【Native Speaker每日综合训练—40系列】【40-03】科技

cherry6891

内容:cherry6891   编辑: cherry6891

公益申请，每月一名

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

Part I: Speaker

Questioning Evolutionary Psychology
Recently, the doubts and questions plaguing the theory of evolutionary psychology have boiled up to the mainstream press. Christie Nicholson reports Jul 17, 2009
Something is afoot in the story of us.

Well it’s pretty cool when we can see scientific viewpoints turning, slowly of course. Also known as a paradigm shift. Right now, it appears evolutionary psychology is under mainstream fire.

Put simply, evo psych posits that favorable traits during our hunter-gatherer days persisted in our modern contexts. Natural selection carved our behavior and locked it in place. For example: so-called rape genes are passed on to modern males because the cave dwellers who carried rape genes sired more offspring and thus passed on that trait or adaptation to more descendents than those without the trait. And so that’s why we have rape today. This is obviously an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

The public is drawn to evo psych because it provides a most desired thing: a neat reason, or excuse, for who we are; how we behave. That is not easily questioned, because it’s essentially unverifiable. We can’t go back in time to prove it.

With the appearance of a New York Times op-ed by David Brooks and a feature piece by Sharon Begley in Newsweek, the evo psych paradigm is being questioned in front of the general public.

These authors break the fanfare with two hits: evo psych depends on a relatively static environment over millennia, which evidence shows not to be the case. Our environment changes, and so the potential to engage genetic potential changes, dependent on the environment. Secondly, neuroplasticity appears to be firmly established, and the brain has extraordinary malleability and is able to adapt to different contexts over time. In short, the authors and their quoted researchers say the core of human nature lies in its “variability [across cultures and contexts] and its flexibility.”

source:Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/evolutionary-psychology-under-fire-09-07-17/
[Rephrase1  2'08'']

cherry6891

Part II: Speed

The addiction paradox
Drug dependence has two faces — as a chronic disease and a temporary failure to cope
BY BRUCE BOWER 2:30PM, MARCH 7, 2014

time2
Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman’s February death from a drug overdose triggered media reports blaming the terrible disease of addiction for claiming another life. But calling addiction a “disease” may be misguided, according to an alternative view with some scientific basis. Most people who are addicted to cigarette smoking, alcohol or other drugs manage to quit, usually on their own, after experiencing major attitude adjustments. Although relapses occur, successes ultimately outnumber fatalities. People can permanently walk away from addiction.

Evidence that addiction is a solvable coping problem rather than a chronic, recurring disease seems like encouraging news. But it’s highly controversial. Neuroscientists and many clinicians regard drug addictions as brain illnesses best vanquished with the help of medications that fight cravings and withdrawal. From this perspective, drug-induced brain changes increase a person’s thirst for artificial highs and make quitting progressively more difficult.

This conflict over addiction’s nature plays out in two lines of research: studies of remission and relapse among treated substance abusers and long-term studies of the general population.

Follow-up investigations of people who attend treatment programs report that addicts never completely shake an urge to snort, inject, guzzle or otherwise consume their poisons of choice. Ongoing treatment in psychotherapy, rehab centers or 12-step groups encourages temporary runs of sobriety, but it’s easier to kick the bucket than to kick the habit.
Surveys and long-term studies of the general population, however, observe that addicts typically spend their youth in a substance-induced haze but drastically cut back or quit using drugs altogether by early adulthood. Most of those who renounce the “high” life do so without formal treatment.

Each research approach has drawbacks. Treatment studies don’t include people who overcome addictions without seeking formal help, and thus underestimate overall recovery rates. Community surveys often overlook individuals with especially harsh drug problems, and thus overestimate recovery rates.
“There’s clearly disagreement in the field about the natural history of alcohol dependence and other substance use disorders,” says psychologist Madeline Meier of Arizona State University in Tempe. “Part of the reason is that clinic-based studies tend to find high rates of relapse but population-based studies don’t.” [352 words]

time3
New investigations aim to clarify how alcohol and drug addictions play out across the life span, at least in industrialized nations. A reanalysis of four national surveys in the United States concludes that issues such as getting married, fears of arrest, drug prices and health concerns can prompt individuals to quit drug addictions at any age, a finding at odds with the brain disease model of addiction. Related research suggests that life transitions and personality changes accompany remission from excessive drug use. Studies of New Zealand children tracked into adulthood suggest that individuals who break free of alcoholism suffer relapses less frequently than is often assumed.
Severe substance abusers, on the other hand, appear to face the most challenging future. Recent evidence highlights a near-universal tendency for people with multiple addictions and other mental ailments to relapse at least once within four years of completing treatment.
Scientists trying to untangle the life course of excessive, harmful consumption of mind-altering substances face challenges at every turn.

