.S. I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience. If that makes it easier for you to move forward, I'm genuinely happy for you, but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.

[FlameRobot]

> You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.

I actually edited out that from my reply because I knew that this would be used this way. Also "lived experience" is such a stupid phrase. Obviously I was alive when this happened.

I am not claiming to be an expert. I am claiming you are over-intellectualising something. This is something that people constantly try to do, with almost everything now. Everything is a condition, every failing someone has can be scientifically explained. I find it nauseating tbh.

> You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?

1) You brought this up by talking moral judgements of others. So it did cross your mind. So that is a lie. Also I feel extremely guilty about what I did. I should do.

2) I am not part of that group. I specifically said so. What I was trying to explain is that "While I am not one of these and do dogmatically believe it, there some rationale and value behind it".

> And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?

I said you didn't know what you was talking with regards to moral judgements. I specifically quoted the piece of text I was responding to. What you wrote was kinda tripe tbh.

> That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.

What you did was make a jab at me because you assumed I was dogmatically believed in a set of ideas. You seem to be attempting to retcon this now. I don't find it offensive. I find it tiresome. I am not an American, and I am not a conservative.

> I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience.

I am not saying I was in full control of addiction.

I did make a choice to drink. Every-time I bought the alcohol (often while sober) I made a choice, full cognisant of the consequences. It was my own hubris to stopped me from taking the correct course of action sooner. There doesn't need to be a more complex explanation because it is the truth. I don't need to intellectualise it further.

I have seen other people do exactly the same thing as I did.

> but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.

I am not doing either. I have throughout this thread said "this was my mistake, I take full responsibility". I am specifically telling you that I am not better than anyone else and in fact people were correct in judging me poorly due to my own behaviour at the time.

[cyberpunk]

So your argument is that smokers and obese people have literally no control over their consumption because of non-duality? I mean, I’m a buddhist, I probably have a stronger sense of non-duality than most and that’s just horseshit unless I misunderstood you.

edit: this is like saying rapists aren’t responsible for their crimes because they had a physiological response to seeing someone they found attractive.

Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.

[dns_snek]

No, I'm saying that, to a very significant degree, our behavior is driven by physiological processes inside of our brains, and overcoming these can be extremely difficult. If people could just choose not to eat then they wouldn't be obese to begin with.

You would know if you ever experienced depression, ADHD, or any other disorder takes away your executive function. I take it you don't consider these to be real disorders?

> Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.

Re: Discipline: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45702667

[cyberpunk]

Oh no I think they’re real, but I also I think the proportion of people who genuinely have no control over these parameters is vanishingly small.

In all things, generalisation is probably too blunt, but removing the agency from everyone, turning them into victims of their own brain chemistry and advancing the narrative that they can’t possibly change their situation does them far more harm than good.

Even depression, there are things which you can do to overcome it. I’m not saying it’s easy, but you seem to be arguing it’s impossible.

[dns_snek]

Stop painting everything so black & white. I am not arguing that it's impossible, nor that people have "no control" over anything. I am arguing that it's difficult and that it's ignorant and harmful to paint their problems as just "lack of discipline".

The problem is that dualists (like the person I originally responded to) assume that willpower is separate from physiology, therefore what's easy for them should be easy for others, and therefore if others can't achieve the same things they are achieving then they must be lazy, lack discipline, and don't deserve additional help or compassion.

These sorts of ignorant beliefs then shape policy and make it harder for people to get help to deal with their problems, perpetuating the cycle, for example the rather famous failure of "the war on drugs". That's the only thing I'm arguing - that people need to accept that addiction is a complex and individual health problem and to start treating it as such, it's the only way we're going to move forward.

[cyberpunk]

Of course it’s difficult. Do you think having drive enough to overcome an addiction, or fight to change your situation is simply “easy” if you have discipline? What kind of argument is that? You need discipline precisely because things are difficult, I don’t really see where we disagree on this.

[dns_snek]

You continue to assume that discipline is something you innately have or don't have as part of your character/soul/whatever you want to call it, independent of your body and brain chemistry, that's where we disagree.

The way people judge "effort" and "difficulty" is broken, that's part of the problem. Whether you have or lack discipline is judged by the outcome, not by the effort that person made because the effort is invisible to the outside world.

Person A quits smoking (with 1 unit of effort), therefore they have "discipline"

Person B fails to quit smoking (with 10 units of effort), therefore they're judged to "lack discipline".

[ileonichwiesz]

> Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.

Okay, but where do you think that discipline comes from? Is it an inherent quality that a person is born with? I’d argue that it’s not, and it’s something that needs to be learned and exercised. Many people didn’t get the opportunity to learn it (yet?), and I don’t believe it makes them somehow inferior.

[cyberpunk]

I don’t think it’s in inherent quality either. Why do some people decide to put the cake down and hit the weights and others don’t? I don’t know, all i’m saying is the option existed for both and in the end it’s a choice.