Occam's razor (aka the law of parsimony) refers to a fundamental principle of the scientific method (and critical thinking more generally speaking) which in essence posits:
“entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
Stated more plainly (however less accurately) Occom’s razor can be reified as follows:
"the simplest, naturalistic explanation is usually the best one."
A common addendum (probably) comes from Einstein who (may have) said:
"everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Yass qween 👑
A ‘Wicked Problem’ (aka clusterfuck) is planning and policy term of art referring to a problem that is (nearly or utterly) intractable due to incomplete understanding, or seemingly contradictory information, and due to complex interactions between frequently invisible or as of yet undiscovered and/or constantly changing variables.
Addiction is a wicked problem.
There is an irreducible level of complexity that you need to understand before you can think about it realistically, and respond to it effectively.
Attempts to collapse the issue into a soundbite level slogan do more harm than good.
Common (well-meaning but ultimately misleading) slogans include:
Addiction is a choice.
Addiction is a matter of character.
Addiction is a special case of learning.
Addiction is caused by an evolutionary mismatch.
Addiction is a disease.
Addiction is a spiritual disease.
Addiction is a brain disease.
Addiction is a mental health disorder.
Addiction is a family disease.
Addiction is self-medication.
Addiction is a lack of connection.
Addiction is an attachment disorder.
Addiction is all about trauma.
Addiction is all about oppression.
Addiction is a matter of psychosocial dislocation.
Addiction is a public health crisis.
I could go on.
Every time I hear one of these I cringe.
Because all of them are true.
Some clearly MUCH more true than others.
But each of these perspectives has at least a kernel of validity.
Some of them are close to spot the fuck on.
But more to the point.
None of them are true without the others.
So often people (really well intending people) including scientists and addiction professionals, champion one of these perspectives, and either intentionally or inadvertently downplay or outright disregard some or all of these other “truths”.
And a Tower of Babel ensues, from which countless ineffective or incomplete interventions emerge.
And the tragedies multiply.
And the corpses pile up.
Why can’t we weave all of this together into a comprehensive theory of addiction that actually makes sense?
Well…
We kind of can, and we sort of do.
The bio-psycho-social model of addiction simply states that:
Addiction is a biological, psychological, social/systemic (i.e. relational, cultural, political, environmental) and spiritual (thrown in for good measure) issue.
And furthermore, effective addiction recovery entails a comprehensive and integrated whole person, individual, family, peer and environmental change plan implemented and sustained over the long-term.
This book is a very good and quite wholistic view of addiction from the biological, psychological and sociocultural-ecological perspectives, with sound advice regarding interventions occurring at the micro, mezzo and macro levels of organization.
I have to say it’s one of the best, most comprehensive, and most relatable books on the subject that I’m aware of.
That being said.
The book biases the trauma and social relational pieces of the puzzle.
And I can understand why.
If I had to pick one of the factors to favor.
Relational trauma and social factors would be the right move.
To reiterate:
Trauma (incontrovertibly) alters your nervous system in such a way as to put you at extreme risk for problematic substance use and overreliance on other maladaptive soothing behaviors.
And.
The social factors of addiction (i.e the impact that our relationships have on our sense of self, and more specifically the devastating impact that abusive or neglectful relationships) have an equally large and important impact on our addictive behaviors.
Putting an emphasis on trauma and social factors reduces the highly problematic shame that individuals in addition Recovery invariably feel, and focuses attention on processing the past and changing the family, relational, peer and social-systemic factors.
And yes.
All of that is very wise.
That being said.
I believe people are smart enough, and completely capable of understanding that:
Addiction is a bio-psycho-social issue.
This is the irreducible level of complexity that you need to arrive at in order to understand entry detection.
All of it matters.
Why do we need to favor one or two factors or perspectives over other equally valid and non contradictory factors or perspectives?
Furthermore:
The bio-psycho-social model is a very basic, and easily understood concept.
It’s absolutely common place in addiction studies.
Many addiction professionals understand this.
However, every single popularization of addiction champions one perspective over the other.
And (for me anyway) it’s endlessly crazy making.
That being said.
This book is about as good as it gets.
And these criticisms are frankly pretty minor compared to all of the amazing things this book does achieve.
So I’m moving forward and giving it a 4.9/5 stars (until something better comes along).
It’s a darn good book 👍