
Becoming Addiction-Free (2017) - ivanche
https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2017/02/becoming-addiction-free/
======
hobofan
> The insidious thing about addictions is that all addictions weaken the
> prefrontal cortex, which is the part of your brain associated with self-
> discipline and willpower. The more addictions you have, the weaker your
> self-regulation abilities become

Is there any science to back that claim up? First time I've heard that and it
very much sounds like pseudo-science made up by "war on drugs" people.

\-------

EDIT: There seems to be a similar claim made in some review papers[0][1],
though those primarily focus on hard drug abuse. Would be interesting to get
the opinion of someone more qualified on the topic.

\-------

Either way, interesting article and at least that interconnection of weak
addictions is nothing I thought about like that before. I think I might even
try out that advice, as I'm currently struggling with strong procrastination
(hence me commenting here) while coincidentally my weak addictions recently
all had a bit of an uptick.

[0]:
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnrn3119](https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnrn3119)

[1]:
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.brainresrev.2010.09.001](https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.brainresrev.2010.09.001)

~~~
gshdg
Yeah. “Override” seems accurate. “Weaken” is a much stronger claim.

That said, the overriding does make it harder to self-regulate. But only wrt
each addiction rather than in general.

------
300bps
_What if you never consumed salt, oil, or sugar again? Within about 30 days,
your taste buds would adapt and become more sensitive, and food would taste
just as good as it did before, except that it would be less addictive, so
you’d probably eat less of it. You’d also be less likely to develop heart
disease._

This is 100% true in my experience. In 2013 I gave up obvious sources of
refined sugar and artificial sweetener due to an elevated triglycerides
report. After two weeks all sweet cravings ended. Fruit started to taste
amazing. Now I have dessert of any kind at most once per week and I probably
haven’t had a soda of any kind in over five years.

Oh and my triglycerides went from 232 to 113.

~~~
saiya-jin
For sugar yes, that's well known (but when you eat fruit you are eating again
just flavored sugar with fiber), but oil? The most distinct one for me is
quality extra virgin olive oil and that's healthy as hell. And even that adds
just a very mild flavor to ie salads.

~~~
300bps
I agree that oil is a poor choice of words. I would’ve used the word, “fat”.

To say fruit is flavored sugar with fiber when comparing it to candy is an
oversimplification. Eating candy you can consume 1,000 calories with almost no
effort. Good luck eating 15 cups of raspberries to get to that 1,000 calories.
Who would do that? And the candy has no nutrition in it while raspberries have
lots of vitamins, minerals and as you said fiber.

The bottom line is that our society eats too much sugar, fat and salt and we’d
be better off eating less.

------
metalliqaz
I'd wager that 80% of the people reading this are addicted to checking sites
like HN.

~~~
nogabebop23
It's pretty important to split out addictions from habits/tendencies/routines.
I'm not convinced checking HN several times a day develops the same
physiological changes that say alcohol or nicotine do. We like to say we're
"totally addicted to X" for things in which we over-indulge as a defense for
the behaviour, but this is not the clinical definition of addiction. If I cut
off your access to porn or video games or shop lifting it might be unpleasant
but is very different than a meth-addict going cold turkey experiences.

~~~
apercu
"addicted to checking sites like HN"

But if we look at the physiology social media sites and the such are
triggering your brain in the same way. And if you cold turkey stop all of
those things you are addicted to, you will have an adjustment period. And it
could significantly affect you.

Sure, it won't kill you like someone withdrawing from a physical addiction to
alcohol might, to make you feel like you are dying like an opiate withdrawal,
but lets not kid ourselves, the online systems OP and you refer to are
designed to be addictive.

