Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2010, 12:01 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Science Saturday: Holding Back

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-19-2010, 02:14 AM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

with all due respect to Roy, the free will experiment is pretty much another squishy psychology experiment that doesn't teach us much about actual reality. This is why i never read any article that starts with "20 people were offered $100 immediately..."....it really just doesn't teach us much of anything.
Free will? Free from what? I'm not sure what that question even means. All behavior has some genetic component and is determined by our brain. LTP converts experiences into altered gene expression/behavior. I don't care if your genes make you a psychopath or your brain is not learning well enough to appropriately alter gene expression in your neurons - i'm still sending you to jail. My lack of free will forced me to put you in prison.
By coaxing people into thinking they're not responsible for what they're doing this is simply removing the breaks from the excitatory circuits in their mind.
The entire premise of the experiment doesn't even make any sense. If there's no free will (which there isn't) then how could "removing it" make any difference?
This experiment simply shoes that the subjects aren't that well educated and have substandard genes/gene expression.
also, the first experiment discussed seems like it'd be the result of habituation in the brain rather than lack of self control but whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2010, 02:42 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm SO awesome! View Post
This experiment simply shoes ...
... that psychology socks?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2010, 02:45 AM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

imo, yes....and i majored in it
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2010, 09:46 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm SO awesome! View Post
with all due respect to Roy, the free will experiment is pretty much another squishy psychology experiment that doesn't teach us much about actual reality. This is why i never read any article that starts with "20 people were offered $100 immediately..."....it really just doesn't teach us much of anything.
Free will? Free from what? I'm not sure what that question even means. All behavior has some genetic component and is determined by our brain. LTP converts experiences into altered gene expression/behavior. I don't care if your genes make you a psychopath or your brain is not learning well enough to appropriately alter gene expression in your neurons - i'm still sending you to jail. My lack of free will forced me to put you in prison.
By coaxing people into thinking they're not responsible for what they're doing this is simply removing the breaks from the excitatory circuits in their mind.
The entire premise of the experiment doesn't even make any sense. If there's no free will (which there isn't) then how could "removing it" make any difference?
This experiment simply shoes that the subjects aren't that well educated and have substandard genes/gene expression.
also, the first experiment discussed seems like it'd be the result of habituation in the brain rather than lack of self control but whatever.
Your objections seem inconsistent. First you say you don't know what "free will" means and then you deny categorically that we have it. Suppose that you define "free will" as the freedom to step back from immediate impulses and make one's decisions on the basis of what seems best overall. Surely you wouldn't deny that some people have this ability to some degree.

The following objection is based on a misunderstanding:
Quote:
If there's no free will (which there isn't) then how could "removing it" make any difference?
What the experiment does is to decrease (not really remove) the strength of a person's BELIEF in free will. It's quite possible for people to believe in free will even if they don't have it -- just as they can believe in witches when there aren't any. Of course, Baumeister doesn't deny the existence of free will, but certainly his experiment need not presuppose its existence either -- only the existence of some belief in free will.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-19-2010, 10:22 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

Excellent diavlog. Empirical issues about self-control are exactly where I think the dusty metaphysical free will debate should go, and this kind of empirical study (as opposed to the wrong-headed Libet experiment) is the right empirical approach to free will (it gets closer to what free will really is all about).
I'd just like to note how far Baumeister's view echoes Aristotle's. For Aristotle, virtue is a matter of control over ones impulses (emotions and appetites) and the aquisition of virtue is a matter of practice. This practice is both a matter of muscle-strengthening AND of habituation. While you are becoming a good person, you will be tempted by many things that you won't be tempted by later. Part of what the person working at becoming good does is to cultivate a taste for good actions, so that good action is what one spontaneously wants to do. And another part will be to routinize the right actions -- to keep temptation from even arising in the first place.

Self-control in the sense of the ability to resist an occurent temptation can be strengthened by practice and the exercise of such self-control also leads to right habits and tastes that take the pressure off our limited capacity for self-control to some degree. And both of these elements (occurent self-control and the habits and tastes) constitute a kind of freedom from control by impulse (which we might describe as "free will").
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-19-2010, 01:12 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

no, i'm beyond that. i'm denying it exists because the question makes no sense at all. What would our will be free from? It's in a separate universe? I'm well familiar with all the experiments addressing this question. And what would be the purpose of defining free will as a "having inhibitory circuits"? All this means is that the electrical potential wasn't strong enough to overcome inhibition. There's no need to invent a false dilemma like "free will." It's just making up a problem that doesn't exist so philosophers can have a job.

