Abstract
Snoek, like other commentators, conflates some of my neural claims with those of the Brain Disease Model of Addiction (BDMA). But she sees other details of my modeling with precision and depth. I welcome her emphasis on individual and developmental differences in addicts' capacity to recognize and deploy their personal agency. In fact we agree that belief in personal agency is a critical first step to cultivating it. Yet I wish to steer away from (an even softer version of) the disease nomenclature, to give that belief its best chance to flourish.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Snoek, Anke. 2017. How to recover from a brain disease: Is addiction a disease, or is there a disease-like stage in addiction? Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-017-9312-0.
Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the brain: Development, not disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.
Hall, Wayne D., Adrian Carter, and Anthony Barnett. 2017. Disease or developmental disorder: Competing perspectives on the neuroscience of addiction. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-017-9303-1.
Heather, Nick. 2017. Q: Is addiction a brain disease or a moral failing? A: Neither. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9289-0.
Pickard, Hanna. 2017. Responsibility without blame for addiction. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9295-2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, M. Self-Efficacy: Now You See It, Now You Don’t. Reply to Snoek. Neuroethics 10, 195–197 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9322-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9322-y