Addictions Are Not Brain Diseases! I wrote this essay in June 2008, at the end of the nine months of training that I did to meet the curriculum requirements to become certified as an addiction counselor. The brain disease model was pushed so heavily in the training program, with so little discussion of more sophisticated alternatives, that by the end of the program, I had completely lost my interest in studying addictions at all, even though I had gone through the program as a way to create a foundation on which to expand my work with fetishists into comorbidity. That is, to work with clients who present more than one repetitive, uncontrollable behavior, one involving objects or actions, and another involving mind-altering substances. I suppose I expected the program to be based in philosophy rather than pharmacology, and was disappointed. However, I did take the opportunity to do a massive research study on the brain disease model, including extensive citations to scientific research on both sides of the argument, which I will transform into a website article in the near future, and for now, what follows is my anecdotal conclusion on why the brain disease model is so popular in the field of clinical psychology.  There is no question that in our current age, the medical model is the most frequently used model to explain human nature. Since the onset of the age of medicalism (beginning in the 19th century and still going full force today) the word 'nature' is more and more frequently being replaced by the word 'behavior', the aspect of human nature that is almost the exclusive focus of clinical psychology today. This is due to the rise of Skinnerian behaviorism as the preferred model for understanding human nature. In fact, behaviorism claims that there is no human nature, that everything humans do is because they are programmed like robots and nothing more to it. The denial of an inherent human nature in clinical psychology is the result of an abhorrence for insight-oriented and philosophical approaches that use qualitative methods of research, which are difficult and sophisticated, which means very few persons have the ability to conduct this type of research. Clinical psychology prefers quantitative methods of research that are so dead easy that any mindless idiot can do the research. Since the onset of the age of medicalism, clinical psychology has tried to prove to the world that it is a science, (because in the current age, only the sciences that study quantifiable objects are respected) and so it uses quantitative methods of research, which is a grotesque mistake because quantitative research cannot grasp and reflect on what lies beneath human behavior. Science, conducted using the standard quantitative methods, can only describe behaviors, frequencies thereof, and make mechanical speculations on causal correlations. It is devoid of insight. Without the capacity for insight, clinical psychology fosters ideas that place responsibility for human behavior not on humans themselves, but on ideas of afflictions, or diseases. These modern ideas redirect the responsibility for how one lives one's life away from the individual onto malignant, maladaptive, or malevolent forces outside of individual control. The idea that aberrant or destructive behavior is caused by forces beyond the control of the 'afflicted' is a carry-over from mediaeval ideas of brain diseases, chemical imbalances in the body, and 'evil spirits' or 'devils' from a supernatural realm. We see this mindset still alive today in common phrases such as 'afflicted with depression' and 'stricken by the disease of addiction'. There is no more evidence for 'chemical imbalances in the brain' than there is for devils taking possession of the will of persons who engage in deviant behaviors. In any case, the deviant is seen as helpless and weak, in need of an external, superior force to resume normal functioning. There is a strong element of power and social control in scientific and religious claims; both rely on an ignorant populous' faith in authority. Researchers who document an increase in certain chemicals in the brain after ingestion of mind-altering substances claim that the increase in chemicals is proof of a 'chemical imbalance in the brain'. This is a bogus, politically-driven way of conducting scientific research, heavily criticised by the philosophers of science who are themselves scientists. The greatest philosopher of the English-speaking world, David Hume, warned scientists during the 18th century about how easy it is to make false correlations and how to avoid them, yet clinical psychology has steadily ignored his insight on the common problems that arise in the social sciences (clinical psychology is a social science, not a physical science, though it pretends). Nothing has been proven except that there is an increase in certain chemicals during drug use, sex, eating food, running, etc. No one really knows what these increases actually mean. Science is based on making correlations and it is very easy to make false correlations when studying phenomena in which all variables cannot possibly be isolated. Different scientists sometimes make opposing claims about the exact same observation. For example, scientists who study the brains of schizophrenics claim that dopamine is the neurotransmitter responsible for collecting all of the data that is impinging on the nervous system, and moving that data to the next level of processing. In opposition, the scientists who study the brains of people who use drugs claim that dopamine is the neurotransmitter that is responsible for feelings of pleasure. In the case of schizophrenics, sudden floods of dopamine are correlated with feelings of terror and paranoia, while in drug users, sudden floods of dopamine are correlated with feelings of pleasure. So which one is it? ... terror or pleasure? The 'scientific evidence' is inconclusive in either direction, and it may be neither, because no one really understands what brain neurotransmitters really are, all we know is that they increase and decrease under various conditions. Another thing to consider in the study of brain chemistry is that no one knows what a 'chemically balanced' brain looks like, so there really is nothing to compare. Brain chemistry changes so often, so rapidly, so drastically, and under so many different conditions, including simply having memories, that scientists are unable to describe the nature of a 'balanced' brain. Scientific evidence in clinical psychology is politically driven; there is a lot of money at stake for 'proving' the existence of brain diseases. Another thing to consider when evaluating the claims made by behavioral psychologists is that 95% of all research in clinical psychology is conducted using the null hypothesis research method to make claims on truth, which means that almost all 'scientific evidence' in clinical psychology is bogus because the null hypothesis method is not scientifically rigorous. It is such a sloppy tool that nearly any ridiculous idea can be proven 'true' by using this method of making scientific conclusions. Moreover, only the low-level sciences, such as behavioral science, make claims on truth. High-level sciences, such as physics, seek to discover laws of nature, without ever making claims on truth because there is no place for the concept of truth in real science. The concept of truth when used in science, decays science into a kind of religion which is then obligated to constantly prove that its claims are true, over and over again in an attempt to gain as many converts and disciples as possible in order that it may increase its power of persuasion, manipulation, social control, and ultimately wealth. The science used in behavioral psychology is a pseudo-science that stands to profit immensely by persuading a massive, ignorant populous to have 'faith' in its authority. Thomas Szasz, Peter Breggin, and Sally Satel, are among a growing number of concerned psychiatrists who have extensive knowledge of how junk science is used to manipulate and subjugate an ignorant populous. Existential analysts, psychoanalytic philosophers, and analytic psychologists view substance abuse problems as a type of perversion, in the original sense of the term, which comes from philosophy. In Aristotle's philosophy of eudaimonism, a perversion occurs when an object or substance is used for something other than what its nature determines most suitable. In Frege's formal logic, a perversion occurs when a logical constant is used for a purpose that changes between the beginning and end of the argument. For the general public, we can simply say that a perversion occurs when something is used for a purpose other than what it was originally intended. The starting point for understanding substance abuse as a type of perversion is recognizing that both are signs of unresolved ontological disturbances. There are striking similarities between the aetiology of substance abuse, addictions, and perversions of all sorts. Drug use is a perversion if the purpose of entering into an altered state of consciousness is to escape life rather than to enter more deeply into life. Escape and transcendence are similar feelings, easily confused by those with unrefined emotional capacities. The former is accomplished by going away from, or obliterating a disturbance, while the latter is achieved by going directly into and through a disturbance, to the point of resolution and release. Humans have an unconscious motivating force that is not very well understood even by those who have spent decades exploring the nature of this deepest part of the human, of life itself. However, there are some things about this very deep part of human nature -- which ancient Greek and Roman philosophers called 'the abyss' -- that we can come to know, through the study of the patterns and manifestations of this mysterious motivating force. To continue reading along this same thought line, (though less irritated, and more contemplative:), into a discussion on how addictions may be understood and treated as perversions rather than brain diseases, read my article: |
| go to home page » |
