JoHann Hari is a British Journalist who has written for many of the world’s leading newspapers, including the New York Times. For his book Chasing The Scream (January 2015) he spent three years researching the war on drugs and questioning the ways in which we treat addiction. Click below to watch his Ted Talk.
In a previous Ted Talk (October 2012) about addiction, Canadian Physician and chemical dependency specialist, Gabor Mate, discusses his theories.
Both Ted Talks address the Nature Vs. Nurture controversy. They both agree that “nurture” (environment/experience) is fundamentally responsible for the development of destructive/addictive behaviors. Traditional thinking about addiction favors “nature,” which is genetics.
The following is my personal interpretation of the traditional and current science, paired with my experience. This is only an opinion and a very loose interpretation of the talks given by Hari and Mate. I hope you will take the time to watch both of these Ted Talks.
Hari and Mate agree that addiction arises from a lack of social and supportive connections that may/may not result from a traumatic life event. There seems to be agreement that a genetic predisposition exists, but that a sense of love, belonging and relevance are greater determinants in developing addictive behaviors.
I believe that experimentation and even occasional binge behavior (alcohol, drugs, sex, shopping, gambling) are relatively normal. Addiction develops when the behaviors persist despite obvious harm to self and others along with repeated attempts to refrain from these behaviors despite the negative consequences.
In the majority of cases, I agree that addiction can be rooted in a traumatic life event or a general lack of life purpose or strong social connections. If the desire to “escape” persists, it will lead to repeated exposure to the drug/behavior which will likely increase in both frequency and magnitude. This is when the genetic argument takes shape.
In other words, recreational substance use may not be enough to trigger an “addictive” response in an individual who is “at risk” for addiction, genetically speaking. However, if an “at risk” individual over-uses a substance or behavior to escape uncomfortable thoughts, memories or life in general, a chemical or physical dependency on the substance or behavior will develop.
Hari criticizes the traditional “intervention” approach to addiction. He says threats are not an effective way to discourage an individual from engaging in a destructive behavior. After watching his talk, I agree with him.
I agree that “nature” is the greatest contributor to a state of addiction. But I don’t think the removal or management of the contributing factor(s) alone is enough. If a true chemical dependency has developed, physical withdrawal symptoms (vomiting, hallucinating, vitals) need to be appropriately managed to maximize the likelihood of sobriety.
I agree that an effective approach to addiction should shift away from punishment and isolation and should include greater efforts to “connect” addicted individuals and help them find meaning and purpose in their lives. There will never be a magical equation, but a more balance combination of the strategies would be a great start.
