Neuronal Shot Noise and Brownian 1/f<sup>2</sup> Behavior in the Local Field Potential

February 3, 2009 in Blogs, Plosone - Neuroscience by PLSOne - Neuroscience

We demonstrate that human electrophysiological recordings of the local field potential (LFP) from intracranial electrodes, acquired from a variety of cerebral regions, show a ubiquitous 1/f 2 scaling within the power spectrum. We develop a quantitative model that treats the generation of these fields in an analogous way to that of electronic shot noise, and use this model to specifically address the cause of this 1/f 2 Brownian noise. The model gives way to two analytically tractable solutions, both displaying Brownian noise: 1) uncorrelated cells that display sharp initial activity, whose extracellular fields slowly decay in time and 2) rapidly firing, temporally correlated cells that generate UP-DOWN states.

Read more: 
Neuronal Shot Noise and Brownian 1/f<sup>2</sup> Behavior in the Local Field Potential

Network Adaptation Improves Temporal Representation of Naturalistic Stimuli in <italic>Drosophila</italic> Eye: II Mechanisms

January 30, 2009 in Blogs, Plosone - Neuroscience by PLSOne - Neuroscience

Retinal networks must adapt constantly to best present the ever changing visual world to the brain. Here we test the hypothesis that adaptation is a result of different mechanisms at several synaptic connections within the network. In a companion paper (Part I), we showed that adaptation in the photoreceptors (R1–R6) and large monopolar cells (LMC) of the Drosophila eye improves sensitivity to under-represented signals in seconds by enhancing both the amplitude and frequency distribution of LMCs’ voltage responses to repeated naturalistic contrast series. In this paper, we show that such adaptation needs both the light-mediated conductance and feedback-mediated synaptic conductance. A faulty feedforward pathway in histamine receptor mutant flies speeds up the LMC output, mimicking extreme light adaptation. A faulty feedback pathway from L2 LMCs to photoreceptors slows down the LMC output, mimicking dark adaptation. These results underline the importance of network adaptation for efficient coding, and as a mechanism for selectively regulating the size and speed of signals in neurons. We suggest that concert action of many different mechanisms and neural connections are responsible for adaptation to visual stimuli. Further, our results demonstrate the need for detailed circuit reconstructions like that of the Drosophila lamina, to understand how networks process information.

See the rest here: 
Network Adaptation Improves Temporal Representation of Naturalistic Stimuli in <italic>Drosophila</italic> Eye: II Mechanisms

Why Criticism Is So Hard to Take (Part 1)

January 30, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Very few people can take criticism graciously. For most of us, being criticized is uncomfortable at best–de-stabilizing (or even devastating) at worst. The ability to take criticism in stride, it seems, is almost universally elusive. We all need to feel good about ourselves, so the moment someone judges us negatively any doubts we may yet have about ourselves can immediately catapult to the surface. And, to be ruthlessly honest, which one of us doesn’t harbor certain deep-seated doubts about our worth, goodness, competence, or attractiveness? Of course, there’s some relativity in all this. If, for example, a four-year-old gets on our case for something, it’s unlikely that our emotional composure or self-confidence will be much shaken. For typically we give a child of that age very little authority to judge us. But in most instances we tend to give others’ criticisms more than enough authority to upset our equilibrium. Bulleted below are explanations as to why almost all of us are susceptible to criticism. It should be emphasized, however, that as common and understandable as this felt vulnerability may be, we hardly need be subjugated by it indefinitely. But if we’re to overcome our habitual defensiveness to criticism, we must first learn how to become more self-validating. For once our feelings of personal security become anchored from within, what others think of us will no longer be of primary concern. And my earlier three-part post on "The Power to be Vulnerable" discusses specifically how we can at last free ourselves from the relational dependency that requires us to regularly receive external validation if we’re to avoid getting our defensive buttons pushed. Nonetheless, it will be useful here to describe some of the reasons that criticism can so easily elicit a defensive reaction. Reflecting on how much these explanations might characterize your own reactions to negative appraisal should help you determine (1) what, internally , you may need to work on, so that in the future you’re less vulnerable to another’s criticism, and (2) what, externally , you might want to change in how you confront others , so you can reduce the possibility of eliciting their defenses. • Chances are that as a child you were frequently (maybe even incessantly) criticized by your caretakers. After all, none of us emerges from the womb properly socialized, so our parents must do the best they can to prepare us to become appropriate social beings, to help us learn how to relate to others in ways that don’t prompt disapproval or rejection. Very few parents are enlightened enough, or sufficiently skilled , to carry out the kind of "loving correction" that doesn’t end up making us hypersensitive–and therefore over-reactive–to criticism. As a result, negative judgment we receive as adults can automatically remind us of the inadequacies we so keenly felt when criticized as a child. Assuming we’ve never fully resolved these deep, hurt feelings, then all our accomplishments as adults–accomplishments that, logically, should verify our essential competence (or "ok-ness") once and for all–won’t be enough to protect us from re-experiencing some residue of the original hurt whenever we’re found fault with. This is why present-day criticisms are capable of inducing in us so much emotional distress. Additionally, so long as our adult achievements have never been sufficiently internalized , we’re likely to feel compelled to soften the blow of any negative judgment against us through some sort of self-defense–whether that defense take the form of mounting an animated counter-attack (" I’m not wrong– you’re wrong!"), strenuously (if not vociferously) defending our position, or tuning out the other person entirely. • Once again, looking to the past (where we got "sensitized" to criticism in the first place), consider what it felt like when we got criticized by someone whose view of us seemed vitally important. It’s safe to assume that unless that criticism was delivered with considerable tact and restraint (probably much more the exception than the rule), in that moment what most of us experienced was a painful withdrawal of love, validation, and support. My therapy clients have spoken of experiences when they were being harshly judged by their caretakers as times during which they felt not simply inadequate but unacceptable, and even abandoned. And for an insecure child–and, to some degree or other, which of us didn’t feel insecure as a child?–such parental reaction can invoke in us great anxiety, and emotional disturbance generally. After all, how could such criticism not constitute an immediate threat to the attachment bond we as children so desperately need if we’re to maintain a secure sense of family identity and belonging? In the moment of criticism–particularly dismissive, denigrating criticism–the harmonious connection we require to feel safely connected to those we must depend on feels splintered, or severed. And so, even though we grow older (and hopefully wiser), the very circumstance of being criticized is inevitably linked to–and thus can easily evoke–much earlier experiences of anxiety, frustration, and failure. Becoming conscious of the fact that our earlier vulnerability may be one of the reasons that being criticized in the here-and-now can be so challenging may at least motivate us to talk to ourselves differently in such situations where someone is finding fault with us. For only when we can appreciate such criticism as not nearly the threat that, in our gut, it might first feel to be, can we retain our emotional poise in the face of it. Note: Part 2 of this post will delineate several additional reasons to help explain why it can be so difficult to respond well to criticism. © 2009 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Read the rest here: 
Why Criticism Is So Hard to Take (Part 1)

Would we still obey? The first replication of Milgram’s work in over 30 years

January 26, 2009 in Blogs, Cognitive Daily by Cognitive Daily

Two years ago, we linked to a post about an ABC news program that claimed to have replicated Stanley Milgram’s controversial experiments from the 1960s and 70s about obedience to authority. The original study tricked unwitting paid study participants into believing that they had administered potentially deadly shocks at the bidding of an experimenter. The cover was a “learning and memory experiment,” allegedly designed to see if administering shocks would improve people’s ability to memorize a list of words. The shocks progressively escalated from 15 volts (“Slight Shock”) to 450 volts (“Danger: Severe Shock”). Most people continued to give the shocks long after their “victim” (who they believed to be another paid experiment subject but who was actually an actor who never received the shocks) asked to be released from the chair he had been strapped into for the study, and even after he apparently went unconscious from the treatment. It was a striking demonstration of the power of an authoritative voice — even the temporary authority we grant to a stranger wearing a lab coat. Shortly after Milgram published his results, new ethical guidelines (motivated in part by Milgram’s work) made replicating the study impossible, leaving future generations to wonder if they would respond in the same way as Milgram’s participants. But funded by ABC, psychologist Jerry Burger felt he had come up with a way to replicate the study without unnecessarily endangering the experiment’s participants. Here’s a clip from the show: Since the TV show wasn’t a peer-reviewed work, we didn’t comment on the study when it aired, but now Burger’s results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so we decided to give it a closer look. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

The rest is here:
Would we still obey? The first replication of Milgram’s work in over 30 years

Would we still obey? The first replication of Milgram’s work in over 30 years [Cognitive Daily]

January 26, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

Two years ago, we linked to a post about an ABC news program that claimed to have replicated Stanley Milgram’s controversial experiments from the 1960s and 70s about obedience to authority. The original study tricked unwitting paid study participants into believing that they had administered potentially deadly shocks at the bidding of an experimenter. The cover was a “learning and memory experiment,” allegedly designed to see if administering shocks would improve people’s ability to memorize a list of words. The shocks progressively escalated from 15 volts (“Slight Shock”) to 450 volts (“Danger: Severe Shock”). Most people continued to give the shocks long after their “victim” (who they believed to be another paid experiment subject but who was actually an actor who never received the shocks) asked to be released from the chair he had been strapped into for the study, and even after he apparently went unconscious from the treatment. It was a striking demonstration of the power of an authoritative voice — even the temporary authority we grant to a stranger wearing a lab coat. Shortly after Milgram published his results, new ethical guidelines (motivated in part by Milgram’s work) made replicating the study impossible, leaving future generations to wonder if they would respond in the same way as Milgram’s participants. But funded by ABC, psychologist Jerry Burger felt he had come up with a way to replicate the study without unnecessarily endangering the experiment’s participants. Here’s a clip from the show: Since the TV show wasn’t a peer-reviewed work, we didn’t comment on the study when it aired, but now Burger’s results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so we decided to give it a closer look. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Excerpt from: 
Would we still obey? The first replication of Milgram’s work in over 30 years [Cognitive Daily]

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Do You Believe in Free Will?

