Addiction and definitions
Related Topics
rlh ...@aol.com (RLH057)
There is no such diagnosos called addiction. There is only substance dependence or substance abuse deliniated by the specific substance. Substance dependence requires 3 of 5 specific signs/symptoms, abuse requires 1 of 5 and the signs/symptoms differ. There is no diagnosis for codependency nor will there be. It does not,nor,cannot exist as a specific disorder.
The ways of perceiving and behaving commonly thought to be "coda" signs/symptoms are easily diagnosed as adjustment disorders. In fact if anyone here has been treated for "codependency" you will not find that term on the official document for insurance.
The terms addiction, codpendency are simple pop-psychology with pop-psychology treatment. Regards, Rich H.
julia_stam ...@my-deja.com
And in the earlier versions of the diagnostic handbook there was no such disorder as bulimia, it only got included in the latest version.
Does that mean the disease didn??t exist before the official world acknowledged its existence?According to your approach, that ought to be the case.Yet there must have been people who suffered from it before to make it possible to describe and define the disease so they could include it in the diagnostics catalogue.This isn??t like the chicken and the egg, a disease has to preexist the forming of criteria for its diagnosis. Obviously, the official world is prepared to accept the notion that there might be diseases as yet undescribed, and they are ready to learn about them.
BTW as far as I know the official psychology world has been beginning to come round to the notion that there might be addictive behaviour that is not connected to the use of a substance foreign to the human body. In an article that I read recently(I disremember where) the author suggested that the so-called non-substance-related addictions are, in fact, addictionlike reactions to the adrenaline high that comes with the activity you??re addicted to.So there might not even be any difference basically.
Apart from that, categorically denying that something might exist is the best way to avoid having to learn about it.
For most of us here, terming the specific kind of "adjustment disorder" we are fighting to overcome "codependency" is a working solution at finding a shorthand to describe what we mean. And you seem to know it, too, or how else could you apply the diagnostic criteria to it that made you remote-diagnose it as a form of "adjustment disorder"?
So, pop-psychology or not, hasn??t using the term been an effective means of communicating with you?
Regards, Julia Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
OhNoMrBillW impsy...@privacyx.com
good definition ....i believe that it is an accquired disability..brought on by self indulgence.
i also believe that people need to be made responsible for their behaviors and should be flooged or at least publicly whipped. LOL
OhNoMrBillW impsy...@privacyx.com
i think he is simply pointing out the irony of this so called disease.
there is no chance that co dependency is going to make its way into the DSM.
too many people think its a joke, as i do. lets make up a disease that has symtoms that almost anyone could fit into and then itll become real. co dependency is the EST of the new millenium..its had its 15 minutes, whats next from the drugstore pop psychology bookshelf? youd think that with the 12 step movement being around for so long that alcoholism and co dependency would be wiped out, yet sadly its bigger than ever. during the early 80's 1,2 million people went to 12 step treatment centers and this rate satyed steady for the next 10 years..at that rate there should be no one left even if half of them were repeats. thats not the case...why?.
"brian" br...@phoenix-glasgow.freeserve.co.uk
please please not flooged...anything but flooged....please dont get the big flooger to me .......please please CO***holeUGH ...
"Richard" rra...@uswest.net
I knew there was a GAWD! Rich and Mr. Bill join voices to force us poor stupid (lazy and inadequate as we must be) CoDEPs to "get it right, or face a flooging.
The only thing I can't figure out is; "How did he smuggle a laptop in to that island?" I mean there were pictures of him running around naked, and you still couldn't see that laptop and modem anywhere.
I wonder where he put it?
Richard ...
metaphorSPAMBL ...@usaor.net (Stewart/sna)
simple >pop-psychology with pop-psychology treatment.
First of all, you have to get the "lingo" straight. The term "coda" is not an abreviation of the word codependence (would that be "code"??). The term "coda" is an acrynym for the 12-step program known as Co-Dependents Anonymous (also written as CoDA). The use of words is very important.
