I'm currently reading The Heart of Addiction. Although I regard myself as cured in TSM terms, I've noticed some displacement of addictive behavior to a different focus (junk food in my case), and I also just like reading about different paradigms.

I haven't finished the book, but one of the things that struck me quickly was the author's (correct) observation that the pressure eases as soon as we decide to engage in the addiction, not when we actually begin. In my case, e.g., there was no alcohol in the house and I had a bad craving, and the craving eased once I'd made the decision to head to the convenience store. I didn't actually have to have beer in hand and bottle top off.

This doesn't contradict TSM. Once I had made the decision to drink, I was no longer struggling against the Alcohol Deprivation Effect. We all know that physiological addiction is the least of it, so in a very real sense I was engaging in the addiction as soon as I had decided to do so.

This guy has a somewhat different theoretical model, though -- he thinks the real relief comes from the "**** it" decision because it's an expression of power. In his view, the addiction is a sort of ill-advised compromise between what we really want to do but can't (e.g., punch the boss) and doing nothing at all.

This reminds me of the "life process" theory of ending addiction. Most people emerge from addictions quite naturally, over time (unless of course we shove them into AA to learn powerlessness and the rest). And it's the young who so often have little real power, isn't it? Even when they are legally adults, they're often stuck in the role of a helpless child -- they may be financially dependent on their parents, socially treated as a child . . . in fact, typing this sentence reminded me how my family treated me when I was newly fledged, and bam -- rage.

I think he may be on to something here. Being stuck in bad situations we can't change may lead us to lash out, and addiction may be one way of lashing out. It's that "**** it" decision which, in this paradigm, is vital.

I haven't finished the book. I'll probably keep writing up observations on my blog.

Well, for me I can say it's all genetic. Lot's of people have a drink or two and think: "this is fun". But myself and my genetic brethren, we have a few drinks and we think it's absolute magic!

The problem comes when the magic ends and the nightmares begin....

As I've continued to read, I've become more aware of the "**** it" moment. I won't know my full reaction until I've finished it and mulled it over for a while, but I'd be interested in the reactions of others who have read it.

I had never realised this, but as I read it I was struck that this was absolutely the case for me. As soon as I'd decided I was going to drink the cravings would lessen. Not sure if I agree with the the expression of power part but then I haven't read the book. Very interesting. Thanks.

You'd probably have to read it for yourself to get a good idea of how his theories could apply. I don't think I could do it justice in just a few sentences.

My TSM experience destroyed the alcohol addiction, but I don't believe that addiction strikes out of the blue. Something led to it. Maybe there's no need to learn what -- we all have neuroses, right? -- but it might be good to identify the so-called triggers so that they don't end up leading me into a different addiction.

I've finished the book, so I'm now in the process of mulling over what I've read. This includes the period of picking holes in it. If there's much of value left, I'll know that when I'm done mulling.

Well, I finished it. If anyone wants my thoughts, they're on my blog.

http://naltrexonekey.blogspot.com/2014/ ... art-1.html

http://naltrexonekey.blogspot.com/2014/ ... art-2.html

http://naltrexonekey.blogspot.com/2014/ ... -pt-3.html

Nice post. Thank you very much