How Big Data Impacts Our Understanding of Addiction

Man researching on Google, browsing the internet.

Source: Getty Images/iStock Editorial

The scientific and technological advancements in the last century have led to an unprecedented abundance of resources that we have never witnessed before. In fact, the speed of production and supply is so fast that we frequently have a hard time keeping up, finding ourselves overwhelmed with the variety of options that are available. Such indigestible abundance promotes overindulgence, which is often a symptom of drug and alcohol misuse and addiction.

The rise of food and dietary issues causing adult lifestyle diseases is a practical example of this. Without any intervention, the brain may begin to build an excessive appetite to match the overabundance in its environment, followed by ingestion, which can often lead to a dysfunctional digestive response.

This simple mechanism resembles how the condition of addiction begins and operates. Also, it is highly applicable to an important topic that is not frequently covered or discussed in the field of addiction: data consumption. Our ability to process and sort through data has decreased more and more as modern technological advancements and automation produce massive amounts of data each second.

The Dark Side of Big Data

Due to our brain’s (the dopamine system’s) instinctive drive for newer and/or stimulating data (sensory) input, the appetite for more information has not decreased. In fact, it has increased exponentially in the past few decades. We are now suffering from information overload and are being inundated with inaccurate and fragmented data.

Often, proper scientific inquiry and process are disregarded, and the quality of the data is minimized over its size, speed, and accessibility. At this point, it may be controversial yet reasonable to ask if we, as therapists, are also struggling from unhealthy and maladaptive behaviors resulting from a so-called “data addiction.”

Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of therapists falling into this trap today. As a clinical director of a facility founded on creativity and innovation in treatment, I can personally attest to the temptations of blindly rushing toward new, cutting-edge findings. Between the urge to remain relevant and up-to-date and the pressure to provide quality services for a condition that seems to be constantly changing, the idea of newly discovered, pragmatic quick fixes can be an attractive option. However, this can lead to data gluttony, an uncontrolled, excessive appetite for unending data collection.

Therapists may misguidedly engage in data overload, assuming this is “what is best for the client.” I often advise people to be more skeptical and curious when justifying behaviors. Justification, combined with abundance, can often deteriorate into unhealthy motivations toward misuse.

Many therapists, instead of focusing on the fundamentals and in-depth knowledge, indulge in and skim through fancy, cutting-edge information, which they do not have the clinical experience to digest, especially if they are just beginning their careers. They may want to attune with the client, yet the therapist does not understand the concept and experience of attuning to their inner self. And when the intervention fails, the blame is placed on the client that they were not ready or motivated enough.

As scientists and professionals in the field of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, we owe it to the patients to have quality knowledge that can hold against the accelerating profusion of new data. Unfortunately, the durability and half-life of psychological knowledge have been steadily decreasing, according to Neimeyer et al. (2012). Therefore, because findings have a shorter shelf-life, it is urgent that we implement not necessarily the newest but the best findings.

Evolving Conceptualizations of Addiction

Since its conception, the idea of addiction has gone through multiple changes reflecting the philosophical and scientific zeitgeist of each period. Thus, the cultural and social atmosphere of each time often dictates how we theorize and define the concept of addiction.

Addiction Essential Reads

The Polysubstance Use Epidemic Has Arrived

Are There Racial Differences in Opioid Misuse Among Seniors?

History shows that the earlier models of addiction tended to be linear in their approach and often not sophisticated enough to propose a lasting solution. These concepts became increasingly obsolete in the presence of rapidly growing technology and globalization, and consequently diversifying cultures.

To properly manage and regulate the issue of addiction, we need to expand and diversify the current understanding with a paradigm shift. To achieve this, we need to first establish frameworks that are durable enough to encapsulate the nonlinearity (complexities) involved in addiction. This process should not be about creating something new. Instead, it should be focused on identifying, integrating, and synthesizing intricate, preexisting theories.

Lobotomy, at one point in history, was thought to be one of the most high-end, cutting-edge interventions for mental health patients. We must remain cautious and aware that such disasters can easily repeat themselves if we are not careful.

Next Steps for Therapists

We need to first learn to appreciate the complexity of addiction and avoid being overly programmatic about it. This means vetting through and assuring that the practicality of the treatment arises from a well-conducted, in-depth scientific investigation and subsequent integration of proper data. The synthesis and integration toward a useful and comprehensive knowledge can be inhibited by unhealthy trends of overspecialization as well as the objectification of clients to a mere diagnosis.

It is important to note that not all data are created equally, and one size does not fit all. Therapists must consider the careful calibration between objectivity and subjectivity. Such regulation requires one to not only collect new information but also understand the historical change and context of the idea.

It is imperative that we as scientists and clinicians are more conscious of the way we utilize the existing data and transform it into scientific understanding. Just like our food consumption, we need to be selective about the data that we consume and assure that it is properly digested through appropriate scientific efforts. This way, the services we provide for clients are well-synthetized and integrated enough to match the complexities of the conditions we are addressing.

The moral of the story: We should not bite off more than we can chew.