This should be at the bottom as a navbox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: I wanted this to be a pseudo-infobox/table to allow for more flexibility in its placement in different articles. This is fine as an infobox in articles specifically on addiction - the disease infobox in those articles is hardly serving any useful purpose given how minimal the content is in most of them (i.e., if applicable, a DSM link and an ICD link that should just be refs in the section on diagnostics). This really should be in the lead of addiction articles. In drug articles where the addiction section is long enough (e.g., Adderall#Addiction), this would also be a suitable/useful template to include.

Frankly, I think this template needs more visibility due to the incredible lack of consistent terminology used to describe addictions over the last few decades; I wasn't entirely clear on what exactly constituted an addiction or the characteristics/properties of addictive drugs until I looked up the definitions of these things in neuropsychology texts (excluding the diagnostic classification systems, these terms are thankfully consistently defined at the moment). The outdated/abandoned view that a dependence-withdrawal syndrome is necessary/sufficient for an addiction contributed to this problem in the past. The current problem is the retarded nomenclature/terminology (re: the preceding sentence) still used by a particular disease classification system simply because they want to avoid using the word "addiction", a decision which is both arbitrary and frequently criticized in the aforementioned neuropsychology texts. In any event, that's my reasoning for designing the template like this (this happens to be a copy of Boghog's Template:Transcription factor glossary). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a fair compromise Opioid_dependence#Symptoms_of_withdrawal. I am okay with it in the lead of the addiction article but not all the rest.

This is why we often have a first section called classification or terminology. If it becomes long it should be a subpage. There is confusing terminology in many many areas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• http://neuroscience.mssm.edu/nestler/glossary.doc

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The orange background of the header has insufficient contrast with the foreground text, per WP:COLOUR. I removed it (citing WP:COLOUR in my edit summary), but have been reverted on the spurious grounds that other templates also exhibit this problem. Making our content accessible to people with disabilities is not an option; it is required by WMF policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So your issue is with colorblind viewing - which form of color blindness has an issue viewing juxtaposed orange and blue objects? I'm ok with removing it if there is one. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. "Abuse" and "misuse" are highly subjective terms, but don't confuse "abuse" with "abuse liability" which is a largely reducible quality of psychoactive drugs. Abuse liability/potential is precisely a psychpharmacological quality, an evaluation of which is currently required in new drug applications to the FDA and used by the DEA to apply scheduling. The term(s) occur in current drug monographs. "Abuse liability" could be changed to "addiction liability" and would apply to the same definition. So how about this change?

Since the term "drug sensitization" is listed, there is no need for "sensitization" itself. It is not specific to drug addiction but is simply a term from behaviorism. Further, the term "stimuli" should be softened (replaced) to deal with drugs and not behaviorism. The term addictive behavior needs to be tweaked as well. (It opens the door to "addictive personality" which has the same problems as "abuse".) How could the terms noted above be tweaked?

I generally agree with your intentions but I perceive them as a tad rigid. Biologic mechanisms are essential but there is a dimension to human addiction (e.g., set) that doesn't exist in pigeons or rats. Behaviorism can't explain and generally takes no interest in the hard problem. IMO if the intention of this glossary is based in behaviorism then "behaviorism" should be included in the displayed title and the opportunity for a general glossary be created. — Box73 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This glossary is used on pages related to behavioral addiction (e.g. gambling addiction, sex addiction) in addition to substance addiction. Hence the presence of non-drug addiction terms and general language. Sizeofint (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read the last sentence. So you want to have separate entries for substance and behavioral topics (e.g. separate entries for behavioral addiction and substance addication)? Sizeofint (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know this was dealing with non-drug addictions. If it was just drug related the definitions could be tuned to drugs and perhaps softened a bit. Others might make the same assumption I did. Yet a separate glossary would make the articles too busy, invites controversy and is probably better left in another article. Given the span, these definitions are appropriate. I misunderstood and apologize to Seppi. Box73 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The primary reason that this template was created was to improve accessibility by juxtaposing it with sections on content which covers the biomolecular mechanisms of addiction because those sections are extremely technical by nature (e.g., ΔFosB). A secondary intended use for this template is for clarifying the distinction between "addiction" and "dependence" in the few articles (e.g., the subtopic articles listed in this template) that are directly related to those 2 concepts. The template is not intended to provide a complete glossary of any/all terms related to disorders involving drug use. The terms in that template are used in dozens of papers and several textbooks that I've read on addiction (assuming mechanisms are covered in the publication). I intentionally avoided the use of diagnostic terms because the most obvious issue with adding them is that the DSM defines dependence differently than the way it is defined in the template. There's also multiple terms from diagnostic models which are used to mean "addiction" but which use another term with the same definition as addiction instead (for god knows what reason). If you want to create a glossary that covers diagnostic terms, you'll need to confine the scope of the glossary to that terminology to avoid issues.

