The media love stories like Tiger Woods and his lady friends. Sex sells, it always has. Unfortunately, the media rarely care whether they are portraying an issue accurately, it is more about soundbites and sales. I know, because I used to get interviewed quite often for addiction-related stories when I worked for a large university teaching hospital. My 20 minute interviews would get slashed to 10 second clips on the nightly news. I have come to realize that it is not their fault, it is the way of news in our soundbite culture. But topics like addiction and what has happened with Tiger deserve more than soundbites. Addiction is an incredibly complex problem with no simple answers. It seems that despite this fact, the media have attempted to reduce Tiger’s problems to a diagnosis of sex addiction. In the clip below they interview a sex addict who provides evidence that sex clearly is an addiction, and that his experiences are similar to Tigers, check it out (and then keep reading):

Here is my own commentary about sex addiction and Tiger’s problems:

• Far too much time is spent debating whether specific behaviors should be called addiction. The reporters above point out that many do not consider sex addiction a real psychiatric disorder because it does not exist in the current verision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But the DSM is a socially-constructed diagnostic guide that is in the process of completely revamping the section dedicated to the diagnosis of addiction. Turns out we got it wrong for the past couple of decades! In my opinion, debates about whether people can be “addicted” to be specific objects (porn, food, internet, cell phone use) get us nowhere. For years therapists have treated patients with significant problems related to all these things, which usually come in packages of behavior. Our focus should be on understanding addiction as a relationship problem, not an object-specific problem.
• How should we understand Tiger’s behavior? If addiction is about relationships, then we see that his pursuit of women  has been about something other than just sex. Any therapist in the country who has spent time dedicated to the topic of sex addiction (Patrick Carnes, Jennifer Schneider, Robert Weiss) will say that sex addiction is not about sex. It is about intimacy and emotional connection, or the lack thereof. As humans we are wired for relationships, but adverse childhood events (and trauma throughout life) lead to the avoidance of emotional experiences necessary for healthy emotional development. The result is a person like Tiger becomes an adult doing his best to negotiate the complexities of adult relationships with the emotional/relationship/intimacy skills of a child. No wonder he looks like a deer caught in headlights at news conferences.
• As a person neglects their internal emotional world, very often the emotional energy (which has to go somewhere) gets displaced into academic mental activities or sports. It is not coincidental that many who suffer from addiction and untreated trauma are professional athletes or have professional careers requiring brain power and academic credentials.  A number of news commentators have pointed out that when Tiger came on the pro scene at age 19 his life never was the same. I would add that prior to the age of 19 his life was very different from other kids, how else was he able to go pro at 19? I am not an expert on Tiger Woods and have no knowledge of the events in Tiger’s early life that influenced his present behavior. And in truth, I don’t care, they are not my business. Each person’s past is their own.
• We need to realize that we (even those who work in the media and are taking shots at him) are not so different from Tiger. On some level, we all struggle with past traumas, maintaining intimate relationships, sex, and developmental constrictions. And at times we all have engaged in excessive behaviors that help us disconnect from the world and our emotional pain (like even watching a bit too much professional sports). Sure, we may not have millions in the bank, be the world’s greatest golfer, or have the ability to act out in the ways he has, but just like Tiger, we all have our own life challenges. The real question is whether we are deepening our awareness of our shadow side, and doing the work necessary to own it, integrate it, and evolve our own mental/emotional health.

One final thing. Understanding why Tiger did what he did is very different then letting him off the hook. Let me be clear, I am not attempting to justify his behavior or say his acting out was not his fault. He needs to take responsibility for what he has done, and realize how his actions have hurt a lot of people. But we in society are so quick to judge others, and in a sick way relish watching those on top take big plunges. Instead of buying into the soundbite entertainment value of Tiger’s pain, we could benefit a lot more by exploring how his fall is a mirror for aspects of our own life.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) will significantly change diagnoses related to alcohol and drugs. No longer will the diagnosis of abuse exist, but instead we will have one category or diagnosis of problematic substance use behavior with varying degrees of severity. At issue is what to call this disorder.

Presently, the term addiction does not appear anywhere in the DSM, but instead the term dependence is used to describe behavior that traditionally invovles compulsive use, loss of control, and continued use despite consequences. Unfortunately, the term also describes a normal process that has nothing to do with problematic behavior or addiction, such as a person who becomes “dependent” on insulin for diabetes, or pain medicines for chronic pain. In these instances, the term dependence describes something entirely different than what is in the DSM. So what to do?

It sounds likely that the upcoming new version of the DSM will use the term addiction and drop dependence because of its dual meaning. Other terms  including appetitive disorders have been thrown around, but this label would require significant public education. Those who are against using the term addiction say: (1) it carries too much stigma, (2) has no clear scientific definition, and (3) is overly identified with drug abuse instead of capturing the full range of excessive behavioral problems (e.g., sex, food, gambling).

In truth, there is no perfect term, but at least addiction is a commonly used term that most understand, even if it presently is not associated with a universally agreed upon definition. I support using the term, but also believe the field needs to evolve its thinking and define addiction more broadly to include the full range of problematic behaviors that go beyond just drugs and alcohol. At CPDD speakers suggested gambling will be included in the new diagnosis, and potentially internet addiction in the near future, but sex and food – perhaps the two most powerful addictions due to their link with our survival – will likely not make the cut.

What does this mean? It means that politics win over science and many folks who need help will not receive it because insurance companies will have a reason not to pay for something if it is not officially in the DSM and/or does not have the right diagnostic codes.

This past week I attended the 71st Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence in Reno, Nevada. As usual, many of the world’s leading addiction scientists attended the conference to bat around the latest ideas in the field. One of the most memorable sessions for me was focused on the work group responsible for alcohol and drug diagnostic categories in the upcoming new edition of the Diagnostic Statistics Manual (DSM5) of Mental Disorders.

Presently, problems with alcohol and drugs fall into two general diagnositic categories – abuse and dependence. It turns out that these categories are largely the product of researchers sitting around a table and theorizing, and not so much on sound science. Substantial data now suggests that these categories do not represent distinct diagnoses, but instead should be combined to reflect a unidimensional continuuam of substance-problem severity. In technical terms, factor analysis revealed they load on the same factor and using Item Response Theory suggests the curves all stack on top of each other. What does all this mean?

It means that in the new DSM5 there will be no “abuse diagnosis” and only one diagnositic category with varying degrees of severity. This brings up the loaded topic of what we call this category – an issue I will write about in my next post. But for now, I want to conclude on three points:

• Labels have power, and for years while doing clinical work I labeled folks as having abuse/dependence diagnoses. For many clients these labels took on great meaning – both positive and negative – and may continue to influence their life today. Now I learn that my labeling was likely incorrect at times, and it teaches me that perhaps we need to not forget that labels are socially constructed, even when influenced by science. What we label as a disorder may be entirely normal in another culture or time.
• We diagnose and label people largely because of politics and money. Diagnoses determine what insurance will pay for, who gets treatment, what gets researched, and how as a society we want to understand and talk about specific problems.
• Diagnoses, labels, and categories of behavior are beneficial when they link to specific interventions that have been shown to be scientifically valid.

For more details on this issue, see: Martin CS, Chung T, Langenbucher JW (2008). How should we revise diagnositic criteria for substance use disorders in the DSM-V? J Abnorm Psychol, Aug; 117(3):561-75.