Question by Question Mark: What do you think of my theory on addictions?
I believe that there are two kinds of addictions that society thinks is socially acceptable and ones that don’t.
Socially acceptable addictions are: Sports, fantasy football, work, Television, Socializing, Makeup, books, puzzles, board games and so on.
Not socially acceptable addictions: Playing video games, hanging out with a gang, fast food, Dungeons and Dragons, etc.

Do you think that this could be true? If the roles were reversed would they be different?

Best answer:

Answer by Salt Water
This is not really a theory on addiction. It is a theory on how people perceive addictions. There are different kinds of addictions such as an addiction to an emotional stimulus or a something physical. But you are not on the same track. The difference between the possible addictions you’ve listed is not the addictions themselves but the way people view the addictions.

Still it’s true people are more accepting of certain addictions. For example many people can’t start their day without having a cup of coffee and that is technically an addiction. But it is highly unlikely their friends/family are going to hold an intervention for that.

If an addiction seems helpful or at least not harmful people aren’t going to complain about it. In fact many people may not even realize it is an addiction. The word “addiction” is normally associate with something that is seen as clearly bad or harmful. So if an addiction is obviously bad for someone or is shown in a negative light people are going to readily see it as an addiction and want them to stop because it is bad for them. Yes, an addiction to something like exercise can be very harmful but unless you know the person very well you will probably never realize they have an addiction since exercising seems like a healthy thing to do and most people wouldn’t question that. While fast food is, for the most part, very unhealthy and if people see you eating it a lot they will be a lot quicker to point it out as an addiction.

Now that is not the case for everyone. Some people are aware of addictions even if it is a less obvious addiction.

So basically what I’m saying is I don’t think your theory is entirely true. Sometimes people get that it is an addiction and accept it anyways but other times the label “addiction” is not applied because people don’t see it as bad or harmful and therefore don’t realize it is still an addiction. Also I don’t know what you mean by “if the roles were reversed”. What roles?

Answer by Gwen
Generally speaking, your hypothesis would be correct, except that I’m a living counter example of it. I completely accept people with video game addictions. It’d only be true if nobody accepted those people

Give your answer to this question below!

 

Will the “Least Loved” Bull throw a “Taper Tantrum?”

Filed under: intervention for addiction

On Nov 12th, Dallas Fed chief Richard Fisher admitted, “We've changed and impacted the markets because of our intervention and I understand there's sensitivity, but markets should also bear in mind that this program cannot go on forever.” However, what …
Read more on Gold Seek

 

New Blog Website Launched by Rehabtoday.com Providing Information About …

Filed under: intervention for addiction

To win against alcohol abuse, it is important to look for the most recent information regarding alcohol rehabilitation. There are many developments in the field of alcohol rehabilitation. Medical intervention, therapies, and social support are just few …
Read more on SBWire (press release)