The second objection is neither here nor there. How would you know what the person believes after they're been told to repeat phrases about the lack of free will in humans? Anyway, regardless of whether its strength decreases or is entirely gone what is happening is the neural circuits inhibiting their actions get suppressed. This is what happens during social situations like genocide. The "brakes" on your mind get suppressed and we lose control. The experiment could simply tell them that a god is in charge of everything they do and have the same effect. Furthermore, Roy is essentially studying what fatigue or short term memory does to our inhibitory circuits and calling the inhibitory circuits "free will." That is all the experiment is. It'd be like loosening the brakes on a car and saying that the car's "free will" had been eroded. All any of these experiments are doing are either making a subject tired or changing gene expression in long term memory - both of which will suppress inhibitory circuits. It's a just a parlor trick that even my grandma would already intuitively understand.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-19-2010, 02:29 PM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm SO awesome! View Post
no, i'm beyond that. i'm denying it exists because the question makes no sense at all. What would our will be free from? It's in a separate universe? I'm well familiar with all the experiments addressing this question. And what would be the purpose of defining free will as a "having inhibitory circuits"? All this means is that the electrical potential wasn't strong enough to overcome inhibition. There's no need to invent a false dilemma like "free will." It's just making up a problem that doesn't exist so philosophers can have a job.
I told you free from what -- free from immediate determination by impulse and therefore able to be determined by deliberation over what it's best to do. "Having inhibitory circuits" is not a reasonable summary of that.
You appear to assume a very definite meaning for "free will" -- namely "freedom from causality" -- even though you assert that you have no idea what it means. But this is not what everyone means by free will -- as I tried to point out.
Quote:
The second objection is neither here nor there. How would you know what the person believes after they're been told to repeat phrases about the lack of free will in humans? Anyway, regardless of whether its strength decreases or is entirely gone what is happening is the neural circuits inhibiting their actions get suppressed. This is what happens during social situations like genocide. The "brakes" on your mind get suppressed and we lose control. The experiment could simply tell them that a god is in charge of everything they do and have the same effect. Furthermore, Roy is essentially studying what fatigue or short term memory does to our inhibitory circuits and calling the inhibitory circuits "free will." That is all the experiment is. It'd be like loosening the brakes on a car and saying that the car's "free will" had been eroded.
There's no claim that the person's free will was eroded -- just a claim that when people tell themselves they don't have free will, they tend not to try to control themselves and to feel less remorse etc. These are empirically establishable regularities. It's as if you could fiddle with the break light and thereby strengthen or weaken the breaks.

The experiment actually rules out the possible explanation you seem to be suggesting: both groups had to go through a similar exercise, but one group recited that they did have free will and the other group recited the claimthat they didn't. If just repeating something over and over had this weakening effect (irrespective of what you were repeating), then both groups should respond the same way, but I believe those who recited pro-free will slogans reacted differently than those who recited anti-free will slogans.

One could try to explain this in some other way, but a fairly obvious way would invoke the observation that people can reinforce beliefs by repeating them (an observation which is not restricted to this kind of case.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-19-2010, 03:44 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

it's not that i don't know what it means - clearly i'm inferring it's a nonsensical question. see, there's these things called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhibit...and_inhibitory

excitatory and inhibitory transmitters and receptors. if a stimuli is salient enough then neural spiking will kick it up to our consciousness.
(first paragraph)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiking_neural_network

"immediate determination" makes no sense when it comes to actual reality. the immediate determination of what? how do you know if something would've cause you to do something? you don't. if something isn't salient enough to be brought to your attentional spotlight then it doesn't exist in your consciousness - only in your unconscious. the brain, meaning the actual human brain rather than some fabricated, abstract philosopher's brain, is not "immediately determined" to do anything at all. what you're asserting is literally saying that a swimming pool "deliberated" on whether to allow a wave to spill over it's side and if the wave had gone over then (x) would've happened. it either does, or it doesn't - there's no need to invent a question of "free will" for the pool. you're not "making a determinaton" on each of the trillions of bits of info surrounding you at any given time in any other sense than they're not salient enough for you to pay attention to. they're not strong enough to overwhelm inhibitory receptors.
why would you assume your "immediate impulse" (which doesn't exist) wouldn't be to do nothing rather than something? there's no way to even determine what the "immediate determination by impulse" would even be for any given person anyway. even further is the fact that your unconscious mind is still making the decision to do something or nothing for either scenario. your "higher functioning" frontal lobes only become aware of this decision after the decision has already been made. so if a you're scared by a snake your lower brain modules have already decided to run or stay before you've realized consciously "It's only a gardener snake." impulse control is not some "extra" thing to be philosophized about.

to the second part: yes, that's the point. the inhibitory receptors are what the actual, physical mechanism in the brain are that controls this type of behavior. Joseph LeDoux, Eric Kandel and others have known this for over a decade. when you "teach" someone something what's actually happening is that gene expression changes, new proteins are created or old ones are manipulated and this is what controls behavior. this isn't some abstract thought experiment.

Last edited by I'm SO awesome!; 06-19-2010 at 04:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-19-2010, 10:31 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm SO awesome! View Post
Free will?
You might enjoy, if you haven't already come upon it, reading about the work of Daniel Wegner:...the illusions piled atop apparent mental causation are the building blocks of human psychology and social life.

Quote:
The idea of conscious will and the idea of psychological mechanisms have an oil and water relationship, having never been properly reconciled. One way to put them together — the way this book explores — is to say that the mechanistic approach is the explanation preferred for scientific purposes but that the person's experience of conscious will is utterly convincing and important to the person and so must be understood scientifically as well. The mechanisms underlying the experience of will are themselves a fundamental topic of scientific study. We should be able to examine and understand what creates the experience of will and what makes it go away. This means, though, that conscious will is an illusion. It is an illusion in the sense that the experience of consciously willing an action is not a direct indication that the conscious thought has caused the action.

Last edited by badhatharry; 06-19-2010 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-19-2010, 12:17 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

thanks. good stuff here.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-19-2010, 03:26 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default conspiracy theory on why boys are less attentive than girls...

If self control is based on a sort of energy reservoir model... if young adolescent males are constantly exerting greaterenergy to reign in their impulses for the sex, over and above what women have to put up with due to sex differences...

I wonder if this explains much of the gap in school outcomes...


Am I crazy?


Would there be less energy needed for self control with boys who attended an all boys school?

Last edited by JonIrenicus; 06-19-2010 at 03:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-19-2010, 04:51 PM
Ray Ray is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Default Re: conspiracy theory on why boys are less attentive than girls...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
Would there be less energy needed for self control with boys who attended an all boys school?

Actually...no. In that case, the boys just start going after each other.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-19-2010, 04:19 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/289...3:31&out=24:27


There seems to be a benefit to behavior in having greater belief in free will, in the mantra of I am the master of my fate, the captain of my ship, vs behavior as a result of brain processes or environment.


How do you liberals with all that attachment and focus on environmental effects and external factors as greater forces in peoples behavior take that? It seems to undermine the models with a stronger focus on action/reaction to change behavior as opposed to making the self more resilient, changing the individual, not the universe as the more effective goal.


Ditto with self control, if it turns out that one of the bigger contributers of outcomes relate to peoples relative levels of self control, the internal locus of control vs the external one... again, what does that suggest to you all who focus on the opposite as a more probable model of the way things are?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-19-2010, 04:46 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
There seems to be a benefit to behavior in having greater belief in free will, in the mantra of I am the master of my fate, the captain of my ship, vs behavior as a result of brain processes or environment.


How do you liberals with all that attachment and focus on environmental effects and external factors as greater forces in peoples behavior take that?
I'd love to answer, but as a liberal, I do not have enough free will to do so.

I am actually surprised that I was able to overcome the Forces Beyond My Control to get this fa
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-19-2010, 09:11 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/289...3:31&out=24:27


There seems to be a benefit to behavior in having greater belief in free will, in the mantra of I am the master of my fate, the captain of my ship, vs behavior as a result of brain processes or environment.


How do you liberals with all that attachment and focus on environmental effects and external factors as greater forces in peoples behavior take that? It seems to undermine the models with a stronger focus on action/reaction to change behavior as opposed to making the self more resilient, changing the individual, not the universe as the more effective goal.


Ditto with self control, if it turns out that one of the bigger contributers of outcomes relate to peoples relative levels of self control, the internal locus of control vs the external one... again, what does that suggest to you all who focus on the opposite as a more probable model of the way things are?
Recall that Baumeister says that we can look at our self-control as a half-full glass or a half-empty glass. Our self-control is not absolute. The extreme conservative position seems to regard people as capable of infinite self-control -- poor people should just raise themselves by their bootstraps, because a very few poor people have managed this. If they don't manage this, then their poverty is all their fault, while the rich who haven't had to pull themselves up so far (and who may well have had better training in self-control etc. by virtue of what families they belonged to) are all better off solely because of their own free will. This is an extremely unempirical attitude toward free will -- very far from the attitude that Baumeister is taking.
On the other hand, as the experiments you are focusing on show, one can go too far in a permissive or determinist direction (which is not the same as a liberal direction). It's hard to help people compensate for their bad luck without seeming to give them an excuse for not trying. This is the source of economics based conservative critiques of many liberal programs. The fruitful area of debate is precisely at the half-empty/half full line. We just can't deny that self-control is itself an empirical quantity -- something that some people have more of a natural talent for and that some people get more training in by the luck of what family they are born into. But designing social programs that might help people compensate for bad luck and (one hopes) make people better able to exert self-control must be carefully designed so as not to seem to be handing out free passes. The conservative vs. liberal argument over whether the glass of self-control is half-full or half-empty is a useful tension which could help us hit the sweet spot in the design of social programs -- so long as it is carried out in a spirit of pragmatism rather than dogmatism.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-19-2010, 10:19 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Recall that Baumeister says that we can look at our self-control as a half-full glass or a half-empty glass. Our self-control is not absolute. The extreme conservative position seems to regard people as capable of infinite self-control -- poor people should just raise themselves by their bootstraps, because a very few poor people have managed this. If they don't manage this, then their poverty is all their fault, while the rich who haven't had to pull themselves up so far (and who may well have had better training in self-control etc. by virtue of what families they belonged to) are all better off solely because of their own free will. This is an extremely unempirical attitude toward free will -- very far from the attitude that Baumeister is taking.
On the other hand, as the experiments you are focusing on show, one can go too far in a permissive or determinist direction (which is not the same as a liberal direction). It's hard to help people compensate for their bad luck without seeming to give them an excuse for not trying. This is the source of economics based conservative critiques of many liberal programs. The fruitful area of debate is precisely at the half-empty/half full line. We just can't deny that self-control is itself an empirical quantity -- something that some people have more of a natural talent for and that some people get more training in by the luck of what family they are born into. But designing social programs that might help people compensate for bad luck and (one hopes) make people better able to exert self-control must be carefully designed so as not to seem to be handing out free passes. The conservative vs. liberal argument over whether the glass of self-control is half-full or half-empty is a useful tension which could help us hit the sweet spot in the design of social programs -- so long as it is carried out in a spirit of pragmatism rather than dogmatism.
Excellent post, Bloggin' Noggin.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-19-2010, 02:18 PM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Excellent post, Bloggin' Noggin.
I agree -- an excellent post.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-19-2010, 02:53 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

I am about to listen to the dialog but first I read a few posts and found this interesting, more from what I know about social psychology than philosophy.

Two comments: First, (help me here, Ocean) lack of impulse control is a psychiatric disorder associated in varying degrees with a wide range of other diagnoses.

Two, the conservative Horatio Alger critique is bogus for reasons beyond corresponding inequities in the system ("I grew up poor, but I didn't commit crimes and go to prison.")

Most youth at risk for premature death, abuse of others and a life of crime have multiple risk factors. Let's say you can score for risk on a scale of 1 to 8. When you get up to 6, 7, 8 predicting bad choice outcomes is really a slam dunk. Risk factors might include physical or verbal abuse by a parent AND another parent in prison AND living in a housing project AND substance abuse in the home AND sexual abuse by a family member AND no after-school programs AND early gang initiation AND stints in foster care, etc.

Point being, free will (good choices) is a lot more likely for the child with a score of 1 -4 than for a child from 5-8.

You'll meet a lot of > 5 in prison. Early intervention can enhance free will.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-19-2010, 03:57 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Two comments: First, (help me here, Ocean) lack of impulse control is a psychiatric disorder associated in varying degrees with a wide range of other diagnoses.
Yes, there is a psychiatric disorder that involved impaired ability to control one's impulses.

This diavlog is not about disorders but about normal levels of impulse control, how routines can help, and how the effort directed towards controlling impulses, under certain conditions, may impair subsequent efforts to control other impulses.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-20-2010, 12:36 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

How do you think this applies to addicts? If recovery from addiction depends on spending lots of energy on impulse control, what are the implications (if any) for other areas of the addict's life?
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-20-2010, 12:58 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
How do you think this applies to addicts? If recovery from addiction depends on spending lots of energy on impulse control, what are the implications (if any) for other areas of the addict's life?
It could mean spending a lot of time at meetings, drinking lots of coffee and endlessly talking about addiction....if you subscribe to the disease concept of addiction.

Sorry for butting in...I just have some experience with this issue.

Last edited by badhatharry; 06-20-2010 at 01:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-20-2010, 01:08 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

If you think the disease concept is inadequate, would you care to share a better one with us?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-20-2010, 02:23 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
If you think the disease concept is inadequate, would you care to share a better one with us?
I think a better concept is bad habit. The cure is to quit doing the thing one is addicted to and to make the commitment to never, ever do that thing again and to know that is possible. Actually the commitment comes first.
With time it requires little or no effort.

But at first it requires an awareness of what your addiction sounds like and how it talks to you. It wants you to indulge and will say anything to make you do so. It knows you well because it is you. You just need to ignore it, see it for what it is and stay your course. The bad things that have happened in your life because of your addiction is the motivation for doing all of this.

I think the disease concept gives way to a lifetime of struggling with one's bad habit a day at a time, going to endless meetings, talking about all the nasty things one has done ad nauseum and never believing that one is rid of the addiction. It lets people think that instead of being say, a drunk, they belong to a special class of people with a disease. It lets people blame their bad habit on the troubles they have encountered in life instead of their self indulgence. It lets people off the hook of taking responsibility for their actions because they can always say "I have this disease." The disease concept has made a lot of professionals happy because they get to treat the disease forever because there is no cure. There's a lot of money being made with the disease concept.

I know that a lot of people believe in the disease concept, have spent tons of money in rehab, have been in anonymous programs for years and believe that that is the only way to stay sober. If they are sober, that's what counts...but it's they and not the program which is keeping them that way.

Last edited by badhatharry; 06-20-2010 at 10:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-20-2010, 07:49 AM
SkepticDoc SkepticDoc is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Argleton
Posts: 1,168
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Everyone will have an opinion on Addiction and its treatment. This is a preliminary document on the definition from an official Medical Society:

Quote:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, memory, motivation
and related circuitry. A constitutional deficit in the number of dopamine
receptors in reward circuits, such that drugs and behaviors which enhance
dopamine levels are preferred and sought as reinforcers; and chronic drug
use altering the sensitivity of dopamine receptors, leading to increased
drug self-administration and engagement in addictive behaviors, are two
predominant ways leading to the manifestations of this disease. Addiction
affects neurotransmission and interaction between the amygdala and reward
structures, such that motivational hierarchies are altered. Addiction also
affects the interactions between the hippocampus and reward centers, such
that the memory of previous exposures to alcohol and other drugs leads to a
heightened behavioral response to external cues which trigger drug hunger
(craving), engagement in addiction-related behaviors, which may or may
not include alcohol and/or drug use. These effects on reward, memory and
motivation, lead to impaired cognition and behaviors that illustrate impaired
control, which supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors, and interfere with
perception and executive function.
Genetic factors account for more than half of the likelihood that an individual
will develop addiction. In other cases, traumatic experiences affecting
neuroendocrine stress circuitry or other psychosocial or environmental
factors affect the manifestations of addiction. The fundamental difference
between those who have addiction and those who do not is not the quantity
or frequency of alcohol or drug use, or engagement in addictive behaviors,
or exposure to other external rewards; rather, it is the qualitative difference
in how the brain and behavior respond to drug exposure, stress and
environmental cues.

Behavioral manifestations of addiction can include important social,
occupational, or recreational activities being given up or reduced because
of substance use; a great deal of time being spent in activities necessary to
obtain a substance, use a substance, or recover from the effects of substance
use; a substance being used in larger quantities, in greater frequencies,
or over a longer span of time than was planned or expected by the user;
and impairment of control over substance use and related behaviors along
with a persistent desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control
substance use and related behaviors. The presence of persistent or recurrent
social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of
substance use (e.g., arguments with significant others about consequences
of intoxication, physical fights); recurrent alcohol or other drug use resulting
in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g.,
repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use;
substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school;
and neglect of children or household responsibilities) are common social
manifestations. Knowledge of having persistent or recurrent physical or
psychological problems that are likely to have been caused or exacerbated by
their substance use and/or related addictive behaviors does not usually lead
to behavior change in people with addiction, unless appropriate treatment is
provided.

Cognitive changes in addiction can include preoccupation with substance
use and altered evaluations of the relative benefits and detriments associated
with regular use of alcohol and other drugs. Many people with addiction also
have a conscious awareness of a profound drive or craving to use alcohol
or other drugs. People with addiction often manifest a lower readiness to
change their dysfunctional behaviors than objective data suggest would be
useful, or a lower readiness to change despite mounting concerns expressed
by significant others in their lives.

Addiction is a chronic disease, which is progressive, and can cause disability
or premature death. The qualitative ways in how the brain and behavior
respond to drug exposure and engagement in addictive behaviors are
different, at later stages of addiction than earlier stages. As is the case with
other chronic diseases, the condition must be monitored and managed over
time to decrease the frequency and intensity of relapses, to sustain periods
of remission, and optimize the person’s level of functioning with reduced
disability, during periods of partial or full remission. As in other health
conditions, self-management, with mutual support, is very important, along
with professional care from trained and certified professionals. Peer support
is essential in optimizing health status and functional outcomes in recovery
from addiction.
Please comment...

At the end of the day, it truly boils down to caring and compassion, who would enforce individual food restriction to treat obesity and its associated co-morbidities?

Last edited by SkepticDoc; 06-20-2010 at 05:58 PM.. Reason: removed unnecessary quotation marks
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-20-2010, 09:31 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticDoc View Post
Everyone will have an opinion on Addiction and its treatment. This is a preliminary document on the definition from an official Medical Society:
Not exactly Occam's razor is it?

Translation....if we put lots of words on this paper we will seem to know what we are talking about, make addiction seem like an actual disease like cancer and be able to charge people lots of money for coming to see us for help with their addiction.

Last edited by badhatharry; 06-20-2010 at 10:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-20-2010, 01:41 PM
SkepticDoc SkepticDoc is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Argleton
Posts: 1,168
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Not exactly Occam's razor is it?

Translation....if we put lots of words on this paper we will seem to know what we are talking about, make addiction seem like an actual disease like cancer and be able to charge people lots of money for coming to see us for help with their addiction.
You may be a "lost cause"...

The "Occam's razor" would be that it does not matter, it is only energy-matter and its interactions, if any animal is suffering or is less than perfect, do we just kill it?

I am fully aware of my physical limitations and my finite existence as I know it, as a Human I have hopes and aspirations, I try to reduce pain and suffering to the best of my ability, I also try to cultivate mercy, compassion and understanding. I sense an anti-psychiatric attitude, Scientologists are a very good example of intelligent people that "don't get it", I am sure that there are others that have the same attitude and don't believe in Xenu and thetans...

The Physical Sciences have the benefit of not having to worry about ethics and morality in their experiments, who cares about the little atom or electron that is smashed in a collision to study elemental particle physics? In the Life Sciences we don't care much about bacteria but we have strict guidelines for work with higher primates. There are no animal models to work with emotion or mood disorders, our understanding of Human Behavior advances at a very slow pace, at the same time, the experimental milieu is changing at an exponential rate- Internet "addiction" was unknown 20 years ago!

At least Psychiatrists are trying to help other people relieve their psychic pain, what other options are "acceptable" to you?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-20-2010, 02:36 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

I'm willing to question the "disease" model of addiction and some of the claims of the recovery industry. I'm sure there's some interesting technical debate about whether addiction is best viewed as a disease, disorder, condition, etc.

However, you seem more concerned with blaming the addict for being a sissy and a weakling. Calling addiction a "bad habit," as you did above, makes it sound like you're equating picking your nose or arriving a little late to work in the morning with obsessing over heroin or alcohol every waking moment of one's life. So I would say your "bad habit" model is much more deficient than any "disease" model. Your model has no explanatory power and is too vacuous to be useful in reducing suffering.

Treatment is not always successful, but a world in which there is no treatment and addicts are left to "man up" and break their own habits is beyond question a far worse world than the one recovering addicts and professionals have created to treat the addiction problem.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-20-2010, 02:57 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Thank you for being so nice about it.

My civility was temporarily out-of-order.

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-20-2010, 03:11 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
[...]
I am under the impression that you spent some time going to AA meetings after having decided you didn't like what drinking was doing for or to you. If I am right about that, then I further conjecture that you were able to stop or appreciably curtail your drinking -- crucially, with comparative ease -- and that connected with or independent of that, you simply did not care for the AA meeting format. (Or perhaps all of this happened to someone close to you.)

About the last, I would say, who can blame you? The AA approach is not for everyone, just as Nicorette gum or The Patch is not for everyone who wants to quit smoking, just as Weight Watchers is not for everyone who wants to drop a few pounds, etc. This has been recognized for quite some time now, if you didn't already know (e.g., e.g.).

About the rest I would just say that it seems to me that addiction, or the tendency to addictive behavior, is not a binary state. As with most things human, there is a continuous spectrum of behavior. Some of us can more or less indulge in a given thing in moderation, for life, some of us can't but find it more or less easy to just stop, cold turkey, and some of us find it really hard to stop doing that thing, to the point where lives will be utterly ruined by it. Of that last group, some can stay clean after a short period of intensive treatment, and others will always be threatening to backslide, and so will need some sort of help for the rest of their lives. Could be a weekly meeting with a support group, could be something else entirely.

At any rate, I think that you ought to be thankful that you are not in the last third of that spectrum, and work a little harder on convincing yourself that what you might like to call "willpower" is better viewed, at least every now and again, as an emergent property that has a whole complex of underlying factors contributing to its appearance, not all of which are amenable to conscious control by oneself. I think you ought to acknowledge (as you like to insist in many other contexts) that not everyone is necessarily like you, regarding the ability to stop or slow down consumption of various controlled substances.

Do some people perhaps use the problems of others as a way to line their pockets? Well, obviously. Some people find a way to work a scam around anything you could name, and medical conditions are particularly ripe for this. But because you've heard a couple anecdotes or have some gut feelings does not mean you understand the full sweep of the problem. (No one understands the full sweep of this problem, but some don't understand less than you.)
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 06-20-2010 at 03:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-20-2010, 04:31 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
I think you ought to acknowledge (as you like to insist in many other contexts) that not everyone is necessarily like you, regarding the ability to stop or slow down consumption of various controlled substances.
Very nicely written post.

I would add that addiction also applies to behaviors beyond substances: gambling, shoplifiting, shopping, sex, overeating, etc.

Some of these conditions underscore even more the idea of a continuum between normal performance of the behavior at one end and abuse and addiction at the other. The most obvious cases are sex and eating, behaviors everyone engages in and that are essential to life. At the outer levels of compulsion, however, sex/porn and over-eating can be serious addictions.

A good layman's overview of a range of addictions can be found in this recent book, America Anonymous.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-20-2010, 04:34 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Very nicely written post.
Thanks.

Quote:
I would add that addiction also applies to behaviors beyond substances: gambling, shoplifiting, shopping, sex, overeating, etc.
Excellent point. I did have that floating around the back of my mind, but forgot to add it in.

Quote:
Some of these conditions underscore even more the idea of a continuum between normal performance of the behavior at one end and abuse and addiction at the other. The most obvious cases are sex and eating, behaviors everyone engages in and that are essential to life. At the outer levels of compulsion, however, sex/porn and over-eating can be serious addictions.

A good layman's overview of a range of addictions can be found in this recent book, America Anonymous.
Probably not to my taste, but maybe someday. Thanks for the link.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-20-2010, 04:02 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticDoc View Post
At the "end of the day"(I hope this is an appropriate use of quotations, I don't want the GP knocking at my door!), ...
You rang?

Before we address the main issue, please note: quotation marks or, in all except the most formal senses: quote marks or even just quotes, and not quotations, which would refer in most people's minds to directly repeated passages of speech or text. For example: I have a fine collection of Mark Twain quotations.

To your question, I would say that your punctuation here is inappropriate. You are using a familiar idiom/colloquialism which no one on the site would mistakenly take literally, word for word. Putting quote marks around something like this suggests to the reader that you are being ironic in some way (e.g., you don't really believe what you say afterward -- it truly boils down to caring and compassion -- to be true) or you're being sarcastic about the expression itself.

Observe that you did not feel compelled to dress up boils down to.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 06-20-2010 at 04:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-20-2010, 04:18 PM
SkepticDoc SkepticDoc is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Argleton
Posts: 1,168
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Thanks, I'll be more diligent in the future.

TG I didn't have to write end of the day a 100 times in the blackboard...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-20-2010, 04:28 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticDoc View Post
Thanks, I'll be more diligent in the future.
Delighted.

Quote:
TG I didn't have to write end of the day a 100 times in the blackboard...
And then put quote marks around each of them. And then erase the quote marks, with your tongue.

;^)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-20-2010, 02:06 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
How do you think this applies to addicts? If recovery from addiction depends on spending lots of energy on impulse control, what are the implications (if any) for other areas of the addict's life?
Usually it is advised that people in early stages of recovery avoid other significant stressors or major life transitions or decisions. It isn't a time to use up one's psychological capital in other enterprises. The effort needed for recovery is enough.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-19-2010, 06:47 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Recall that Baumeister says that we can look at our self-control as a half-full glass or a half-empty glass. Our self-control is not absolute. The extreme conservative position seems to regard people as capable of infinite self-control -- poor people should just raise themselves by their bootstraps, because a very few poor people have managed this. If they don't manage this, then their poverty is all their fault, while the rich who haven't had to pull themselves up so far (and who may well have had better training in self-control etc. by virtue of what families they belonged to) are all better off solely because of their own free will. This is an extremely unempirical attitude toward free will -- very far from the attitude that Baumeister is taking.
On the other hand, as the experiments you are focusing on show, one can go too far in a permissive or determinist direction (which is not the same as a liberal direction). It's hard to help people compensate for their bad luck without seeming to give them an excuse for not trying. This is the source of economics based conservative critiques of many liberal programs. The fruitful area of debate is precisely at the half-empty/half full line. We just can't deny that self-control is itself an empirical quantity -- something that some people have more of a natural talent for and that some people get more training in by the luck of what family they are born into. But designing social programs that might help people compensate for bad luck and (one hopes) make people better able to exert self-control must be carefully designed so as not to seem to be handing out free passes. The conservative vs. liberal argument over whether the glass of self-control is half-full or half-empty is a useful tension which could help us hit the sweet spot in the design of social programs -- so long as it is carried out in a spirit of pragmatism rather than dogmatism.

This is all fine.

But if the greater belief in free will has a sort of placebo like effect, then shouldn't we foster that belief in people while at the same time assisting them if they fall too far?


I think the main point is that just as a personal attitude to take in life, the more internal control leanings are healthier.

Not surprising. To believe that people are little more than rafts unmoored, drifting in a sea of chance and circumstance would seem to take peoples finite attention levels away from areas they have some control over and shift it to areas that are beyond their personal power to alter.

Is it such a terrible thing to keep reminding people that they are rarely rudderless, that no matter what hand they are dealt, playing the hand is better than spending most of ones time on decrying not getting the same high cards of another.

It just seems like a broken, sloppy, unproductive outlook on life. An outlook that many more liberally minded people seem to encourage in their agitations and what they choose to focus on.


And btw, none of that acknowledgement means liberals would have to abandon trying to give greater assistance to the less advantaged, what it means is they might find it more useful and productive to shift their focus to more internal/behavioral aspects of people as opposed to external and environmental effects.

Last edited by JonIrenicus; 06-19-2010 at 06:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-19-2010, 06:59 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: More vs less belief of free will, more vs less self control

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
This is all fine.

But if the greater belief in free will has a sort of placebo like effect, then shouldn't we foster that belief in people while at the same time assisting them if they fall too far?


I think the main point is that just as a personal attitude to take in life, the more internal control leanings are healthier.

Not surprising. To believe that people are little more than rafts unmoored, drifting in a sea of chance and circumstance would seem to take peoples finite attention levels away from areas they have some control over and shift it to areas that are beyond their personal power to alter.

Is it such a terrible thing to keep reminding people that they are rarely rudderless, that no matter what hand they are dealt, playing the hand is better than spending most of ones time on decrying not getting the same high cards of another.
All the above is included in a basic concept: empowerment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus
It just seems like a broken, sloppy, unproductive outlook on life. An outlook that many more liberally minded people seem to encourage in their agitations and what they choose to focus on.
I'm not sure where your logic falls apart, but it does. As far as I can tell, "liberals" don't promote dependency, but rather they promote providing the resources so that people can become self-sufficient. Here's an excerpt from the above quote:

Quote:
Sometimes groups are marginalized by society at large, but governments are often unwitting or enthusiastic participants. For example, the U.S. government marginalized cultural minorities, particularly blacks, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act made it illegal to restrict access to schools and public places based on race. Equal opportunity laws which actively oppose such marginalization, allow increased empowerment to occur. It should be noted that they are also a symptom of minorities' and women's empowerment through lobbying.

