http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/coffee.pdf is good in places, with some interesting ideas. I wonder how many would identify with the section "Reward, reinforcement and ritual"?

Hi

In different cultures, coffee means different things. Also, within the same culture, coffee can mean different things. It is not so much about reasons but more about chemistry. Different people will have different chemistry, and from there, will create different meanings about the effect or purpose of coffee. Some people will see it only as a drug, others will see it as a time to relax, others as a business opportunity, and others as a cultural binding ritual. Each one is right for its own psychology.

Cheers

"Other indicators of conditioning-based obsession combined with addiction among coffee drinkers are choosiness, time and effort spent acquiring a fix, and investment in elaborate paraphernalia."

I'm getting the idea that the author has picked this up from some form of "classical" understanding of obsession and addiction. It does not ring true for the vast majority of coffee drinkers since for the majority any old cup of Joe will do. However it did make me wonder about myself and others who have gone to some lengths to invest in coffee making equipment.

Addiction of course is defined as something that is causing stress or problems in your life. It's not defined as "something of a hobby that you may have spent a few hours a week on, and spent 5000$ over five years..." Like your wife leaving you or getting fired. But obviously the author is just latching on to easy categories like how caffeine is a "drug". Pretty useless.

Ian_G wrote:http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/coffee.pdf is good in places, with some interesting ideas. I wonder how many would identify with the section "Reward, reinforcement and ritual"?

Reminds me of Gertrude Stein's Oakland: there's no taste in the author's taste. The article presupposes that no coffee or tea tastes any better or worse than any other. Once you swallow that, you can ignore everything about the actual coffee and tea, since neither the kinds, nor the details of the prep, make any real difference. Everything the coffee and tea experts say is false, and only the psychologist knows what's really going on.

If all we taste is imaginary, maybe all we see is too. Maybe even all that happens to us. Next time I need to fix my sink, maybe I should call a psychologist; they're cheaper than plumbers.

another_jim wrote: Next time I need to fix my sink, maybe I should call a psychologist; they're cheaper than plumbers.

How many psychologists does it take to change a pressure valve? Only one: but the pressure valve has got to want to change....

another_jim wrote:Reminds me of Gertrude Stein's Oakland: there's no taste in the author's taste. The article presupposes that no coffee or tea tastes any better or worse than any other. Once you swallow that, you can ignore everything about the actual coffee and tea, since neither the kinds, nor the details of the prep, make any real difference. Everything the coffee and tea experts say is false, and only the psychologist knows what's really going on.

If all we taste is imaginary, maybe all we see is too. Maybe even all that happens to us. Next time I need to fix my sink, maybe I should call a psychologist; they're cheaper than plumbers.

Every day I am more and more convinced that psychology is just silly pseudoscience!

That would be a mistake. I can tell you from personal experience that it is a very powerful and useful aid to mental health.

Despite Stafford's own caveats, his valuation of the pharmacological contributions were overblown, while his analysis of other factors were under-nuanced. It seemed undergrad.

BDL