Re: Twins (was: Sober as a Bush?)

[Guest guest]

> Mona --

>

> Yes, there was a higher correlation for identical twins than

fraternals -- but is right, the correlation was still less (much

less, I think) than 50%. And that's another point that Peele makes -- if

genetics were the major factor in abusive drinking, one would expect

NON-correlation of drinking patterns in identical twins to be the rarity.

>

> ~Rita

False analogy.... genetics could be the largest influence of three or

more... and have a plurality, as it were, but not an absolute majority,

..i.,e, genetics 40 percent, maternal fetal hormones 30 percent, " purely "

volitional behavior 30 percent.

Steve

[Guest guest]

I know three triplets (one stet of women). One of them is a gay woman who is

an alcoholic. The other two are straight and not alcoholic. I also know two

twins who are both gay women and both alcoholics. However one of them is an

openly hostile bitch and the other is quite nice. Genetics don't seem to

affect their dispositions. Of course neither of these cases proves a thing.

Jan

[Guest guest]

Right Steve. I realize these are just two groups of people that share the

same DNA.

Jan

[Guest guest]

Re: Twins (was: Sober as a Bush?)

> I know three triplets (one stet of women). One of them is a gay woman who

is

> an alcoholic. The other two are straight and not alcoholic. I also know

two

> twins who are both gay women and both alcoholics. However one of them is

an

> openly hostile bitch and the other is quite nice. Genetics don't seem to

> affect their dispositions. Of course neither of these cases proves a

thing.

> Jan

>

Exactly, that's why scientific studies look at hundreds if not thousands of

twins. Or individuals, in studies of any medical or psychological

phenomenon.

And the point to remember is that these studies do not claim a 100 percent

correletion, just one that is statistically signficantly greater than random

chance and, due to controls, is not attributable to social environment.

Steve

[Guest guest]

At 10:41 AM 7/28/01 -0500, you wrote:

>Exactly, that's why scientific studies look at hundreds if not thousands of

>twins. Or individuals, in studies of any medical or psychological

>phenomenon.

>And the point to remember is that these studies do not claim a 100 percent

>correletion, just one that is statistically signficantly greater than random

>chance and, due to controls, is not attributable to social environment.

A real controlled study would involve raising people entirely in a

controlled environment (hence the name). For obvious reasons,

this has never been done.

Separated-at-birth twins are raised in different environments, but

not in controlled environments.

[Guest guest]

> A real controlled study would involve raising people entirely in a

> controlled environment (hence the name). For obvious reasons,

> this has never been done.

>

> Separated-at-birth twins are raised in different environments, but

> not in controlled environments.

>

>

However, the fact that the environments are different serves as sufficient

control to " filter out " specific emnvironmental factors. In one technical

sense, no, they're not in " controlled " environments such as lab cages.

However, in the sense of scientific controls, because the difference in

environments serves adequately as a control factor, I have no problems

talking about " controlled environments. "

Steve

[Guest guest]

> A real controlled study would involve raising people entirely in a

> controlled environment (hence the name). For obvious reasons,

> this has never been done.

>

> Separated-at-birth twins are raised in different environments, but

> not in controlled environments.

>

>

However, the fact that the environments are different serves as sufficient

control to " filter out " specific emnvironmental factors. In one technical

sense, no, they're not in " controlled " environments such as lab cages.

However, in the sense of scientific controls, because the difference in

environments serves adequately as a control factor, I have no problems

talking about " controlled environments. "

Steve

[Guest guest]

See critiques on Eseynk's work.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: <12-step-free >

>Subject: Re: Twins (was: Sober as a Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:28:11 -0500

>

> > A real controlled study would involve raising people entirely in a

> > controlled environment (hence the name). For obvious reasons,

> > this has never been done.

> >

> > Separated-at-birth twins are raised in different environments, but

> > not in controlled environments.

> >

> >

>

>

>However, the fact that the environments are different serves as sufficient

>control to " filter out " specific emnvironmental factors. In one technical

>sense, no, they're not in " controlled " environments such as lab cages.

>However, in the sense of scientific controls, because the difference in

>environments serves adequately as a control factor, I have no problems

>talking about " controlled environments. "

>Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> However, the fact that the environments are different serves as

sufficient

> control to " filter out " specific emnvironmental factors. In one

technical

> sense, no, they're not in " controlled " environments such as lab

cages.

> However, in the sense of scientific controls, because the difference

in

> environments serves adequately as a control factor, I have no

problems

> talking about " controlled environments. "

Steve,

This still isnt " controlled " because there wasnt randomization of to

whom the children were allocated, and a systematic bias cannot be

ruled out. Alcoholic ppl are not usually considered suitable as

adoptive parents, and hence there is an immediate extraneous variable

for a start over the natural situation. According to Peele the

apparent effects of heritability disappear when ethnicity is factored

out. One of these days I really must have the resolve to pursue that

line of argument in detail to see what its exact significance is. I

think Peele probably does overstep the mark in his critique of genetic

theories of alcoholism, but he does nevertheless accept a combined

model where genetics and environment interact, which is normally *not*

accepted by " strong geneticists (sic) " (Those who advocate this view

I would say are unlikely to be in the main actually strong on the

subject of genetics, which is what this phrase ought to denote.)

" Biodeterminists " might be a better term, even more so because this

would allow for biological environmental factors also likely to play a

role in twin concordances, such as the intrauterine environment and

monocordism, other than genetics alone. In my experience very few ppl

actually bother to look at the issue that closely however, and that is

because what is at issue is note really the science but the

ideological significance of biological versus psychosocial factors in

addiction. Given that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to

alter someone's biological susceptibility to alcoholism/addiction even

if we could find out exactly how it occurs, and that this is likely to

stay that way for some considerable time, then emphasis on genetic

factors must surely serve primarily merely as a means to *Play down*

the significance of psychosocial factors and to beef up claims of the

impossibility of controlled use by the " true alcoholic/addict " , in

order to pursue an agenda that perceives alcoholism/addiction as a

" primary disease " without psychosocial roots, and a treatment/recovery

philosophy based on the same principle.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Steve,

>

> This still isnt " controlled " because there wasnt randomization of to

> whom the children were allocated, and a systematic bias cannot be

> ruled out. Alcoholic ppl are not usually considered suitable as

> adoptive parents, and hence there is an immediate extraneous variable

> for a start over the natural situation. According to Peele the

> apparent effects of heritability disappear when ethnicity is factored

> out. One of these days I really must have the resolve to pursue that

> line of argument in detail to see what its exact significance is. I

> think Peele probably does overstep the mark in his critique of genetic

> theories of alcoholism, but he does nevertheless accept a combined

> model where genetics and environment interact, which is normally *not*

> accepted by " strong geneticists (sic) " (Those who advocate this view

> I would say are unlikely to be in the main actually strong on the

> subject of genetics, which is what this phrase ought to denote.)

> " Biodeterminists " might be a better term, even more so because this

> would allow for biological environmental factors also likely to play a

> role in twin concordances, such as the intrauterine environment and

> monocordism, other than genetics alone. In my experience very few ppl

> actually bother to look at the issue that closely however, and that is

> because what is at issue is note really the science but the

> ideological significance of biological versus psychosocial factors in

> addiction. Given that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to

> alter someone's biological susceptibility to alcoholism/addiction even

> if we could find out exactly how it occurs, and that this is likely to

> stay that way for some considerable time, then emphasis on genetic

> factors must surely serve primarily merely as a means to *Play down*

> the significance of psychosocial factors and to beef up claims of the

> impossibility of controlled use by the " true alcoholic/addict " , in

> order to pursue an agenda that perceives alcoholism/addiction as a

> " primary disease " without psychosocial roots, and a treatment/recovery

> philosophy based on the same principle.

>

> P.

>

I'm pretty well with you on this. From what I've seen on recent research,

the intrauterine environment appears to have a pretty powerful effect on

many personality traits, not just its possible effects on

addiction/alcoholism. And, short of an artificial womb being invented, I

think genetic effects may be controlled for more quickly than that.

As I said before, the Human Genome Project completed its basic sequencing

before its due date and well before many skeptics expected. I wouldn't bet

against anything in the way of genetic advances, so I probably would have a

minor quibble there.

And I agree many can, and do, use genetic effects as a tool to " play down "

the psychosocial factors. I'm not one of them. I think I said in a previous

post that I'd peg that at about 15-20 percent. Compared to heritability of

intelligence being estimated at 30-50 percent, this does put the

heritability factor for alcoholism lower.