Maturing out
Psychologist Charles Winick grappled with those challenges in a controversial 1962 article titled “Maturing out of narcotic addiction.” More than 50 years later, new studies support and expand on key elements of his argument. Winick discovered that about three-quarters of those listed as heroin addicts in an annual federal tally disappeared from the rolls by age 36. He concluded that these young people had “matured out” of opiate dependence as they assumed adult responsibilities and resolved emotional conflicts that had driven them to drugs in the first place.

In line with most mental-health professionals at the time, Winick, affiliated with City University of New York, considered heroin addiction a disease. These findings suggested to him that addictions, like some infections, can be resisted successfully.

Winick assumed that police and hospital data collected by the government included nearly every U.S. heroin addict and that all of those dropped from the list had stopped using heroin. But some may have died without the government knowing, or continued using while managing to avoid the authorities. Today, arguments over Winick’s conclusions haven’t been fully resolved, says Boston College psychologist Gene Heyman.[354 words]

time4
Many people addicted to legal and illegal drugs end up quitting without formal treatment, just as Winick concluded, according to Heyman’s reanalysis of data from four national surveys of psychiatric disorders conducted in the 1980s, the 1990s and the early 2000s. Heyman’s work also indicates that people conquer their addictions at all ages, not just during young adulthood, as Winick thought.
Heyman’s findings, published in the 2013 Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, build on an argument he made in a 2009 book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice. Everyday decisions influenced by deeply held values and goals push people toward or away from addictions, he wrote.

Heyman rejects the standard premise that alcoholism and drug abuse result either from brain diseases or moral failures.

Marijuana and cocaine addiction mainly afflicted young people in the national surveys. An average of about three-quarters of those who at some point had heavily consumed either of these two drugs had cut back markedly or stopped using completely by age 30. Just 5 percent of cocaine addicts remained hooked into their 40s and 8 percent of marijuana addicts remained devoted pot smokers into their 50s.

Alcoholics and cigarette smokers held on tighter to their habits. It took an average of 27 years for two-thirds of alcoholics to quit or dramatically curtail their drinking and a whopping 49 years for two-thirds of tobacco users to give up their smokes. Cocaine and marijuana addicts quit sooner; two-thirds had quit within seven years and nine years, respectively.

It’s especially tough to break the addictive grip of substances that are glamorized in ads and can be legally purchased at local stores, Heyman suspects.
[273 words]

time5
Never too late
Most provocatively, he calculates that the likelihood of recovery stayed constant over time. A disease that turns the brain into an increasingly insatiable drug-seeker would make aging addicts the least likely to recover. Yet, heavy alcohol users in the study were as likely to give up the bottle or revert to occasional use at age 40 or 50 as at 30. That means that people whose addictions lasted into their 50s and beyond still had the potential to turn their lives around, Heyman concludes.

Being married, having a college degree, fearing arrest, facing high drug prices and developing drug-related health concerns made heavy cocaine, marijuana and alcohol users more apt to quit or substantially cut back.

Heavy smokers took a different road to recovery. Most who gave up nicotine did so after age 75. Government data suggest that antismoking campaigns have influenced increasing numbers of heavy smokers, many of them older, to quit using cigarettes, Heyman argues. From 1965 to 1995, smokers who had graduated from high school or college quit at higher rates than those with less education, apparently in reaction to information about health dangers of their habit, he says. Cigarette sales began a steady downward slide shortly after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report on smoking and illness, which was followed by increased cigarette taxes, prohibitions on public smoking and the appearance of warning labels on packs of cigarettes.

“Whether or not drug use persists depends on factors that influence decision making, particularly values related to family, the future and one’s reputation,” Heyman says.

Short-term, self-focused decisions — such as wanting to numb the emotional pain of childhood abuse — can eventually lead to drug addiction, he argues. Switching to a long-term focus on others — say, choosing to be a better parent and to make family members proud — triggers the hard work of getting sober and improving one’s lot in life.[311 words]

Time6
Providers of addiction treatments differ on whether a positive perspective shift banishes bad habits or temporarily controls illnesses that can’t be cured. Studies of how people kick addictions on their own are rare. Intensive investigations of addicts who quit without formal treatment would help in designing treatments that produce long-lasting improvement, Heyman suggests.

Sobering changes
Major personal transitions throughout life, as suggested by Heyman’s findings, shape the course of alcohol and drug addictions, says psychologist Kenneth Sher of the University of Missouri in Columbia.

“People mature out of addictions at all ages,” Sher says, echoing Heyman’s expansion of Winick’s 1962 proposal.

Sher and his colleagues have analyzed data from one of the U.S. population surveys of alcohol and drug use that Heyman consulted. In that project, more than 34,000 adults, ages 18 and older, completed face-to-face interviews in 2001 or 2002 and again three years later.

At the second interviews, past-year rates of drug dependence and abuse — defined in the survey as full-blown addiction accompanied by painful withdrawal reactions, as well as lesser but still serious drug problems — peaked at 9.3 percent among 18- to 20-year-olds but gradually fell in older age groups, reaching a low of 0.5 percent among those older than 50.

In particular, rates of new drug addictions and relapses among those who had kicked past substance problems declined sharply as participants got older, Sher’s group reports in the December 2013 American Journal of Public Health. From young adulthood to old age, those who started out with drug problems were most likely to get better over the three-year span if they got married, had children or landed a job after being unemployed, in line with Heyman’s results.

Cases of drug dependence and abuse that originated between interviews clustered among people who were at least 34 years old and got divorced in that window of time.
Alcoholics in the sample displayed an intriguing gender difference, Sher’s team reported in the May 2012 Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Men, but not women, who were at least 38 years old and got jobs or had a child after the first interview displayed marked declines in alcoholism by round two of the interviews. About 50 percent of alcoholic women in that age bracket who had children during the study remained heavy alcohol drinkers after three years, versus 40 percent of alcoholic women who didn’t give birth during the study.

Life transitions mean different things to different people, Sher says. For instance, parenthood may more often instill a sense of responsibility in middle-aged men and a sense of despair in middle-aged women.[429 words]
source: science news
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/addiction-paradox

cherry6891

Part III: Obstacle

Can You Fake Mental Illness?
How forensic psychologists can tell whether someone is malingering.

Rephrase 7
When someone commits a horrific, inexplicable crime, we naturally wonder whether he’s mentally ill: Who but a crazy person could do such a thing? But when a killer acts crazy after his arrest, we also might wonder whether he’s preparing for his trial. That’s the speculation around Colorado shooter James Holmes, whose psychiatric treatment and bizarre behavior in court and prison make people wonder whether he’s truly insane or building a case for an insanity defense. It leads to the question: Can a criminal get away with faking insanity?

Experts have been debating that question since the creation of the insanity defense in the mid-19th century. To avoid the noose or the guillotine, criminals of the era would fake symptoms from the then-emerging field of psychology. It soon became a cat-and-mouse game: Criminals would act out their understanding of insane behaviors, and alienists (the era’s term for psychologists) would write studies on how to detect those “malingerers.” Most techniques relied on the investigators’ experience and powers of observation—looking for inconsistencies in symptoms, waiting until the suspect tired of the game, or simply catching a telltale look in his eye. As the Austrian criminologist Hans Gross wrote: “The shammer, when he thinks no one is looking, casts a swift and scrutinizing glance on the Investigating Officer to see whether or not he believes him.”

Today, less than 1 percent of felony defendants raise an insanity defense, and a tiny fraction of those succeed. Yet in a state like Colorado, where proving insanity can avert a death sentence, the temptation to appear mentally ill must be strong. And so modern forensic psychologists, just like their forebears, watch for malingering with a sharp clinical eye. They determine whether the symptoms match those of well-studied pathologies and whether the signs remain consistent over time. They also can apply a battery of tests that essentially fake-out the faker.

The first step is to do a thorough review of the suspect’s history. Mental illness doesn’t develop overnight, so it’s important to know if the person has been hospitalized or treated for similar symptoms. The investigators also review the crime-scene report. If the suspect has hidden the weapon, washed off his fingerprints, or taken other steps to elude the police, it’s a sign of clear thinking—not mental illness.