January 23, 2009 in Blogs, PsyBlog by PsyBlog

Does one thing inevitably lead to another? New experiments show that disbelief in free will decreases helping behaviours and increases aggression. Chances are you believe in free will – I do too. To me it seems that one moment I want cereal and soon I have it. Next I want to ride my bicycle and soon I am. Later I have an itchy nose, and, in no time at all, it is scratched. But, say some scientists and philosophers, this sense of agency is an illusion: you were hungry and that’s why you ‘wanted’ cereal; you were bored and fed up of being inside so you ‘decided’ to get some exercise; and as for itchy noses, well there is a biological cause for that as well. From a determinist viewpoint each of these actions, and their causes, as well as their causes and their causes can be traced right back to my birth, then back through my parents’ lives, then right back, like clockwork, to the beginning of the universe. The strong determinist view – that we’re locked in an unchanging web of cause and effect going right back to the big bang – is repulsive to many. And quite naturally so, as free will forms the backbone of so many of society’s structures. The criminal justice system is built on the idea that people can choose whether to obey the law or not, therefore people who don’t obey should be punished. Similarly many religious and/or philosophical systems of thought have the notion of free will at their heart. Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre emphasised the connection between freedom and responsibility. He thought we must take responsibility for our choices, and that taking responsibility was at the heart of a life well lived. This debate about free will is so interesting – and knotted – that philosophers can’t keep away from it; but psychologists, on the other hand, perhaps sensing no end to the argument, can’t help their minds wandering away to more practical points. They have focused more on how beliefs in free will might affect our behaviour and whether, more generally, there might be some reason why we seem predisposed to think we have it. In new research published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall (2009) theorise that a belief in free will may be partly what oils the wheels of society, what encourages us to treat each other respectfully. They explore this theory with three studies, two on helping behaviours and one on aggression. Free will and helping behaviours In the first experiment Baumeister and colleagues wanted to see how a belief in free will affected how much people were willing to help others. To manipulate their belief in free will participants read statements that either supported free will, supported determinism or had no bearing on the debate. A separate study confirmed that this really was enough to shift people’s thoughts towards determinism or towards free will. Participants then read scenarios in which helping behaviours were explored, for example by asking about giving money to a homeless person. They were asked to rate how much help they would provide to the people in these scenarios. The results showed that, as Baumeister and colleagues predicted, people whose thoughts had been pushed more towards free will were more likely to be helpful than those whose thoughts were pushed towards determinism. So it seems that people really are more helpful when they think they are free to choose as compared to when they believe their actions are pre-determined. Baumeister and colleagues argue that the belief that behaviour is pre-determined encourages people to behave automatically, and often automatic behaviour is selfish. Interestingly there was no difference seen between the free will condition and the neutral condition. What this suggests is that most people do already believe in free and don’t require extra encouragement. Of course we each differ in the amount we believe in free will and this may well affect how much help we are prepared to offer others. A second study by Baumeister and colleagues examined individual differences looking for an association between believing in free will and helping behaviours. Consistent with the previous experiment they found that people who had a ‘chronic disbelief’ in free will were less likely to be helpful to others. Free will and aggression The final experiment flipped the question around: instead of looking at prosocial behaviours they looked at antisocial behaviours. If a disbelief in free will makes people less helpful, perhaps it also makes them more likely to behave aggressively. As before participant’s thoughts were experimentally shifted towards free will or determinism and then their aggressive tendencies were measured. Instead of having people beating each other up in the lab, they chose a more indirect expression of aggression: putting spicy sauce on another person’s food. Participants were introduced to a study about food preferences which, with some complicated manoeuvring, they were encouraged to think had nothing to do with previous statements they read out about free will or determinism. Then they were told to prepare a plate of food for someone else to taste. One of the ingredients they could choose was a hot salsa sauce. The experimenters were interested in whether a belief in free will affected the amount of sauce participants put on the plate. When the participants left, the experimenters measured how much hot sauce they put on the plate. Those who had been primed to think more deterministically had spiced up the food, on average, twice as much as those who were primed to think in terms of free will. This seemed to have nothing to do with being more generous as they didn’t add more of other non-spicy foods, like cheese, to the plate. Believers in free will cheat less These experiments aren’t the first to examine how a belief in free will (or otherwise) affects our behaviour. In a recent study Vohs and Schooler (2008) also found that a belief in free will seems to have a positive effect on people’s behaviour. In that experiment (covered by Cognitive Daily ) participants whose disbelief in free will was encouraged were more likely to cheat on a test. These studies, then, point out the positive effect of free will on a variety of behaviours that most people would consider beneficial. Indeed it seems that most of us already have a firm belief in free will and so we’re already benefiting. Practically the danger is that our thoughts take a more deterministic turn and we move towards more aggression and cheating and away from helping behaviours. Compatibilism: reconciling determinism with free will This leaves us with a serious problem. If we think scientifically about the world then we have to accept that one thing really does lead to another; the reason I ‘decide’ to eat cereal is that I’m hungry, so in some sense the determinist is right. But a disbelief in free will is not only repugnant, it’s also dangerous for society. If we don’t have free will, a perverse kind of anarchism emerges, one which seems to encourage us to act any way we choose. After all if we don’t have free will then we’re not to blame for anything we do. One way some philosophers have tried to resolve this conflict is by pointing out that determinism and free will are not necessarily incompatible. Using everyday notions of free will philosophers have put forward a viewpoint that tries to integrate the two (see philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett’s book ‘ Freedom Evolves ‘ for a cognitive perspective). Classical compatiblists argue that we have free will if we have the power and ability to do things that we want to do. For example, say I want to go and buy a pint of milk for my cereal, and the shop is open, and I can get there, and I have money. For a compatibilist I have free will if I can choose to go, or, alternatively, not go. The fact that I do actually go (mainly because I’m hungry and want to eat cereal) doesn’t necessarily mean that I didn’t have the choice not to go. Compatibilists emphasise this idea that we have free will because we could have chosen to do otherwise, even if we didn’t. This idea that we ‘could have done otherwise’ is a powerful one, and one that appeals to our everyday experience. It doesn’t solve the dilemma of determinism but at least it provides a stick with which to fend it off. So when one person chooses not to help another, or chooses to behave aggressively, there must be reasons for that behaviour, many of which might appear to deny their responsibility. Ultimately, though, the proponent of free will has to argue this person could always have chosen to do otherwise. We have to cling to this belief, don’t we? [Image credit: evoo73 ]

Go here to read the rest:
Do You Believe in Free Will?

