About behavior. Disease can and will affect behavior. I often cite scurvy, where it causes a sort of cynical view of the world, a don'tgivearatsass state of mind. In turn, behavior is modified by this state of mind. Fix the disease, behavior returns to normal. I could also cite several normal mechanisms that directly alter our behavior. For example, we're hungry, our behavior is then to seek out food, once eaten, our behavior changes to something else, maybe to whatever else we need to consume or do, i.e. sex, sleep, drink, whatever.
Heard the phrase mind over matter? Well, this phrase is an acknowledgement of the fact that normally we are driven to act according to basic needs. Typically, when we say that, we mean to defeat these needs purely by thought. For example, we're hungry, we gotta eat something, but through the powah of thought, somehow we believe we can defeat hunger. Absurd, we're hungry cuz food keeps us alive. Let's see you try that with breathing. The powah of thought can no more defeat hunger than the fact that we are suffocating. Indeed, the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment illustrates well that fact - neurosis from deep constant hunger.
The point I'm making here is that behavior is driven by physiology - it's innate. When a disease alters our behavior it proves that a mechanism exists to do that for normal things like hunger and thirst. When a substance drives us to consume it again or more of it, it proves that a mechanism exists to do that for normal things, again like hunger and thirst.
So what about that guy, he's totally an alcoholic. But then this other guy, he can drink as much or as little as he wants, then quit just as easily. What's the difference? Both have the same mechanism, but one of them is obviously affected differently. So, the alcoholic, he's got weak will, right? Certainly, but since behavior is driven by physiology, we can immediately conclude that his physiology is affected by something, which the other guy's is not. But I thought alcoholism was just a matter of the alcohol. No, the whole point I'm making here is that if one thing can mess around with our innate mechanism, any other thing can do the same, either specifically for itself, or to amplify some other thing. In this case, the alcoholic guy most certainly has some other thing acting on this mechanism to drive him to drink more and more often and again and again. To illustrate again, one guy drinks alcohol, another guy with hepatitis drinks alcohol - different effects.
This whole thing reminds me of what Taubes often says. Carbs is not the only cause, it's the primary cause. To paraphrase another thing Taubes often says about sugar - whether carbs is the primary thing or not, we act as if it was the only thing. In doing so, we often do not understand why it doesn't work as it should. It's the same with addiction and addictive substances. Even though we fully acknowledge that a mechanism exists to allow an addictive substance to be addictive, we fail to realize that any other substance or agent can do the same, thereby making the substance act differently, or appear to work differently, in different individuals. We fail because we act as if there was only one thing, when in fact there's more than just the one.
Leptin deficiency. Results in weak will, i.e. I can't stop eating. Fix the deficiency, a strong will returns - a meal is finally satiating. Mind tricks don't work. Ghrelin overproduction, same problem, weak will, always hungry. Fix it, behavior follows. Carbs make us hungry. Just because it's carbs, it's sugar, it's sweet sweet bliss? BS, it acts on those same mechanisms that regulate food intake. Remove the carbs, if it's the only thing, all is good, hunger returns to normal. But mess around just a little with those mechanisms through some other means like disease or infection or some other substance, carbs look like they work differently, or not at all.
Two guys drink alcohol, one is an alcoholic and he can't stop drinking. What's the cause? It's obviously not the alcohol. It's certainly not the fact that he can't stop drinking - that's the effect. I mean, he can't stop drinking because he can't stop drinking? No, he can't stop drinking because he's driven to drink by some other thing we haven't figured out yet.
Hm, two guys eat a sugar pie, one can't stop eating and orders more til he's totally stuffed can't walk must sit a while brain fog bliss yada yada. Remind you of anybody? Yeah, what's the cause? Not the sugar, or at least not just the sugar. Remove the crust, it's made of wheat, we know all about wheat. That's one other thing that isn't sugar, but acts in tandem to make sugar appear more addictive, or addictive at all. OK, but that other guy who ate just one slice, he ate just one slice. It's the same pie, the same sugar, the same crust. Something else is going on here. Maybe he's just got a much stronger will, he can stop anytime he wants. He certainly has a much stronger will, but that's an effect. The mechanisms that drive the other guy to eat every pie in sight, it must be working differently for this guy. There's something making him eat all those pies, it primes him for it before he even sees the pies, and keeps him primed as he eats them one by one.
|