Then come one or more long, rambling interviews—the longer the better, because after a few hours, some suspects begin to lose track of their symptoms or grow weary of the con. Phillip J. Resnick, professor of psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, says he asks the suspect to talk at length about his history before saying a word about the crime, to lessen the chance of “retrofitting” a pattern of alleged illness to the deed. He and his colleagues listen carefully for signs of particular mental illnesses.

“Most malingerers don’t read the psychological literature,” says Tali Walters, a Boston forensic psychologist, so they present a Hollywood version of how a crazy person acts.

For example, some suspects claim to hear voices in their head that they’re powerless to resist, a commonly dramatized depiction of schizophrenia. Unlike what we see in the movies, most auditory hallucinations are benign; they seem to originate outside the head (not inside), and rarely come from aliens or other non-human beings. Only a small percentage are “command hallucinations,” and even fewer command a violent act. Furthermore, genuine schizophrenics find strategies to ignore these voices, or even make peace with them. They learn that certain activities, such as exercise, mute the voices; while others, such as watching TV, encourage them—the “voice” can’t seem to resist commenting on what it sees.

So if a suspect says he feels compelled to obey alien voices inside his head telling him to kill, there’s a good chance he’s feigning. Case in point: David Berkowitz, aka “Son of Sam,” who shot six people in a three-year murder spree in New York. Berkowitz claimed that he was following the commands of a demon-possessed Labrador retriever, but later admitted it was a hoax. “A dog,” says Resnick, “is not a typical [auditory] hallucination.”

Malingerers often exaggerate their symptoms and ignore common, subtle signs such as the blunting of a mentally ill patient’s emotions. Some fakers say one thing and do another. They might feign confusion to the psychiatrist but later converse easily with cell-mates, or claim to be paranoid while sitting at ease. Some combine symptoms from different conditions, such as hallucinations of schizophrenia and obscene outbursts found in Tourette’s syndrome. The forensic psychologist may suggest an outrageous delusion during the interview, such as, “Do you believe cars are part of an organized religion?” Fakers might latch onto this bait and perhaps even run with it. Real schizophrenics would say no.

At some point the examiner leads the discussion to the crime, which sets another trip-wire for deceivers. No matter how delusional the suspect claims to be, the crime scene must fit the hallucinations he describes. It’s hard to believe a suspect who says he was slashing wildly with a kitchen knife against an army of aliens when he actually left a single stab wound in his mother’s chest. Another clue is a cover story that conveniently mixes delusion and reality.

“Sometimes all it takes is one sentence,” says Resnick. “It’s one thing to say ‘God told me to kill my mother to save all mankind.” It’s quite another to say, “God told me to kill my mother so I could get money to buy more drugs.”

There are also standardized tests that trip up malingerers. A preliminary, 10-minute test, called M-FAST (Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test), presents a series 25 questions that intermix phony and real symptoms. It’s almost impossible to pick the right combinations if you’re not mentally ill or a highly trained forensic psychologist. A more thorough series of questions, called SIRS (Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms) takes about an hour.

There’s even a test for faking amnesia, which is among the most common of feigned mental illnesses. Contrary to popular belief, people with amnesia don’t completely lose their ability to remember things. So forensic psychologists give a memory test that’s so easy that even a person with amnesia could pass it. They show a series of letters, numbers, and shapes for a few seconds and then ask him to draw them on a blank sheet of paper. Even people with amnesia caused by brain damage can reproduce most of the symbols. The only way to fail is if you do so on purpose. “I don’t want to be so specific that people can avoid our detection methods,” says Jerry J. Sweet, director of neuropsychology for the North Shore University Health System in Evanston, Ill. “So in this case we try not to educate the public.”

The psychologists and psychiatrists interviewed for this story were hesitant to comment on the Holmes case, not having seen the suspect or his file. But they voiced suspicion over his claimed amnesia, which is exceedingly rare without brain injury, drugs, or another medical condition. Walters cautioned that even though Holmes’ psychiatrist reportedly sent a warning to the University of Colorado’s threat team, it’s not clear whether the behavior that triggered the warning resulted directly from mental illness.