Words have meaning. :-) Grief is not reimbursed for by insurance companies. I suppose when your parents die you should just stop feeling this thing some misguided fools call grief. They should realize that grief doesn't exist. It's not in the DSMIV. It's not something that insurance companies recognize. It's just a bunch of pop-psychology. JUST STOP THIS MADNESS, GRIEF DOESN'T EXIST. :-) Sincerely Stewart
--
The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self metaphorSPAMBL...@usaor.net or anon-7...@anon.twwells.com (remove the SPAMBLOCK) Please send me an e-mail copy of your posted response.
"tpatrick" tpatr...@direct.ca
Yawn tpatrickb RLH057 <rlh...@aol.com> wrote in article <20000910154820.26559.00000...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
: There is no such diagnosos called addiction. There is only substance dependence : or substance abuse deliniated by the specific substance. Substance dependence : requires 3 of 5 specific signs/symptoms, abuse requires 1 of 5 and the : signs/symptoms differ. There is no diagnosis for codependency nor will there : be. It does not,nor,cannot exist as a specific disorder.
: : The ways of perceiving and behaving commonly thought to be "coda" : signs/symptoms are easily diagnosed as adjustment disorders. In fact if anyone : here has been treated for "codependency" you will not find that term on the : official document for insurance.
: : The terms addiction, codpendency are simple pop-psychology with pop-psychology : treatment. : : Regards, : : : Rich H. :
"tpatrick" tpatr...@direct.ca
: : > In article <20000910154820.26559.00000...@ng-bh1.aol.com>, : > rlh...@aol.com (RLH057) wrote: : > > There is no such diagnosos called addiction. There is only substance : > dependence : > > or substance abuse deliniated by the specific substance. Substance : > dependence : > > requires 3 of 5 specific signs/symptoms, abuse requires 1 of 5 and the : > > signs/symptoms differ. There is no diagnosis for codependency nor : > will there : > > be. It does not,nor,cannot exist as a specific disorder.
: > > : > > The ways of perceiving and behaving commonly thought to be "coda" : > > signs/symptoms are easily diagnosed as adjustment disorders. In fact : > if anyone : > > here has been treated for "codependency" you will not find that term : > on the : > > official document for insurance.
: > > : > > The terms addiction, codpendency are simple pop-psychology with pop-
: > psychology : > > treatment.
: > > : > > Regards, : > > : > > Rich H.
: > > : > : > And in the earlier versions of the diagnostic handbook there was no : > such disorder as bulimia, it only got included in the latest version.
: > Does that mean the disease didn??t exist before the official world : > acknowledged its existence?According to your approach, that ought to be : > the case.Yet there must have been people who suffered from it before to : > make it possible to describe and define the disease so they could : > include it in the diagnostics catalogue.This isn??t like the chicken and : > the egg, a disease has to preexist the forming of criteria for its : > diagnosis. Obviously, the official world is prepared to accept the : > notion that there might be diseases as yet undescribed, and they are : > ready to learn about them.
: > BTW as far as I know the official psychology world has been beginning : > to come round to the notion that there might be addictive behaviour : > that is not connected to the use of a substance foreign to the human : > body. In an article that I read recently(I disremember where) the : > author suggested that the so-called non-substance-related addictions : > are, in fact, addictionlike reactions to the adrenaline high that comes : > with the activity you??re addicted to.So there might not even be any : > difference basically.
: > Apart from that, categorically denying that something might exist is : > the best way to avoid having to learn about it.
: > For most of us here, terming the specific kind of "adjustment disorder" : > we are fighting to overcome "codependency" is a working solution at : > finding a shorthand to describe what we mean. And you seem to know it, : > too, or how else could you apply the diagnostic criteria to it that : > made you remote-diagnose it as a form of "adjustment disorder"?
: > So, pop-psychology or not, hasn??t using the term been an effective : > means of communicating with you?
: > : > Regards, : > : > Julia : > : > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ : > Before you buy.
: : : :
ro ...@hhmi.ucla.edu (Karen Ronan)
Rich is not a licensed psychologist and he cannot diagnose anyone. This is just his personal opinion, and not the truth or a fact.
Karen
rlh ...@aol.com (RLH057)
What you speak of here is a psychosocial cause. The only problem is that it ignores the biological. To do so leaves out a vital part of the problem.
Very interesting. How would you propose to Make Them.
>should be flooged or at least publicly whipped. LOL ...and what should you be flogged for?
Regards, Rich H.
rlh ...@aol.com (RLH057)
Get this straight Richard, I speak only for myself. I join forces only with those I choose.