The Superbowl of Mind Control

January 18, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Squarely in the midst of the ‘is television mind control’ discussion is my very favorite medical emergency of the past 50 years. In 1997, 700 Japanese kids had near simultaneous epileptic seizures. And those were just the ones who were rushed to hospitals-so those are the only ones we heard about. Really, it could have been thousands. Japan’s version of the CDC went crazy. Seven hundred kids, simultaneous seizures, no clues. So weird it almost seems like television. Turns out it was television-or sort of. The reason for the seizures was later to be determined to be a program that aired an amped-up version of Pokemon. The crazy flashing lights is what did those kids in. And the power to induce changes in the brain that severe-yup, that’s what’s coming out of the box in our living rooms. University of Chicago psychologist Mihaly Csikszsentmihalyi and Rutgers University director of media studies Robert Kubey also figured this out when they used EEG technology to monitor brain waves during TV viewing. What they discovered is that TV viewing effectively acts like a narcotic-inducing both relaxation and passivity. If viewing continues this leads to drowsiness which later becomes depression which gives way to further reasons not to leave the couch. This is what we call "the cycle of addiction." But there is something of a difference (though often hard to detect) between addiction and mind-control. One is a choice, a difficult one perhaps, but a choice. The other, especially in its most effective form, removes the possibility of that opportunity before we even notice. This brings me once again to sports-or, sports journalists at least. Bill Simmons, the wry ESPN columnist, recently wrote a piece on erroneous sport’s predictions- it was sort of a over-the-top lifetime anti-achievement review. About two pages long and packed with media references. He goes from "The Longest Yard" to Ryan Seacrest faster than you can say Alfred Hitchcock-which he also says. There are a long couple of graphs devoted to his watching of the four-part Karate Kid marathon, in between watching playoff football. There are video games references and commercial references and Tony Bennet references. The whole piece is one giant admission that this guy does almost nothing but watch TV. And that’s on top of all the other TV he has to watch simply to be a sportswriter-which, as a sportswriter, I can tell you is considerably more than physically possible. And Simmons isn’t alone. Tune into almost any sports radio show and they’re filled with TV talk. Same thing with their television cohorts. Sports journalism has become de-facto advertisement for the rest for television, a shame since the thing that makes sports so wonderful is they’re one of the only forms of spontaneous entertainment left. Also, because sports is an on-going conversation, people who love sports also love listening to people talk about sports. And the people who talk about sports are also talking about how their lives are built out of television-which is fine way of giving the rest of us permission to do nothing but watch television. It’s really the most effective kind of propaganda-the kind we want to hear. Not all that much different from McDonald’s selling hamburgers to stoners. And considering that TV is now considered a public health catastrophe, just about as unhealthy.           © 2009 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Continued here: 
The Superbowl of Mind Control

The High-Functioning Alcoholic: Blog Goals and Intentions

January 18, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

I have created this blog to increase awareness about high-functioning alcoholics (HFAs) and to help to change the stereotype of the "typical" alcoholic. Alcoholics all suffer from the same disease, but it manifests in different ways. The homeless person and the high-powered executive can both be alcoholics-alcoholism does not differentiate among socioeconomic class, race, education level and appearance. However, because the HFA has the ability to perform and succeed, the treatment often comes too late or not at all. This blog came to fruition as a result of my book Understanding the High-Functioning Alcoholic: Professional Views and Personal Insights to be released March 1, 2009 ( www.highfunctioningalcoholic.com ). Professionally as a therapist, I hope to help others make sense of their own alcoholism or that of a loved one, because they do not fit the "skid row" alcoholic image that remains so pervasive in our society. I want to show that being successful and being alcoholic are not mutually exclusive, but that HFAs need help regardless of their seeming exterior success and functioning. My aim is to help end the denial that so many HFAs and their loved ones have, because these individuals are able to succeed in so many areas of their lives. Personally as a sober alcoholic, a blog such as this and my book are something that I could have used throughout my recovery. I welcome your feedback, questions and discussion around this topic. It is through our stories and truths that lives may be touched and hopefully the seeds of change will be planted. © 2009 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Read the original here:
The High-Functioning Alcoholic: Blog Goals and Intentions