Surveys show that of the roughly 60,000 “competency to stand trial” referrals forensic psychologists evaluate each year, anywhere from 8 percent to 17 percent of the suspects are found to be faking it.

Probably the most brilliant malingerer ever was the mafia chieftain Vincent Gigante, dubbed “Oddfather” by the New York press for his strange behavior. For decades, he shuffled about Greenwich Village in his pajamas, talking to parking meters, slobbering, and muttering to show mental incompetence. When brought up on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and racketeering, he fooled several leading psychologists and delayed the trial for half a dozen years. Even after he was sent to jail in 1997, he maintained the appearance of insanity. It wasn’t until 2003, when he plea-bargained his way out of more serious charges, that Gigante admitted it had all been a sham. [1358]
source：slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/faking_insanity_forensic_psychologists_detect_signs_of_malingering_.html

疏离无罪

占~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·

Speaker:Evolutionary psychology is under mainstream fire now from two aspects:1 evo psych depends on a relatively static environment but the enviornment always changes. 2 neuroplasticity appears to be firmly established but our human brain is flexible and adapt to the enviornment.

02:08
Whether addiction is a kind of disease is a paradox.According to the defination and performance,addiction can hardly be a disease because it is a solvable coping problem,but it appears to be a kind of brain illness that can affect people's brain and make them hard to quit.

02:05
The addiction can be linked to the life transitions and personality changes.And moreover,data showed that when people matured out,they are more likely to give up addiction.Addiction can be resisted successfully.

01:35
A survey showed that people can conquer their addiction at all ages without formal treatment.Heyman rejected to say that the addiction result from either from brain diseases or moral failures.He thought it comes from everyday decisions.

01:48
Alcohol users and heavy smokers still had the potential to give up the addiction even in later life.Influence decision making and values related to family,future and reputation can affect the addiction.

02:26
A survey on addicts who quit without formal treatment can help to design treatment plan.And the investigation showed that personal transitions throughout life is the main cause of addiction,which shows the main point of addiction.

08:19
After the insanity defense was created in the mid-19th century,crinimals always tried to fake a mental illness to escape from the justice.And psychologists also tried their best to test whether these people are insane.It soon becane a cat-and-mouse game.Psychologists have a process to test.The first step is to do a thorough review of the suspect’s history. Mental illness doesn’t develop overnight.Then come one or more long, rambling interviews,because afther a long time some suspects begin to lose track of their symptoms or grow weary of the con. Examples are raised in the article.
There are also standardized tests that trip up malingerers. A preliminary, 10-minute test, called M-FAST presents a series 25 questions that intermix phony and real symptoms.So it is hard to fake mental illness and succeed to cheat psychologists.

yaomincui

占座，嘻嘻！！！

speaker:
the views of scientific views are changing. for example the regimes
there are different sides of the questions "who we are" and "how we believe"
the evil side, dependent on the environment
others say about the core of human nature

time2
the meaning of addiction is different from "disease"
there are two groups, the whole population and someone who gets addicted
each views had a flaw because it does not consider the people who get rid of addiction

time3
new investigations want to find out how the addiction affect the lives of people
the experiment: people not addicted- less elapse
people who get addicted: feel more quickly
somebody argues that addiction is a disease
another person says that the person's view is not complete

time4
W said that some people get rid of the addiction without formal achievement
most of the people get rid of addiction before their 30s
he also rejected that addiction is due to failure and brain disease

time5
being married or having a study degree will help people go over addiction
but heavy smokers will have long road to run
xxx suggested that short term and self centered will make someone addicted
but long term and often related to others will cut the probability of getting addicted

time6
people always get rid of addiction after married or having a child
they can be lack the formal treatment
different to various people

