atymes at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 21:15:03 UTC 2016
On Mar 21, 2016 1:31 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that Peale was arguing that if, say, the heroin addict -- as
defined by conventional standards -- were not addicted to heroin, they
would find something else to be addicted -- as defined by the conventional
standard -- provided the opportunity presented itself. In other words, some
people are just more prone to get addicted overall -- and meaning others
are generally not so prone.
As someone with a family history of addiction, it does look to me that some
people - such as myself - are more likely than others to get addicted.
The trick is in choosing what you get addicted to, preferably early on:
adolescence if not earlier, while the addictions that can stay with you for
life (or take a lot more effort to change later) are still forming. The
tobacco industry knows this quite well.
I could have been an alcoholic, or a chain smoker...or far worse in terms
of harm to other people, just for the thrill of seeing what I did help
shape the world to a degree others acknowledged. I chose instead to addict
myself to video games, storytelling, solving problems, and other neutral or
positive things, though it can be harder to drive one's addictions toward
not-immediately-rewarding tasks. (I still take some pleasure in the
results my small contribution to cybernetics has had. And then there's
what I do for my current startup; there is a blurry line between "addicted
to work" and "focused on work".)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat