The risk-taking, novelty-seeking and obsessive personality traits often found in addicts can be harnessed to make them very effective in the workplace. For many leaders, it’s not the case that they succeed in spite of their addiction; rather, the same brain wiring and chemistry that make them addicts also confer on them behavioral traits that serve them well.
This is ridiculous in some ways. Yes, certain personality traits predispose you to certain things. But environment also plays a role. I imagine most leaders suffer from something I would call "bored gifted kid syndrome". And if they find a means to be adequately engaged, it goes away and stops being a "personality problem".
In fact, framing it as "addictive personality" helps create problems by vilifying them in a way that seems inescapable -- like "you were born defective". My oldest son is profoundly gifted and was prone to "addictive" behaviors (not drugs or alcohol, but video games and such) and when we figured out how to meet his needs for mental stimulation adequately, he went from behaving like your typical grumpy, socially defective addict to being one of the calmest people I know. I never told him he was "defective". I didn't frame it that way. And it helped him find his way out of what often ends up being a psychological trap.
Edit: There is a book that addresses the social aspect of creating addicts by imposing expectations that it is out of their hands -- for example, cultures that blame alcoholism on the alcohol have higher rates of it than cultures that hold the individual responsible. Title: "The Truth About Addiction and Recovery". One wife of an alcoholic who tried to hand me my head for recommending this book then went on to talk about "dry drunks" (people who remain "addicted" to alcohol while not drinking for years at a time) and that the real problem with alcoholism was all the "isms" (by that I think she meant beliefs?) not the alcohol per se. She was on such a tear, I didn't bother to point out that her remarks supported mine rather than refuting them.
EDIT: Since comment scores are not visible, I will note that this is being upvoted, downvoted, upvoted, downvoted. I would be curious as to what is so seemingly controversial. Any thoughts?
>EDIT: Since comment scores are not visible, I will note that this is being upvoted, downvoted, upvoted, downvoted. I would be curious as to what is so seemingly controversial. Any thoughts?
Show me a parent who doesn't think their kid is "gifted".
Upvoted. I sort of "forget" people here don't really know me. In other circles, it's perfectly okay for me to say that. I used to give a lot of advice in "gifted" circles on the internet. He's actually had some testing. I was a very minor presenter at a gifted convention thingy. A presentation there and conversation with the presenter (big name in testing circles and such) clued me. (Due to professional ethics, she could not give me a number but did remark "It will be okay because you homeschool"...in other words "My sympathies. You have quite a challenge on your hands.") ...blah blah blah.
I don't think he's "gifted". I think he's a huge pain in the butt. But I also adore him.
I only know of one experiment on this: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park >. It concluded that morphine addiction in ordinary rats is not just influenced by their environment, but pretty much determined by it.
I'd be interested to hear how much that can be changed by breeding the rats selectively. Until you know that, I won't believe anything you say about genetic influences on addiction. It seems that no one has tried to find out. So I assume that Addiction Studies (or whatever it's called) has very little to do with science.
I honestly don't understand your point. I appreciate the link, but my initial skim of it gives me the impression that it says stuff that agrees with my point about "social"/experiential influences on addiction, which is not what I thought it would do. Did I miss something?
I am aware that there are physiological differences in how people process things like alcohol. (For example, men tend to tolerate it better than women.) I am hesitant to agree with framing that as "genetic" differences. I have a genetic disorder. I have changed my diet and lifestyle to reverse a lot of my symptoms and done a lot of reading and what not. I am reluctant to agree with the standard views on 'genetic' cause of stuff. It tends to not fit with my first hand experience with the subject. I am also hesitant to argue it as my views are backed primarily by my experiences so there is little I can cite to back them up and this gets me in enormous hot water in online discussions.
Also, my comment about environmental influences does not mean that things like physiology play zero role. That's a false dichotomy.
Nothing wrong with having an addictive personality. I'm like that, and I've never thought of it as an insult- rather, it's something I openly acknowledge. It's just one more thing I know about myself, that lets me try to make better choices to keep myself happy.
I would say there is nothing wrong with having certain personality traits. I think framing it as "addictive" does cause a lot of people to feel out of control and unable to deal with things in a comfortable manner. If it doesn't have that impact on you, more power to you. But most people don't take that as neutrally descriptive but, instead, as something to feel guilty about and like it is inherently socially unacceptable and so on.
Probably more important than "addictive" personality traits alone are social skills and/or understanding of politics and how to work people and manipulate because ultimately those are the ones who actually do get promoted; the higher up you go, the more this will ring true. In any big organization you don't just rise to the top for your work merits or being a "born leader" alone.
This is ridiculous in some ways. Yes, certain personality traits predispose you to certain things. But environment also plays a role. I imagine most leaders suffer from something I would call "bored gifted kid syndrome". And if they find a means to be adequately engaged, it goes away and stops being a "personality problem".
In fact, framing it as "addictive personality" helps create problems by vilifying them in a way that seems inescapable -- like "you were born defective". My oldest son is profoundly gifted and was prone to "addictive" behaviors (not drugs or alcohol, but video games and such) and when we figured out how to meet his needs for mental stimulation adequately, he went from behaving like your typical grumpy, socially defective addict to being one of the calmest people I know. I never told him he was "defective". I didn't frame it that way. And it helped him find his way out of what often ends up being a psychological trap.
Edit: There is a book that addresses the social aspect of creating addicts by imposing expectations that it is out of their hands -- for example, cultures that blame alcoholism on the alcohol have higher rates of it than cultures that hold the individual responsible. Title: "The Truth About Addiction and Recovery". One wife of an alcoholic who tried to hand me my head for recommending this book then went on to talk about "dry drunks" (people who remain "addicted" to alcohol while not drinking for years at a time) and that the real problem with alcoholism was all the "isms" (by that I think she meant beliefs?) not the alcohol per se. She was on such a tear, I didn't bother to point out that her remarks supported mine rather than refuting them.
EDIT: Since comment scores are not visible, I will note that this is being upvoted, downvoted, upvoted, downvoted. I would be curious as to what is so seemingly controversial. Any thoughts?