~~~
engineeringwoke
Doesn't every pleasurable thing you do trigger your brain in this way? There
has to be a gray area in between ascetic and addict.

~~~
apercu
True, but there are billions of dollars at stake to make you addicted to
social media sites, games, etc.

------
ujki1
One additional reason for reducing addiction is that addictions like video
games can make your baseline of 'fun' too high, so doing productive things
doesn't feel fun even though it would otherwise.

------
Kuzutsukake
> It’s the nature of addiction to treat pleasure and happiness as one. The
> less of an addict you become, the more you’ll realize how separate and
> distinct these are, and the more weight you’ll place on long-term happiness.

The means someone achieves pleasure or long term happiness can in fact be the
same. And I see see no reason to believe why a video gaming community (what he
refers to as a shallow connection) can't provide both. Are you enjoying
yourself presently? Great, that's pleasure. Is this a sustainable way to enjoy
yourself? Great, you are on your way to long term happiness.

> We also expose the shallowness of connections that don’t really serve us.
> What does it say about a connection that isn’t as good without gaming or
> coffee? What does it say about the quality of a relationship if going
> orgasm-free for a while leaves you feeling hollow and empty instead of
> deeply in love and grateful? Addictions so often mask substantial weaknesses
> that we don’t feel ready to face.

We have a wide variety of needs, and it is unreasonable to think there is a
magic bullet. Different social groups (or activities, hobbies) meet different
needs. If you remove whatever was meeting your need, then you will naturally
feel a sense of loss, whether the relationship was a healthy one (what he
calls intimate) or an addictive one. I would imagine the loss of my dog or a
loved one would leave me grieving for some time and I would enjoy parts of my
life less. This doesn't mean those less enjoyable things were bad.

------
adreamingsoul
I haven't read the article, but the title of the post stood out to me because
of this thought that I've been having today, "do I struggle with substance
abuse?"

The day/s after drinking alcohol tend to be down days for me. I'm more
depressed, sad, and have lots of anxiety. I'm currently experiencing one of
those days and it is starting to seriously concern me.

I know It would be better for me to stop drinking alcohol completely. I've
done it before and was able to be around alcohol without letting myself
consume any.

But at the moment I've been struggling with self-control and haven't been able
to keep myself from drinking.

So back to my original thought, I think the answer is yes.

~~~
aspenmayer
When you get the message, hang up the phone. Best wishes.

------
rapjr9
I've wondered if one of the problems with quitting an addictive substance is a
loss of memory. Memory is often tied to setting, and being under the influence
is part of setting. Remove the setting and the memories associated with it
won't surface as often. (There is a common memory hack used to remember facts
which is to envision a room or place you know well and "place" objects in it
that correspond to what you want to remember. When you want to recall the
facts you visit your memory room and the objects you've placed in it trigger
recall.) So it seems like removing the "setting" of an addictive substance
might also reduce the memories associated with it. In essence you would lose a
part of your life, a piece of the person you were. That could be a net good
thing for some people, but a net bad thing for others. If I remember correctly
science has also shown that people who drink alcohol are more forgiving of
others, which implies that people who quit drinking become meaner. There has
been some theorizing that some addictive substances can (at least temporarily
until physical side effects become detrimental) improve the creative output of
artists.

This is all just conjecture on my part, but it does seem possible that there
are ramifications to quitting addiction that medical science has not
considered yet and which may have an important influence on peoples ability to
quit.

------
tiborsaas
> Would you like to be addiction-free? If so, then a good place to start is to
> paint a picture of what your life could be like with no addictions.

That life would be very empty and boring.

> What if you never had another orgasm for the rest of your life?

I might as well be dead :)

> Of course we could live happy and fulfilling lives without these short-term
> pleasures. When we think otherwise, we’re confusing pleasure with happiness.
> It’s the nature of addiction to treat pleasure and happiness as one.

I'm addicted to a few things, but I don't consider them a source of happiness.
You also can't really have happiness without short term pleasures, whatever
they might be.

> You can’t have a relationship with the addiction. There is no moderation for
> an addict. The standard you aim to reach is being permanently alcohol-free.

Oh yes you can. The important question is that whether this relationship is
disruptive, neutral or positive (like being addicted to training). Drinking
isn't inherently bad, but the author thinks so. My impression is that there
are equal number of studies on pro/contra moderate alcohol consumption.

~~~
amelius
> That life would be very empty and boring.

Wrong! Once you are addiction-free, you are much more sensitive to stimuli,
making life much more interesting. But the problem with addictions is that the
addict can't possibly imagine that this is true. If you are addicted, find a
forum on the internet and read stories of people who have recovered. They will
tell you without exception that their lives are much more interesting now.

~~~
anewdirection
Isn't that lifestyle its own addiction?

Maybe we shoud distinguish and not conflate some things.