Marginalized people who have no opportunities for self-sufficiency become, at a minimum, dependent on charity or welfare. They lose their self-confidence because they cannot be fully self-supporting. The opportunities denied them also deprive them of the pride of accomplishment which others, who have those opportunities, can develop for themselves. This in turn can lead to psychological, social and even mental health problems.

Empowerment is then the process of obtaining these basic opportunities for marginalized people, either directly by those people, or through the help of non-marginalized others who share their own access to these opportunities. It also includes actively thwarting attempts to deny those opportunities. Empowerment also includes encouraging, and developing the skills for, self-sufficiency, with a focus on eliminating the future need for charity or welfare in the individuals of the group. This process can be difficult to start and to implement effectively, but there are many examples of empowerment projects which have succeeded.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-19-2010, 11:09 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

Psychology Saturday! Great!

Excellent diavlog by Joshua and Roy.

Roy described his research on how exerting self control on one task or making decisions, can deplete the mental energy needed for a subsequent different task and how this could have some practical applications. When he mentions "mental energy" he added some clarification that this concept was borrowed from biology. The term that is being used, mental energy, might as well be called mental effort, and is not, as far as I can tell, new in psychology. Certain tasks, once they have become routine, can be carried out with minimal attention, and at very low effort/ mental energy use. That frees up mental energy for later tasks or for a second concomitant task. And indeed, the process can be easily conceptualized by understanding how neural circuits operate through stimulation/facilitation and inhibition/ deflection.

The topic of exercising self control to strengthen that ability as one would do with any other skill or building muscle, was very descriptive. The caveat of not overexerting to the point of exhaustion was also a welcome point, especially to the audience that tends to think about all or nothing, instead of a continuum or a slope.

Interesting discussion about couples and other relationships in terms of compatibility and happiness based on their respective ability for self control. Perhaps there was a failure to address sufficiently the importance of quantifying spontaneity versus self control.
An objection that could be made, is that the highest levels of self control may actually determine a neutralization of emotional availability and experience, that for many may preclude some aspects of enjoyment. Additionally, people with high levels of self control may be more likely to report that their relationship is gratifying, and less likely to admit that it might be boring. As usual, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that somewhere in the continuum, a strong ability for self control probably yields the best results.

Also, and following up with the same topic, I find that an aspect that is often neglected is that relationships are dynamic and that people adjust to each other in complementary ways. Even if two people enter a relationship with similar levels of self regulation, they may find that one starts to become more spontaneous in the context of that relationship and based on the other's ability to contain. The same phenomenon can work reciprocally so that each partner has an opportunity to loosen up in certain aspects. These dynamics are always in interplay.

Lastly, there was a discussion about how belief in one's ability for free will can determine different behaviors. The implication is that when the focus of control is external (less free will) people tend to become more antisocial. This is a well known phenomenon and is the basis for the concept of empowerment. As Bloggin'Noggin's post describes, again this isn't an all-or-nothing mechanism. People who don't have any resources, need help to build the skills to pull themselves out of their situation.

Many topics for discussion, at least for those of us who are interested in the complexities of the human mind.

Thank you both.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-19-2010, 11:54 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: Holding Back

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Interesting discussion about couples and other relationships in terms of compatibility and happiness based on their respective ability for self control. Perhaps there was a failure to address sufficiently the importance of quantifying spontaneity versus self control.
An objection that could be made, is that the highest levels of self control may actually determine a neutralization of emotional availability and experience, that for many may preclude some aspects of enjoyment. Additionally, people with high levels of self control may be more likely to report that their relationship is gratifying, and less likely to admit that it might be boring. As usual, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that somewhere in the continuum, a strong ability for self control probably yields the best results.

.

Good points, Ocean. However, I wonder whether the trade off between "self-control" and spontaneity might be more apparent than real. A life spent endlessly reconsidering whether to shave first or brush your teeth first every morning would not be a more spontaneous life than that of someone who made a decision once and turned his faculties to more interesting questions. The writer who religiously wakes at 6:30 and locks herself in the study for four hours may be open to a lot of spontaneous decisions about what her characters are going to do next. If I go for a half-hour walk every day, I can still make spontaneous decisions about my route.

We ought to distinguish between self-control as an occurrent state -- where you are actually having to control an impulse which leads you in the wrong direction -- and self-control as a state of overall mastery of one's life.
The occurrent self-control IS opposed to spontaneity -- it requires standing back from one's impulses and questioning them, deciding whether or not it makes sense to give in to that impulse. But if we have exercised our occurrent self-control effectively in the past and have given ourselves tastes and habits that work well and have weeded out the tastes and habits that lead to conflict, we will have achieved self-control (in the sense of life-mastery) by decreasing theneed for the alienating and effortful occurrent sort of self-control.
As Aristotle points out, the self-controlled person (in this occurrent sense) wants to do the wrong thing but does the right thing anyway -- he thereby does not act spontaneously. But the truly good person wants to do the right thing (because of past training and past self-control) and so he spontaneously does the right thing. If I can train my impulses to spontaneously flow in certain channels and not others, I may increase the realm of possible spontaneity for myself rather than decrease it.

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 06-19-2010 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.