Thanks for explaining that. I also appreciate the distinction between addiction and dependence. It is true that cancer patients treated with opioids will typically become physically dependent but this is not addiction. The aversion to "addiction" I think is the morality issue, addiction requires an "addict". Even Wikipedia prefers "recreational use". Box73 (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Addictive behavior is correctly defined: this is most commonly used term for a non-drug stimulus which can induce an addiction. "Addictive personality" is an entirely unrelated concept. Sensitization is indeed necessary because both drugs and behaviors can induce sensitization of neural processes, like reward sensitization. Drugs and behaviors can also cross-sensitize (e.g., reward from amphetamine and sexual activity), which is outside the scope of drug (cross-)sensitization.

I better understand now. Without any criticism, I am anxious about addiction being applied so generally. Everything bad habit, lifestyle or assumed prerequisites to an illness. Everything learned is potentially an addiction. Folks taking antipsychotics frequently become compulsive smokers, probably an attempt to compensate for dopamine antagonism. Is this a dependence or addiction? Do other animals develop a liking for psilocybin? Some soldiers in Vietnam developed addictions to heroin that ended with their tour of duty; why are changes in environment not successful here? When I was an infant, my dad smoked, my mom got on him and he just stopped; is addiction a lack of will? You needn't answer; these are rhetorical thoughts of mine. Box73 (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, while it may appear that this glossary is simply a list of terms from behaviorism models (this template only includes operant conditioning; addiction is mediated through both operant and classical conditioning) that are applicable to addiction, the research involving these concepts spans molecular biology, neurology, pharmacology, and genetic engineering. This is in addition to psychology, as these conditioning models are simply used for the quantification of various addiction-related processes/behaviors; the vast majority of addiction research using these models has little to do with psychology-based research, which for example would be something like personality theories of addiction. Virtually all of the current research using these 2 conditioning models examines a biological basis, not a psychological basis, for addiction in humans. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't so much about behaviorism vs. personality as it was the abstract terms and definitions. This makes sense as they are applied across behavioral addictions. Box73 (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The addiction liability term isn't particularly relevant to any of the sections where this template is transcluded, except possibly the lead/body transclusions of the addiction article. For now, I'm removing it and noting it in the missing concepts section for the addiction article at Talk:Addiction#Missing concepts. Frankly, I would have added the conditioning terminology listed in that section to this glossary if it didn't take up so much space in articles. There have been discussions at WT:MED and my talk page involving the length of this template, which is why additional concepts need to either be defined in the main addiction article or introduced in an article-based glossary of addiction-related terms. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I was thinking about it relating to the drug boxes but it isn't necessary and I understand the issues of length as well. Thank you for taking the time to explain this. Box73 (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Seppi333:

This glossary is used in articles read by laypeople, such as Food addiction.

You dealt with the {{jargon-inline}} tags which I added to the glossary a couple of weeks ago. In your edit summary, you wrote that almost every piece of jargon which I tagged is a nontechnical word which would be defined in any half-decent dictionary. I partially agree. I do agree that "characterized", "engagement", "adaptive", and "cessation" are found in every dictionary. But I still think they're not easy words for laypeople to understand.

George Orwell has written:

• "Never use a long word where a short one will do."

• "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Dear all: Are there more-common words, simpler than "characterized", "engagement", "adaptive", "cessation", "stimuli", and "somatic", which we could use instead?

Kind regards, TealHill (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)