1\. Addiction (self-reinforing habit with negative outcomes) 2\. Addictive
activity (self-reinforcing habit) 3\. Engauging in an activity known to become
addictive selectively. (Aka; adults drinking)

We use all 3 interchangably, when the dangers, and outcomes, are very
different.

~~~
amelius
Yes, good point, I was assuming definition (1).

------
jkhdigital
I think the link title needs a (2017) based on the publication date of this
blog post.

------
lcall
For what it may be worth, our Church also has a very good, free 12-step
program for overcoming addictions, with a bunch of online materials:
[https://addictionrecovery.churchofjesuschrist.org/steps?lang...](https://addictionrecovery.churchofjesuschrist.org/steps?lang..).
I think even just reading it, watching some videos, is worthwhile, but the
complete program can be effective.

------
naringas
overall good write-up yet I get a strong sensation of black VS white and there
is no gray.

either you're addicted or you're free, no middle ground, no gray areas, no
better days in which is easy to overcome one's compulsions and no worse days
in which it's much harder.

simplistic "all or nothing" ideas which diminish nunace are also dopamine
inducing, this is why memes are so popular. they are the refined sugar of
information and understanding.

------
ferros
Are all addictions bad? I’m addicted to coffee. I have been caffeine free many
times before however I prefer the coffee addiction.

~~~
henriquez
The author seems to suggest that orgasms are bad. That’s where I kind of
checked out.

I think there is a lot of useful advice in here but it needs to be filtered
against the cognitive biases of the author, who comes off as extremely
obsessive and judgmental. These are useful traits to someone laser focused on
controlling their own impulsive behavior but possibly not generally applicable
to others in such an extreme sense.

~~~
eebynight
Really? I didn't pick up this sentiment at all.

I think him even hinting at it being bad triggered the rationalization
behavior in you that he talked about in the article.

Hence why you just rationalized why you didn't need to listen to certain
advice given in the article...

~~~
henriquez
I didn’t say not to listen. I’m actually quite fond of the points brought up
here. I’m just saying it’s taken to an extreme, which is likely justified by
the level of addiction that the author is guarding against.

Coffee and orgasming is arguably not bad (there are health benefits to both).
No one would dispute that the author’s kleptomania _is_ deviant behavior
though. So I disagree that the goal should be to purge _all_ addictions, the
goal should be to live a good life and eliminate addictions that obstruct
this. The article still has good advice when viewed through this lens.

------
lookalike
I'm glad he stopped shoplifting or whatever, but that he did it himself (and
just by moving...) means it wasn't even a serious problem, much less an
addiction. If someone with a serious problem tried to view this as guidance,
they'd get nowhere.

------
aszantu
this guy is basically addicted to productivity xD

------
nemo1618
Recently I came across a device that claims it can help you break addictions
via voluntary electric shocks: [https://pavlok.com](https://pavlok.com)

It seems plausible that it could work, but it's suspicious that the site
doesn't address the most obvious question: Wouldn't I just stop shocking
myself? Curious if any HNers have tried this thing.

~~~
maneesh
Hey -- I'm the founder of Pavlok. When trying to quit a habit for good, you
follow the aversion protocol -- You enable the Aversion mode. 5 minutes a day
of intentionally doing the habit, while the device zaps.

This creates an aversion, similar to getting so sick from drinking a type of
alcohol that you don't want to do it again.

If you decide to not use it, of course it can't work. However, the vast
majority of users who complete the 5 day protocol register no desire or
craving for the old habit, even a year later. You can read some more studies
on our device specifically, and aversion in general, at pavlok.com/science.

------
p1mrx
> daily coffee ... (which is actually a poison)

[citation needed]

~~~
andreareina
It's not as toxic as say alcohol, and you'll be hard-pressed to overdose on
coffee itself, but caffeine toxicity is a thing:

