Talk:Addiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology / Psychiatry (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Let's talk about our problems and make them go away.[edit]

Hi. My name's Hulk. I'm addicted to lying about my name.

Now that that's out of the way, I've been referred here by a concerned and angry citizen.

I can't see the point of singling out drug addiction as its own thing in the lead of an article about general addiction, especially before the part about the main topic. Can you?

Just another rewarding thing that people crave. I get that there's a specific subtopic article for it, and I'm not against Wikilinking it in the lead. Just should go with the others in Paragraph 2. Probably first in that list, since it's the most famous, but not bigger than addiction itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

So should I take the silence to mean nobody else sees the point either? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
Behavioral addiction and drug addiction are a dichotomy. Stop editing the lead sentence. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Dichotomies are for opposites. There's a slight difference between compulsively seeking rewarding sex and compulsively seeking rewarding drugs, but only as much as between rewarding food and rewarding gambling. Not two different things.
I'll stop removing it from the lead when I get a more sensible reason to keep it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
A drug isn't a natural reward. Added: I meant it's this. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed "natural" and re-piped to the more encompassing reward system. Seem fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
As for this, there's no mutual exclusivity. Plenty of people are addicted to drugs and gambling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
Mutual exclusivity simply means no element belongs in both categories... In any event, it's fine with the current language. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Then we're mutually content. "Stimuli" works. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

Current text hinges on a 1992 JAMA article. Perhaps PMID 22073026 would be more current? LeadSongDog come howl! 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding - didn't notice this until now.
All compulsions are pathologically reinforced behaviors, but the main difference between that paper and the characterizations used by the reviews in several sections of this article is that these reviews require that the behavior/drug be rewarding - i.e., activate the reward system, particularly the mesolimbic pathway/nucleus accumbens, in functional neuroimaging studies. The nucleus accumbens governs the response to positive reinforcement (the form of reinforcement that involves a reward), and it is there that ΔFosB overexpression has been shown to simultaneously occur with the appearance of addictive behavior and structural neurplasticity. It's a rather simple definition, but it actually has rather significant/profound implications for the neuropsychology and molecular neurobiology involving a drug or behavior. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing concepts[edit]

Specific to drugs:

  • Addiction liability of a drug as a risk factor

Operant/classical conditioning (reviews[1][2][3] and pp. 365-367 of molecular neuropharmacology text[4]):

Incentive salience as a function of reward: PMID 26851575

Seppi333 (Insert ) 12:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Edwards S (2016). "Reinforcement principles for addiction medicine; from recreational drug use to psychiatric disorder". Prog. Brain Res. 223: 63–76. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.07.005. PMID 26806771. 
  2. ^ Milton AL, Everitt BJ (2012). "The persistence of maladaptive memory: addiction, drug memories and anti-relapse treatments". Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36 (4): 1119–1139. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.01.002. PMID 22285426. 
  3. ^ Torregrossa MM, Taylor JR (2013). "Learning to forget: manipulating extinction and reconsolidation processes to treat addiction". Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 226 (4): 659–72. doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2750-9. PMC 3466391. PMID 22638814. 
  4. ^ Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). "Chapter 15: Reinforcement and Addictive Disorders". In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 365–367. ISBN 9780071481274. 

Neutral point of view[edit]

This article seems heavily biased toward genetic explanations for addiction, based inappropriately on one or two papers that seem to have had little real influence in the professional literature, in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. A Google Scholar search for Nestler 2013 and Ruffle 2014, on which a great deal of material in this article is based, shows 44 citations and 1(!) citation, respectively, compared to 704 for Dube et al. 2003, which advances a psychosocial interpretation. Meanwhile, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (USA) says that genetic factors account for only about half of a person's vulnerability to addiction.

Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You're confusing risk factors with pathophysiology. The transcriptional and epigenetic proteins that the article refers to are mechanisms that mediate the development of an addiction (pathophysiology), not the proclivity for developing one (risk factor). AFAIK, the transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms to which the article refers aren't associated with polymorphisms that affect individual susceptibility to developing an addiction. Even if a few are associated, their contribution to overall risk is likely insignificant since they're just individual genes. The article doesn't actually say anywhere that transcription factors and epigenetic mechanisms are risk factors, excluding the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance section, although that's a risk factor associated with a gene-environment interaction, not genes alone. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably worth pointing out that the Nestler review that you've linked above covers genetic/environmental risk factors and is consistent with the NIDA statement you mentioned.
Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added the material from the above excerpt to the Addiction#Risk factors section to make this clear to other readers. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)