Carol wrote
"Dependency vs. addiction is another matter. I tend not
to use the word =
addiction because of the implications and associations that go with it. =
But, dependency may be physiological or psychological, or both. Physical =
dependency occurs when the body experiences withdrawal symptoms (not =
limited to those accompanying regulation of dendrites) and can involve =
metabolic changes or induction changes--in other words, changes in how =
the body metabolizes the drug or changes in how quickly the liver reacts =
to the presence of the drug. On the other hand, psychological dependency =
has more to do with the person's belief that he or she needs the =
drug--and can also produce very real reactions."
addiction because of the implications and associations that go with it. =
But, dependency may be physiological or psychological, or both. Physical =
dependency occurs when the body experiences withdrawal symptoms (not =
limited to those accompanying regulation of dendrites) and can involve =
metabolic changes or induction changes--in other words, changes in how =
the body metabolizes the drug or changes in how quickly the liver reacts =
to the presence of the drug. On the other hand, psychological dependency =
has more to do with the person's belief that he or she needs the =
drug--and can also produce very real reactions."
Am I the only one
who thinks that the "psychological vs. physiological" distinction reeks of the
kind of dualistic thinking of which I try so hard to dissuade my students?
I tell me students in this context that "physiological" refers to the
fairly obvious effects of the drug (and withdrawal) such as cholinergic effects
(nicotine), endorphinergic effects (opiates), etc. While saying that something
is "psychological" is a classic example of the nominal fallacy. The
effects are just as physiological but the systems involved are more complex
& subtle (probably involving dopaminergic pathways at some point) and less
well understood. To simply say the effect is "psychological" gives the
false impression that we understand it and that there are no physiological
underpinnings to the phenomenon. And just because this aspect might be more
tightly under the control of learned cues is still no reason to assert
dualism unless you're ready to assert that learning is not a physiological
phenomenon!
This is
a point my students rarely "get" but I keep
trying!
Ed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D.
Department
of Psychology,
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Co-founder & Editor www.adcham.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/epollak/home.htm
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
