Abstract
My friend Addict has two selves: good and bad. The bad self preys on the good self. Their interactions give rise to Addict’s periodic feeling of conflict. I find that, to diminish the bad self, we cannot simply try to harass the bad self or favor the good self; we must begin by diminishing the good self. This remedy works like the scorched-earth tactic in a battle. Only by starving the bad self will we succeed in preserving the good self.
This chapter is based on Lee (1988).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Others see addiction in similar light. Thaler and Shefrin (1981, p. 105) see it as a platform for a far-sighted “planner” and a short-sighted “doer.” Sen (1976) sees in it a “meta-ranking” of preferences of several selves. Etzioni (1986, p. 159) sees an addict as “at least two irreducible sources of value or ‘utility,’ pleasure and morality.” Weil and Rosen (1983) see addiction as the body of two relations, one with a person and the other with a drug like heroin.
References
Becker, Gary, and Kevin Murphy. “A Theory of Rational Addiction.” Journal of Political Economy, 96, August 1988, pp. 675–700.
Boulding, Kenneth E. A Reconstruction of Economics. New York: Wiley, 1950.
Elster, Jon, ed. The Multiple Self. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Etzioni, Amitai. “The Case for a Multiple-Utility Conception.” Economics and Philosophy, 2, 1986, pp. 159–183.
Hirshleifer, Jack. “Economics from a Biological Viewpoint.” Journal of Law and Economics, 20, April 1977, pp. 1–52.
Kemeny, John G., and J. Laurie Snell. Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.
Kristof, Nicholas. “How to Win a War on Drugs.” New York Times, 22 September 2017. Accessed at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/sunday/portugal-drug-decriminalization.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region.
Lee, Li Way. “The Predator-Prey Theory of Addiction.” The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 17 (4), 1988, pp. 248–262.
Lee, Li Way. “Would Harassing Drug Users Work?” Journal of Political Economy, 101, October 1993, pp. 939–959.
Pielou, E. C. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. New York: Wiley, 1969.
Schelling, Thomas C. Choice and Consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Sen, Amartya K. “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, 1976–1977, pp. 317–344.
Smith, J. Maynard. Models in Ecology. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Stigler, George J., and Gary S. Becker. “De gustibus non est disputandum.” The American Economic Review, 67, March 1977, pp. 76–90.
Thaler, Richard H., and H. M. Shefrin. “An Economic Theory of Self-Control.” Journal of Political Economy, 89, April 1981, pp. 392–406.
Weil, Andrew, and Winifred Rosen. Chocolate to Morphine: Understanding Mind-Active Drugs. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1983.
Wilson, Edward O., and William H. Bossert. A Primer of Population Biology. Stamford, CT: Sinauer Associates, 1971.
Winston, Gordon C. “Addiction and Backsliding.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, December 1980, pp. 295–324.
Zinberg, Norman E. Drug, Set, and Setting. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
To understand addiction, I employ the simplest Lotka–Volterra model of predator-and-prey interactions (Kemeny and Snell 1972; Pielou 1969; Wilson and Bossert 1971; Smith 1974). The model consists of two sets of interactions between the bad self and the good self. The bad self grows with the intensity of predation on the good self and declines at a natural rate. The overall change over time, therefore, can be described by a linear differential equation:
where t is time, b 1 is the coefficient of growth due to interaction, and b 2 is the rate of fading. They all have positive values. The good self is similarly governed by a differential equation:
where g 1 is the rate of natural regeneration and g 2 is the coefficient of decline due to predation by the bad self. Both also have positive values. When the rate of regeneration of the good self exceeds the rate at which it is drained by the bad self, the good self will grow in strength. If it is the other way around, the good self will wither.
The main properties of the model are depicted in Fig. 1. The addict travels on a closed loop. Once around the loop, the good self has average presence of
and the bad self has average presence of
Oscillation is not a defining property of addiction, however. An addict may have a fixed, stable proportion of good self and bad self. This can result from a slightly different model of predator and prey. Suppose that an addict’s good self rejuvenates at the “logistic” rate that is slightly lower than the exponential rate. If the good self is measured by health status, then the addict rejuvenates at less than the replacement rate. Then the good self and the bad self will converge toward a stable equilibrium. That equilibrium has the same “scorched-earth” property as that of the oscillating equilibrium. Details can be found in Lee (1988).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee, L.W. (2018). The Two Selves in My Friend Addict. In: Behavioral Economics and Bioethics. Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89779-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89779-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89778-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89779-0
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)