The Miracle of Marriage

January 14, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

The setting of Jesus’ first miracle-his transmuting water into wine-is a wedding ceremony in Cana. "All marriages take place at Cana," says a faithful Thomas Moore. Therefore all marriages are miracles. At the unhappy end of the spectrum, others join Montaigne, who says, "The land of marriage has this peculiarity, that strangers are desirous of inhabiting it, whilst its natural inhabitants would willingly be banished thence." But it isn’t the marriage that causes the dissatisfaction, it’s the problems of the people involved in the relationship. Marion Solomon, in her book on the power of positive dependency in intimate relationships, identifies these disturbances under the rubrics of defensive dependency, anxious attachment, boundary busting, fragile connection, and defensive distancing. An even greater poison in relationships is the issue of mistrust, earned or not. An old Sufi parable, "The Ancient Coffer," as told in Moore, is a case in point: A very respected man named Nuri Bey had married a much younger woman. A faithful servant reported to him that the wife was behaving suspiciously-sitting alone guarding an old wooden trunk that was big enough to contain a body (i.e., another man). When he asked her to unlock the large chest, she refused to do so because it would mean acceptance of his mistrust. Instead she handed him the key to do so himself. After pondering the situation, Nuri Bey and his servants carried the unopened coffer far away and buried it. What was buried in that cold and lonely place was the soul of their marriage. Most marriages start with some healthy ambivalence but also with good intentions. Two people faithfully enter an arrangement seeking many unspoken, if not unrecognized, fulfillments. They may end up with blissful epiphanies or bitter struggles. If an individual is expecting the partner to actualize his or her potential, that individual will frequently find that the partner falls short of that expectation, especially if the other is suffering from the same illusion. It is probably our idealization of relationships that causes marriage to be so vulnerable. One has to establish a healthy balance. If couples did not expect marriage to be their ultimate source of satisfaction, they would not be so susceptible to its disappointments. However, if their expectations are too low, even the marital relationships of people who relate well will take second place to work (mostly in men), children (mostly in women), or some other primary agenda. Marriage at its best puts couples in a confusing dilemma: the attempt to have a union with someone else while maintaining an independent sense of self. Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary defines marriage as "the state or condition of community consisting of a master, a mistress, two slaves, making in all, two." The more the individual is undifferentiated, the greater the conflict with the partner. Marriage is a fertile ground for individuation as well as for union, but first one must be differentiated, just as a prisoner who wishes to help free his imprisoned companions must first break out of his own chains. Marriage requires attachment and individuation simultaneously, rather than sequentially, as it occurs in our early developmental years. Adapted from The Art of Serenity © 2009 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Here is the original post:
The Miracle of Marriage

