That's obviously not true. Can a person with an IQ of 40 earn a PhD in physics if they "put their mind to it"?

If you concede that intelligence varies from person to person and that some tasks may simply be beyond the ability of some people, then why would it be difficult to accept the idea that some people's brains might simply be wired in such a way that they are not ABLE to resist some temptations? To put it another way: if intelligence is variable from person to person and if some cognitive tasks are beyond the ability of some individuals, surely the same is true of virtually any other brain function.

I'm all in favor of personal responsibility and a "can do" attitude, but that kind of thinking can become destructive in cases where a person is being asked to do something that TRULY is beyond their ability. The message is not that people should simply give up -- the message is that some people honestly do require a little extra help with some things. If a person is addicted to a harmful substance or behavior, they may NEED the help of others to overcome it. Simply telling them that they can stop "if they put their minds to it" is not helpful.

what are you talking about? A habit is a habit. Most habits are wrong. Habits are things you've come accustomed to doing routinely because it becomes soothing or comfortable and you start doing it without thinking. When I was 5 my parents got divorced and I started biting my nails. To this day, at 26 I still do it. I don't like it, I'm sure it's not good for my teeth, but it's hard to not do it. I am trying to get my mind to not want to do it by painting my nails, filing them, trying to make them look pretty so I won't WANT to do it. So far I actually have white tips and haven't really had an urge to bite.

I don't think anyone will say "Oh, I can eat a sh!tload now because I know it's my brain doing it, not me." That's not what they're saying and that's not how people are going to take it. It shows them "This is why it's hard to stop eating certain things, and here is a solution to try to stop."

Why do some of you have to ALWAYS find a negative in a positive article and turn it into a damn blame game!?

Kyleaarons, unless you've read the actual peer-reviewed paper, then you don't really know what the important results were. News reports like this usually emphasize the findings that are most likely to get the attention of the general public, and those are very often NOT the results that are of scientific importance.

The actual study doesn't just say "Hey, the root cause of addiction is in the brain! Whodathunkit!?!?!?!" The actual study was a much more thorough investigation of the mechanisms of addiction. This knowledge is extremely valuable to society for obvious reasons. If we can come to understand exactly HOW people become addicted to substances or behaviors then we have a much better chance of helping the countless persons affected by the many forms of addiction.

When you have read the actual peer-reviewed scientific paper -- and have understood it -- then you are qualified to critique it.

the fact of the matter is, money, a lot of it, was spent to see what causes addictions.

I'm sure some scientist somewhere will do something with it, maybe even try to make it seem like we are closing on a cure: Great, awesome, wow... Unfortunately, we already know the mechanisms of addiction. The body likes something because the brain says it feels good for whatever reason. We eat too much because it tastes good, it keeps us occupied, it relieves stress, whatever... The Brain tells us this and we all know it.

The same "disorder", such as over eating, can be caused by a multitude of factors, based on the way our brain thinks and then tells us how to act. This is no surprise. Anyone who tries to change a behavior knows the fight. It has to start with changing the way we think and the excuses we make to ourselves and others about it.

The problem is we allow our government to help fund studies like this all the time. We waste billions of dollars to find out things the average 8 year old can guess at with pretty good accuracy.

It kind of reminds me of the study showing kids get hurt when sledding.

The science behind such studies is getting silly. Let's put money into seeing what chemicals are produced in the brain and see if there is a natural way to break the addiction there.

But for the love of common sense let's stop spending untold millions to prove crap the average person already knows.

Now if this study actually found something useful, something no one knew, then OK, but then it should be the media's job to report it, and in this case I highly doubt any ground breaking cures will spring from this waste of money.

Once again, if you haven't read the actual, peer-reviewed scientific paper than you don't even KNOW what they discovered.

Secondly, scientists that study the mechanisms of addiction are looking at the issue in far more detail than "the body likes something because the brain says it feels good for whatever reason." For instance, which brain regions are involved in which forms of addiction? At the cellular level, what changes occur? What changes occur at the level of neural circuits? Is there a way to reverse these changes once they have happened? What genes are involved and what, precise role do they play in producing individual differences in susceptibility to addictive behaviors? At the behavioral level, what are the precise factors that influence one's ability to resist temptation and how do they relate to other psychological variables and how EXACTLY do they relate to the various environmental factors that may come into play?

Since you are so sure that such work is a waste of money, you must already know the answers to these questions. Enlighten us.

Yeah, you can get back to me on that....

MGin:

You may want to be careful where you point fingers, you may accidentally poke out an eye or something.

The fact of the matter is you must have very little true Psychology background or are choosing to use what background you do have to try to make others look bad. You just might want to be careful about that as well, it may well end up backfiring on you.

The truth is, substances can cause a true physical addiction. They are very dangerous and need medical help to safely get people off them.

Other addictions are totally different. Almost anything can turn into an addiction. Drugs, food, computers, computer gaming, sex, cell phones, driving, texting, blogging... the list goes on pretty much into infinity.

The problem with these types of addictions is they are not all caused by the same thing as a true chemical dependence. Part of it is the background they come from and the thought processes that they use to enable the addiction to begin with.

Some do cause chemical imbalances; others are just patterns of thought that get engrained over prolonged periods of time. Even the areas of the brain most effected can change depending on the factors behind what caused the addiction to begin with.

Since you put so much behind the 'peer reviewed' part of your argument, I am quite certain I can find more than a handful of 'peers' who would and do scoff at this kind of work.

How about you MGin?