Same topic, but a far better written and more well-reasoned article. See the difference?

A caution to readers:

1) Anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid.

2) Statistics- Only controlled experiments can determine causation. Be wary of surveys and correlational studies, which can only describe relationships, not explain them. Understand the difference!

3) Generalizations- Experiemental findings can only be generalized to populations which match the demographics of the sample population.

4) Follow the logic. For instance, in this article, the author provides support for the claim that people can overcome addiction on their own, then makes a leap to saying that addiction is not a disease. But did he provide any evidence of that?

This is the problem I have with pop psychology, and media reporting of scientific findings in general. Protect yourself from misinformation: Be a careful reader. Don’t take everything at face value. Challenge everything!