The 7 hardest addictions to quit

December 15, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Here are – in reverse order of difficulty – the seven addictions people find hardest to quit. 7. Cocaine . Cocaine is an episodic-use drug. It is one moreover associated with certain lifestyles – at one time (if not now) people in the financial industry and entertainment fields – and more often younger people. Studying long-term users of cocaine, Ronald Siegel found most moderated, controlled, or quit their use over time. Patricia Erickson and Bruce Alexander surveyed the research and found that fewer than 10 percent of cocaine addicts continued their addictions for substantial periods. After cocaine use peaked in the 1980s, most middle-class users quit (although use in inner cities continued some time longer). Remarking on this phenomenon, David Musto concluded: "The question we must ask ourselves is not why people take drugs, but why do people stop." He surmised that people with fewer resources had less to counterbalance their addictions. 6. Alcohol . Alcohol is the addiction most written about, both in scientific literature and as recounted in personal memoirs. Alcoholics Anonymous members swear AA is the only way to recover; treatment experts claim alcoholism is inescapable without treatment. But epidemiological research does not find this is true. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in 2005 published the results of its National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. NESARC conducted 43,000 face-to-face interviews with a sample of Americans about their lifetime alcohol and drug use. Among these, 4,422 were classifiable at some point in their lives as alcohol dependent (or alcoholic). Somewhat more than a quarter had received any kind of treatment (including in an emergency room, attending AA, etc.). Among the large majority who went untreated, fewer than a quarter drank alcoholically at the time of the interview. Most (about two-thirds) of this group continued drinking non-alcoholically. 5. Valium. In general, drugs used for pacifying purposes (which are usually depressants), taken regularly over long periods of time, are hard to quit. This holds for sedatives, sleeping pills, barbiturates, and tranquilizers. Several best-sellers have been written about the difficulty in quitting Valium (benzodiazepine tranquilizers): Barbara Gordon’s I’m Dancing as Fast as I Can and Betty Ford’s The Times of My Life . A prominent New York City newscaster, Jim Jensen, recounted in People how he readily quit cocaine but couldn’t get off Valium: "Valium withdrawal soon plunged him into a massive depression that left him unable to eat or sleep. It took two more months in two hospitals for him to regain his mental and physical health." Ah, but Americans love these drugs, need them to survive – although in good part they have been supplanted by antidepressants. 4. Heroin . Powerful analgesics, taken regularly, are difficult for many (but not most) people to quit. After all, most of us have had intravenous supplies of narcotics in the hospital, followed by prescriptions for powerful analgesics when we went home. What is remarkable is not so much that heroin can produce serious withdrawal for some, but how variable this syndrome is and how comparable it is to other depressant and painkiller drugs and analgesics (like Vicodin and OxyContin), which are the fastest growing drugs of abuse and today are taken by the majority of illicit narcotics users and overdose victims. So much has been written about heroin withdrawal, it is mainly worth noting that when people quit the drug with little difficulty (as the major league ballplayer Ron LeFlore did when he entered prison and took up baseball) it is simply considered impermissible to describe or portray this aspect of their stories. 3. Cigarettes . In ratings by cocaine and alcohol addicts, smoking is regularly cited as the more difficult drug to quit, generally on par with or more difficult than heroin. Nonetheless, more than 40 million living Americans have quit smoking. While impressive, this still only represents about half of all of those ever addicted to cigarettes – although a higher percentage of those in higher socioeconomic groups have quit. When I speak to recovering people at addiction conferences I ask, "What is the toughest drug to quit?" By acclimation, the audience shouts out, "cigarettes" or "smoking." I then ask, "How many people in this room have been addicted to cigarettes but are now off them?" Half to two-thirds – often hundreds of people – in the room raise their hands. "Wow," I enthuse. "And how many have used any kind of therapy – medical or a support group – to quit?" Never have more than a small handful done so. 2. Potato chips. I use potato chips, of course, to stand for all kinds of alluring but fattening foods. These comfort foods, which deprive more Americans of life years than any other substance, are inextricably integrated with our own lives, and with the lives of all Americans. Although overweight is disapproved and regularly lectured against, it still doesn’t have the stigma of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, so that hidden (and not so hidden) food addictions are more readily tolerated. That gastric bypass surgery is growing so rapidly shows that this is the addiction people find hardest to quit, even those for whom it causes serious, life-threatening health conditions. In fact, we will never resolve our massive food addictions in the United States, but we hope to come up with medical cures to prevent their negative effects, as if we would succeed by simply deciding to let smokers continue to smoke noncancerous cigarettes. 1. Love . Ah, love is the hardest addiction to quit. It certainly causes more murders and suicides than any other addiction. And if you think people miss smoking, consider what people are like when they break up with long-time lovers or get divorced – even when they hate their spouses! On the other hand, we read regularly about people who totally sacrificed their lives to a lover who betrayed them or otherwise destroyed their psyches, yet who still didn’t quit the relationship – what is the answer, after all, when an abuse victim is asked why they simply don’t leave an abusive spouse? "Because I love him, and can’t live without him." Don’t despair, however, no matter what your addiction is. The large majority of addicts give up every kind of addiction . So can you. That most people do it, one way or another, tells you that it lies within your power. Graphic, ADDICTION TO LOVE by B_neoZEN, at www.DEVIANTART.com © 2008 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Read more from the original source:
The 7 hardest addictions to quit