> In 2016, 3702 caffeine related exposure were reported to Poison Control
> Centers in the United States, of which 846 required an hospitalization and
> 16 with a major outcome, and several caffeine-related deaths are reported in
> case studies. The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual
> sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milligrams per kilogram (2.2 lb)
> of body mass (75–100 cups of coffee for a 70 kg (150 lb) adult). There are
> cases where doses as low as 57 milligrams per kilogram have been fatal. A
> number of fatalities have been caused by overdoses of readily available
> powdered caffeine supplements, for which the estimated lethal amount is less
> than a tablespoon. The lethal dose is lower in individuals whose ability to
> metabolize caffeine is impaired due to genetics or chronic liver disease. A
> death was reported in a man with liver cirrhosis who overdosed on
> caffeinated mints.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine)

~~~
engineeringwoke
Water toxicity is a thing too. You should probably stop, you might die.

------
draw_down
I like that this takes the subject seriously- at least in America, people are
very resistant to the notion that coffee is an addiction. Even if they do
agree, it’s felt as pedantic to point out. So I’m glad it’s included here.

My take on this revolves around the part where you’ll supposedly forge deeper
connections etc. I just don’t see it. I suspect our connections are what they
are. They’re all we have, but also in most cases not that strong really. And
it’s just part of life.

Since that is so unsatisfying, it makes sense to find it unacceptable and
fixate on removing some contaminant, something that’s in the way of the _real
thing_.

------
JackPoach
Wow, people are still taking Steve Pavlina seriously all those years later.
OK....

P.S. To be clear, I am not a hater. I've learned about Steve when he was a
game developer, having developed one marginally successful shareware game.
That was more than ten years ago. He then decided to teach others how to
become successful game developers and launched game publishing business. Which
went nowhere. He blogged all along. Then Steve got interested in personal
development, polyamory, polyphase sleep, etc. becoming 'an expert' in these
topics, just like he has in successful game development and game publishing.

This is a guy who believes in spirit guides (yes, really) -
[https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2020/05/better-than-
spirit...](https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2020/05/better-than-spirit-
guides/) and for a low price of $299 can teach you that your reality is
subjective -
[https://www.stevepavlina.com/submersion/](https://www.stevepavlina.com/submersion/)

~~~
tasogare
I read of bunch of his blog posts ten years ago and while there was some
interesting content, there was also really weird and _dangerous shit_. For
instance the series his one (or 3?) month experiment on polyphasic sleep[1] or
his month eating only vegetable smoothies, which can have serious health
consequences. Then he shifted to the edgy polyamory stuff and I quit.

Note that I tried the polyphasic sleep for a week or so and I suspect SP
romanticized the things a bit in his blog posts. Like down putting the bad
aspects, hyping the good ones in order to market the thing (thus himself). It
was an interesting series, but this kind of material should be contextualized
and display along with warnings.

Finally, once you get a few key ideas (mainly that you need to do things to
get results), spending time reading personal development stuff is wasting
time. Every blog, post, book just retold a few identical ideas.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_slee...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep)

~~~
JackPoach
Yeah, so you might be as old as I am. I remember when he was breaking up with
Erin and leaving two kids behind, which clearly was a painful process. And we
would be like 'OK, Steve, you are into sex, BDSM, and fucking other people.
That's cool.' And he'd be like 'No, it's not that. It's personal development,
freedom, next stage, bla-bla-bla'. I never got why polyamory couldn't just be
polyamory (a personal choice), it had to be a proof that you as individual
have graduated to progress to something that's more advanced. He used to have
a ton of blog post about a girl who agreed to be his slave (in BDSM). That's
where he lost me. I actually like kink, but I prefer to get mine from Pornhub,
because it's personal development-free and I can just enjoy if for what it is.
Plus he used to sell the shit out of his $400 per person 'personal growth'
workshops. That was annoying as hell too.

P.S. I am glad I stopped reading Steve ten years ago, I've just browsed
through his website and I think he became more woo-woo. At least that's my
impression after reading his recent article about how you are supposed to
'energetically clean money' that you received as payment for your work -
[https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2020/05/how-to-clean-
your-...](https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2020/05/how-to-clean-your-moneys-
energy/)

------
kalia35
No. Just no. Addiction is a serious matter which is well studied by actual
scientists and mental health professionals. You can't just give advices about
addiction unless you have been properly trained. Your affirmations on such
subjects have to be backed by scientific evidence and having a big audience
does not qualify for scientific evidence. Please, if you are interested about
addiction or think you have a problematic relationship with a substance or a
behavior, go and see the work of Dr. Andrew Tatarsky at
[https://www.centerforoptimalliving.com/](https://www.centerforoptimalliving.com/)
for instance. Or ask a mental health professional which have an actual Ph.D.
in psychology or medicine. You could also read actual scientific evidence if
you know how to, just not that. This is just wrong.