obstacle
the relationship between criminal and mental insanity
experiments

ffffionabear

感谢Cherry妹纸~~占座进行时~~
----无限感恩~！！进击的阅读小分队~~你的作业（ ￣ー￣）[冷笑]  不，是你的作业~~一天不做，浑身哆嗦~~--------------------------------------
做完可以安心碎了~~困成狗~~
[speaker]
Evolutionary psychology is questioned by two changes:
1.as the eviornment change,our potential way of engaging gene might change.
2.our brains are flexible and plastic.
[speed]
3'12
There is an paradox of drug dependence:The clinic-based studies show that the former drug addicts tend to feel more difficult to quit since their brain had been damaged.But the population-based studies show most of those addicts will renounce overusing drugs without formal treatment,which means drug depedence is a solvable problem.
2'39
Further studies suggest that addicts are tend to relapse at least once within four years of completing treatment.What's more,some scientists assume that people may suffer "matured out" period that they realise the responsibilities as adults.
1'43
Scientists also find whether people addicted to legal or illegal drugs have different behavior on drug dependence,except for the miserable reult.Those who addicted to illegal drugs get hurt on their brains and moral sense.And the legal addicts show tough to breake the routine.
1'42
For those addicts,it's never too late to turn their lives around.Short-term,self-focus decision can be a motivation for addicts to quit the "high" live.And switching a long-term focus on others,especially on the families side,could also benefit the addicts.
2'32
People suffer the "mature out" period at all ages.And live transitions mean different things to different people.Some quit the drugs when getting a new start of live.But high rate of women  became alcohol drinker after being mathers.
[obstacle]这个文章好新奇好有意思！！
6'35
main idea: Lower rate of felony defenants succeed to be a malingerer,because now we have many professional psychologists and experts to see through the trick.
1.look thorough of the suspect's history,the mental illness should never be out of thin air.
2.experiments and long interviews,the longer these take,the better.
3.What the suspect said should be testified by a certain mental symptom,not mixing of them or copying of the Hollywood.

yding49149

Speaker
volutionary Psychology
What is it? (Example)
Why is popular? (reason: a neat reason for who we are and how we behave)
Authers question the theory with two points
1.depends on a static environment which is not the truth
2.variability and flexibility of the brain

Time2-3'39
Time3-3'15
Time4-2'23
Time5-1'58
Time6-2'12
Obstcale-6'23
Is it possible to fake the mental insanity?
Two steps pf test:
1. Review history
2. interview: different tests can be used to test if the person act on purpose.

ZOEYZHANG114

1)        Can the addiction issue recovery completely or not?
2)        What causes the addiction is things such as emotional issues…
3)        People can conquer the addiction problems by themselves
4)        People’s strong attitude can help them quit the addiction.
5)        Some Psychological surveys can help to find our whether a person is a malingerer.

vsetteacher

8/4/14
2:00，Addiction can be a solvable problem rather than a disease. The research has sample bias on either group of addicts (shake an urge to)
2:05. People with multiple addictions tend to relapse, but some researchers believe that addicts can be resisted.
1:22. People of all ages can quit their addictions. Illegal substances such as marijuana are more likely to be resisted than are legal ones such as cigarettes.
1:49. People of all ages have the same chance to recover. Short term factors lead to drug addiction whereas long term focus result in resistances.
2:25. Another study supports Heyman’s result. Besides, when people get older, men tends to feel responsibility while women builds a sense of despair.
OBSTACLE
8:00 culprits have incentives to fake mental illness but they hardly succeed because it’s difficult for malingerers to pass the test. Since they usually lack of corresponding psychological knowledge, their sham turns out to be lame in experts’ eyes.

cyndichiang

Time2 3‘17’‘
Addiction is not a disease and can be solvable by some treatment.
There are two lines of research: relapse rate and whole population rate.
Treatments study and long-term study have their own merits and drawbacks.

Time3 3'11''
Researches of abusers span their lives indicate that some factors such as marriage can prompt people quit drug addiction, but severe abusers are more likely to relapse and to be mind-altering after the treatment.
Quitting addiction is like a "maturing out" activity and abusers can resist successfully.
The data collected by the government may be underestimated since some abusers were failed to manage by government, but the information is not so sure.

Time41'47''
Some abusers ended up smoking without formal treatment.
M thinks that abusers can conquer addiction at any ages.
H published a book about addiction myth and he rejected the standard premises of two causes of addiction.
Data shows that most abusers quit when they mature.

Time5 2'19''
It is never too late to quit.
Heavy smokers have different ways to recovery: anti-smoking campaigns
Some factors can influence the recovery such as the taxes, marriage and one's reputation and so on
Factors cause the addiction: emotional pain in childhood and so on

Time6 2'13''
Interviews conducted by a psychologist show that abusers mature out at all ages.
Family responsibility plays an important role in addiction quitting without formal treatment.