![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 4, 2001, at 18:40:25
> Please forgive me in advance for being a bit dumb and inarticulate, I am experiencing mild zoloft WD and I'm not in a state of complete cognitive function right now.
>
> Why does everyone sh** a brick when they see that a drug produces a high? I like being high personally, I have usually felt better during highs than any antidepressants have made me feel. How do you define a high anyway? I would define a good day with the meds as being high. When thoughts come thru my head and they go through a good filter, like they do when the ad's are working right, i consider that to be a high.......its exactly the same thing that happens when im stoned. However, if something bad happens, I get a bad feeling, and I deal with it, on either drug. What exactly are the differences here? What is so wrong with being euphoric? Is it okay to induce euphoria without drugs? Like by winning the lottery, or some crap like that? I'm sure you're thinking yes, that is a good/real reason to be happy, and it is correct for your body to respond by making you happy. But then why shouldn't I be happy over getting some good bud and smoking it? Cause it's not a "real" reason to be happy? Something acting on my anandamide(sp?) receptors is a good reason to be happy. But it's not a real one. Because a real one would be something that was beneficial to me, something that would make me more successful (more likely to reproduce, when you narrow it down). Fortunately, some of us are smart enough to see around this bs, and stimulate our pleasure systems anyway even though there is no good reason to.
Posted by mikes on May 4, 2001, at 20:06:36
In reply to Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by Dr. Bob on May 4, 2001, at 18:40:25
Okay, you're right, I'll pay more attention to my posting locations in the future.
Posted by mikes on May 4, 2001, at 21:23:22
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by mikes on May 4, 2001, at 20:06:36
To elaborate more on the evolutionary psych segment of my post:
All of us want to feel good. That's why we're taking antidepressants. That's why we try to make money, work hard etc. So we can buy stuff. And be successful. And live longer, or make it easier to live longer. With the goal (whether you know/like it or not) of producing offspring.
Back to the issue at hand- experiencing undeserved pleasure. This crusade against euphoria is happening because it is rooted within most people's minds. If you experience happiness when you shouldn't really be happy, then couldn't you be pointed in the wrong direction? Couldn't you be less inclined to reproduce? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. That's what I want everyone to realize.
Posted by mila on May 4, 2001, at 23:17:33
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by mikes on May 4, 2001, at 21:23:22
hi,
there is selection at individual level ( sexual selection being a subtype of this one) and there is group selection.
you definitely lower your chances for survival and good sexual choices if you rely heavily on drugs to get pleasure associated with 'rewards' or to avoid feeilings of pain associated with 'punishment'.
but then you also reduce chances for survival and reproduction of the group to which you belong. Drug addicts cannot serve in military, occupy important or not that important positions in society, help care about their family members offspring, etc.
there is nothing wrong with your personal lack of inclination to reproduce, as long as you keep helping the group you belong to to thrive and reproduce. It is when you are not inclined to do that either, the group sees you as a cheater and a waste of human potential, and thinks that there is something wrong with you. My father was an alcoholic, and died from it, but he was an incredible talented manager and worked till the day of his death. He was very respected. 5000 people came to his funeral. Although he hasn't had an outstanding number of children on his own and died young and penniless (low score on sexual and survival skills), his contribution to his friends, his compatriots, etc. made him into a worthy man in the eyes of the society (high score on group survival contribution skills).
that is my take on it.
mila
Posted by stjames on May 7, 2001, at 17:41:58
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by mila on May 4, 2001, at 23:17:33
Drug addicts cannot serve in military, occupy important or not that important positions in society, help care about their family members offspring, etc.
>James here....
There have been several "drug addicts" who have risen quite high in public office !
Posted by mila on May 7, 2001, at 17:58:01
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by stjames on May 7, 2001, at 17:41:58
> Drug addicts cannot serve in military, occupy important or not that important positions in society, help care about their family members offspring, etc.
> >
>
> James here....
>
> There have been several "drug addicts" who have risen quite high in public office !Hey, I was referring to the IMPORTANT positions in society LOL :)))
mila
Posted by kazoo on May 8, 2001, at 1:16:21
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by stjames on May 7, 2001, at 17:41:58
> Drug addicts cannot serve in military, occupy important or not that important positions in society, help care about their family members offspring, etc.
> >
>
> James here....
>
> There have been several "drug addicts" who have risen quite high in public office !^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kazoo there....
You know better than to make a statement like that without proof! So, name some.
Posted by stjames on May 8, 2001, at 12:28:42
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria » stjames, posted by kazoo on May 8, 2001, at 1:16:21
> Kazoo there....
>
> You know better than to make a statement like that without proof! So, name some.James here...
Hitler, JFK, countless alcholic public office holders.
james
Posted by tdaneen on May 9, 2001, at 15:49:30
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by stjames on May 8, 2001, at 12:28:42
> > Kazoo there....
> >
> > You know better than to make a statement like that without proof! So, name some.
>
President Bush who at one time was an alcoholic AND used cocaine habitually, Let us not forget a certain New York City Mayor too!
Posted by kazoo on May 10, 2001, at 22:45:30
In reply to Re: Redirected: crusade against euphoria, posted by tdaneen on May 9, 2001, at 15:49:30
> > > Kazoo there....
> > >
> > > You know better than to make a statement like that without proof! So, name some.
> >
> President Bush who at one time was an alcoholic AND used cocaine habitually, Let us not forget a certain New York City Mayor too!^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Well, you don't have to be snippy about it!" (Al Gore) :-)kazoo
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.