Habit Formation
Personality Spectrum Filter;
Example - Psychoactives
A Note to Diana Collins
Dear Diana,
I don't know if you got a chance to look at the last Filter I posted. It was the ensembled filter that when put together optimally enables us to do a credible job at discerning what is Real vs. what is Not Real, or Unreal, or Imaginary. I called it the Reality Perception Filter.

Of course, none of us likely perceives reality exactly as it occurs. We have to detect it and interpret it in some way that has meaning and our cognitive and physical bodies are the instruments for doing that. What we detect is only as accurate as our instruments! Since we are all built differently, we're all going to detect and interpret stuff a little differently.
What the Reality Perception Ensemble does, then, is not necessarily get us to the full actual truth, but rather it attempts to do a good job at letting us understand whether what we are perceiving is as close to the Truth as our corporal instruments will ever let us get to at the current time. It helps us discern which parts of our perceptions are actually Unreal or Strictly Imaginary.
What was interesting about working on the Reality Perception Ensemble is that I wanted to take the approach of bringing more of the exploratory science into it. None of the work I read talks about the ensemble in the same way I did in my posting. But, like all biologists, they went about studying it by checking out examples where the ensemble was clearly broken. Clinically, those show up as schizophrenia. I won't go further on about that, because it will take me too far off topic. But what was extraordinarily wonderful for me is to see how much actual biophysiological and genetic science has been going on in this domain over the past 20 years. Including getting past the Political Correctness (PC) thing. I referenced some recent research in my posting.

So, now on to the next Filter.

I got to thinking:
  • There is the Real and the Unreal, and our ability to tell the difference. That would be "Step 1."
  • All of us are implemented a little differently with that Reality Perception Filter, so some are pretty credible, others not so but still tolerable, others are more "high maintenance" and then others have an ensemble that has become corrupted enough to render them schizophrenic.
  • "Step 2", after we've decided whether or not something is Real is to engage with it. Or, not. Whether fictional or real. Think about it or forget about it.

    What motivates us to actually engage in doing something with whatever it is we have decided has our interest? It's one thing to be interested in something. It's another thing to do something about it. And, either stick with it or change direction. Some navigate that easier than others. Some are not so motivated. Others are consumed.
  • Is there anything understood biologically that could shed insight on that?
Generally, as we engage repeatedly with what we enjoy, we develop both a habit of returning to and an urge to experience them again.

Whether it be either a behavior or a relationship or even an intoxicant that we engage with, if we experience some sort of feeling of satisfaction, it is often the case that Habit Formation occurs. With some, these formed habits and urges can become irresistible. And difficult to avoid once the habit or urge has formed.

So I thought "substance abuse" would start to get me close to maybe some "altered" versions of the "Habit Formation Ensemble" for lack of a better term for it. And its interesting what I found.

It turns out there are a few common things about this area.
  • Thing 1: The more extreme versions of Habit Formation are often called "addictions." If they are causing a problem, we may consider them "broken", in need of intervention or repair. But in reality, from a biochemical perspective, these may not be "broken" functions. It may be that they are simply stronger (or weaker) than what is observed "usually." In any case, the phenotypes are "different", because the activities of one or more of the components creating the trait being observed is different.

    The "Addictions" don't have to be chemical, they can be behavioral. They can be anything that we are now seemingly irresistibly drawn to, whether or not we are aware that in the end there is a likelihood of a negative outcome. So, they could be chemical, like the opiates, pain killers, alcohol, caffeine, etc. All have positive uses, and can be used positively. Many who consume these compounds do not become addicted. But there are many who do become addicted and continue their use, again whether or not they are aware that the end result can be negative. And, most are aware of the negative risks and their likelihoods but continue use anyway. The addicted.

  • Thing 2: All these addictive things (chemical, sex, exercise, gambling, etc.) stimulate reward centers in the brain. That is explained as part of the addictive mechanism (although I will challenge that). But all the literature seems on board with the notion that stimulating these reward centers creates a satisfaction feedback loop that becomes irresistible and leads to the addiction. The psychological addiction. Physical addiction also occurs, but I'm just focusing on the behavior side. So, reward stimulated psych addiction.

  • Thing 3: There is at least one organic factor (our own bodies make it, we have a gene for it) that has been seen to be increased in all the examples of addiction of all types. It's called Delta-FosB (ΔFosB).

    An amazing thing, and I won't go further into that either here. (→ I do here. ←) But, when ΔFosB is increased addiction is facilitated. (The current science status as I am writing you believes it is required, but I haven't validated that.) When inhibitors of ΔFosB are present, addiction is lessened.
OK, so just those 3 things for now.

As an aside, and thinking about this, it occurs to me that folks are built differently around this realm, this ensemble, and that can explain a lot of choices and outcomes that we see. And why some of us wind up involved in addictive behaviors, or strong habits, and others not, and maybe many of us somewhere in between.

For example, there are many things that I absolutely know that I would find enjoyable. Not only easily imagined, but I can find myself drawn there. All for True and Real reasons. And, I know the experience would be great. Wonderful. And on and on. I totally "get it" what the addicted are drawn to. Or, I at least think I might (most of the time) and it seems really real and attractive to me. At the time. Maybe all the time.

But, I don't go there if I come to understand the negative consequences that can result from it. Somehow I have the ability to understand and imagine and even experience what is really "rewarding" and wonderful to me, and yet I can walk away from it if I see that the picture as a whole would be negative overall.

Others, and I've known them, many of them, aren't as likely to walk away. They form habits and don't turn back, even when the negative consequences become apparent. Apparent to them, their friends, family, those they work with. Sometimes they develop chemical addictions. Sometimes gambling related. Sometimes affairs. Rarely do the tough ones ever resolve nicely. Except for maybe coffee. They keep that one, and develop a sort of romantic attraction to it, proud that it is a required part of their morning. It doesn't kill them, but its got them. They say they choose to keep drinking. But, with strong addiction, is it really a "free" and independent choice? Yes, ultimately the addict chooses, formally. But, was the choice actually ever going to be different than the choice to continue repeating the behavior now craved?

So, I'm thinking that for some, that reward center gets stimulated and some can say, "Hey, that is good, but I am going to step aside from that, or at least go there much less often than I would enjoy going there." And for others, they may not have an overriding "Preference to Think Through All Sides of the Opportunity." So, they just go where their reward center has now given them the experience that they enjoy going there. Somehow the "enjoy" is the draw. Over and over again. In fact, maybe the "enjoy" is like the Indoctrination thing I've mentioned before. Once indoctrinated, the conflicting opinions and facts are just simply dismissed. Not considered. I don't know how to elaborate on this further.

Other than just to remind you that I am thinking of all this at the abstracted level. Rather than simply a drug addiction thing, its more like a "What thing (that I would enjoy) will I Do or Not Do thing." A filter that influences how irresistibly we will prefer (actually choose to do) that which we know we would enjoy at the moment when it is happening, without much regard for what the long term outcome might be (which we will usually dismiss rather than think too hard about.)

The Habit Formation Personality Spectrum Filter.

So, some of us feel all the things that others feel too, but are able to stand a little apart from it anyway and say, "Stop! I really know that would be quite nice, rewarding, and it would be, but I'm not going there for [pick whatever relevant reasons.]"

Others, feeling the same feelings, are NOT able to stand aside, or just don't care to, and instead say, "Go! That's really gonna be great. Let's try it. Again!"

There are reasons I continue to write. All my Best,

David

→ The Note to Diana Collins was last updated 09 Dec 2016 15:20 PST ←

(Please use your "BACK" function to return to the previous page.)