It is very interesting that you have chosen to call some of the people on this NG: " poor You have repeatedly called many here names because they disagree with you, while at the same time accusing them of name calling. Now you label a whole community ">poor >stupid (lazy and inadequate"... How pathetic.
Regards, Rich H
OhNoMrBillW impsy...@privacyx.com
what i speak of is my experience........not some more psycho babble from a book at the drugstore.
rlh ...@aol.com (RLH057)
OK lets see how you did on your ***ertions; 1.) >Rich is not a licensed psychologist...
True; great start.
2. ) >he cannot diagnose >anyone.
False.
3. ) > This is just his personal opinion, False.
4. ) >not the truth False.
5. ) >or a fact.
False Hmmm. 1 out of 5 correct. 20% Better luck next time.
Regards, Rich H.
Wolfgang Koch wolfgangk...@myokay.net
let's look how you do: Codependency exist = 100 points does not exist = 0 points count for yourself :-) Anyway, I did a lot of thinking about you lately. Am I right when I say your emphasis is on the mind instead of emotions, the later are actually treated as annoyances?
On 12 Sep 2000 21:38:50 GMT, rlh...@aol.com (RLH057) wrote:
rlh ...@aol.com (RLH057)
Thanks.
If you place my opinions in contrast with the over emphasis on emotions of "coedepndency" recovery or whatever I can certainly see how you might think that.
That is, however, far from the truth. I provide some balance to the almost fanatical reliance on feelings to direct peoples lives. There must be balance between the two, what ever that means.
The problems come in when some one mistakes a feeling for the reality; eg.
feeling powerless is far different from being powerless, but many will give up based on the feeling without consulting the intellect. Very harmful.
In addition one can gain control over ones feelings with certain techniques so they do not rule the individual.
It is a fascinating topic but if you wish to find what I believe check out "The Prophet" by Khalil Gibran, the section titled "On Reason and P***ion". He states it far more eloquently than I ever could. The final line I believe is: "May you rest in reason and move in p***ion".
Regards, Rich H.
Jim jrjos...@abcs.com
That is your job? Are you a "higher power?"
ro ...@hhmi.ucla.edu (Karen Ronan)
It's not your opinion?
Your views are THE TRUTH? I don't think so.
Opinions stated as facts are still not facts.
You're out of luck because I am going to open the curtain and show people the "Great Wizard of Oz." You are nothing but a motivational speaker.
Karen
Wolfgang Koch wolfgangk...@myokay.net
Basically I agree, although I feel that your statements have to be more specific, since only then we may discover our differences: The so called emotional balance is many times a mere cover-up of deeply buried emotions from the past. Therefore "certain techniques" are often more or less curing the symptoms without touching the sources.
Normally we always have at least two choices when dealing with intensive emotional situations, our mind (or intellect) will make a decision based upon our experiences.
And here the problem starts: some of our feelings may result from very early encounters at a time we were not able to make intelligent decisions or were just powerless. Those situations burned kind of emotional messages into our bodies.
That's the reason why many of our today's decisions appear seemingly unreasonable, our intellect isn't able to see the situation as it is since it always looks through a filter from the past.
Intellectuals more than others usually hide those lost and unconsciousness feelings because they can't endure the pain that's connected to reliving those feelings. The drawback is they don't live their life as full as possible: no lows, no highs, they become spectators or outsiders when others dance, flirt, have sex and so on.
That's what most people consider balanced.
This has nothing to do with having emotions rule my life, they can only rule me if I don't face them, if I deny them. Once I freed myself, I can much better decide if I want to let them happen (feelings) or rather take a different approach. And that's the real freedom.
Wolfgang On 12 Sep 2000 22:55:30 GMT, rlh...@aol.com (RLH057) wrote:
Wolfgang Koch wolfgangk...@myokay.net
I think Rich referred to his job rather than to this NG.
In the NG he provided us, among other things, with his colorful Hippos. These are really helpful for overcoming severe situations, and are meant for nothing else.
Rich, since you listen: What would you tell somebody who is talking about her feelings about being sexually abused in their childhood.
Would you take their emotions seriously or try to shift the issue, therefore demising the persons feelings?
Wolfgang
| To Top |