Also, for those who don't even believe in " alcoholism, " genetic

foreknowledge could still be used for " harm reduction " in various ways, or

could be used to fine tune individual moderation programs for those so

inclined.

I also agree on not allowing for the fact that alcoholic parents will be

screened out. I have not read twin studies to know for sure that they *did

not* or that they *did* control for this.

I'll accept " biodeterminist " as a definition of my approach, no problem with

that.

One thing I don't understand is appears to be putting the cart before the

horse in factoring ethnicity out. Why would one do that unless Peele

believes that certain ethnic groups have a greater predisposition to

alcoholism? And in doing so, it sounds to me like he's presuming in advance

that his view that heridity is not involved is correct. In other words, it

sounds like he's engaged in circular reasoning there.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I've been off this list for awhile, but couldn't stand to not respond

to this one.

> I'm pretty well with you on this. From what I've seen on recent

research,

> the intrauterine environment appears to have a pretty powerful

effect on

> many personality traits, not just its possible effects on

> addiction/alcoholism.

This is utter bullshit. " Attachment, " before and beyond and ad

nauseum. This is misogyny taken to the very extreme.

And, short of an artificial womb being

invented

Oh, let's invent one now! God knows the human race can use a few

artificial wombs!

, I

> think genetic effects may be controlled for more quickly than that.

> As I said before, the Human Genome Project completed its basic

sequencing

> before its due date and well before many skeptics expected. I

wouldn't bet

> against anything in the way of genetic advances, so I probably would

have a

> minor quibble there.

> And I agree many can, and do, use genetic effects as a tool to " play

down "

> the psychosocial factors. I'm not one of them. I think I said in a

previous

> post that I'd peg that at about 15-20 percent. Compared to

heritability of

> intelligence being estimated at 30-50 percent, this does put the

> heritability factor for alcoholism lower.

The fallacies of " science " continue to amaze me. They can't even

define or test for " intelligence, " yet you've gotten it down to a

percentage point. You got it " pegged, " eh? he, he, he!

> Also, for those who don't even believe in " alcoholism, " genetic

> foreknowledge could still be used for " harm reduction " in various

ways, or

> could be used to fine tune individual moderation programs for those

so

> inclined.

Utter Bollocks! Pam, I don't know if you're still around, but I have

to use your phrase again.

You don't mean to seriously tell me that you are considering the ways

that " science " can use " harm reduction " on people that aren't even

born????????? Are you that much of an asshole? Tell me I've got it

wrong and you're just sarcastic and misguided and I've missed the

drift of the discussion.

> I also agree on not allowing for the fact that alcoholic parents

will be

> screened out. I have not read twin studies to know for sure that

they *did

> not* or that they *did* control for this.

> I'll accept " biodeterminist " as a definition of my approach, no

problem with

> that.

I've got a lot of problems with it. Explain yourself.

=============

DETERMINISM SUCKS!

INCLUDING BIODETERMINISM (fancy phrenology), AND OTHER FORMS OF

POSITIVISM whose only goal is to figure out why people can't make

choices because they are too individually fucked up. Or their mothers

are.

NEXT STOP, !!!!!!!EUGENICS!!!!!!! Let's make sure the wee bastards

aren't even born!

Human beings deserve better.

[Guest guest]

> This is utter bullshit. " Attachment, " before and beyond and ad

> nauseum. This is misogyny taken to the very extreme.

So I talk about a line of research which you don't like and that's

automatically " misogyny. " And, I wasn't the first to mention it, btw. It was

in Pete's post, too.

> The fallacies of " science " continue to amaze me. They can't even

> define or test for " intelligence, " yet you've gotten it down to a

> percentage point. You got it " pegged, " eh? he, he, he!

Science has no fallacies. Of course, some theories are later falsified by

further evidence.

Actually, what amazes me is a vicious anti-science reaction by some people

on this list.

>

> > Also, for those who don't even believe in " alcoholism, " genetic

> > foreknowledge could still be used for " harm reduction " in various

> ways, or

> > could be used to fine tune individual moderation programs for those

> so

> > inclined.

>

> Utter Bollocks! Pam, I don't know if you're still around, but I have

> to use your phrase again.

>

> You don't mean to seriously tell me that you are considering the ways

> that " science " can use " harm reduction " on people that aren't even

> born????????? Are you that much of an asshole? Tell me I've got it

> wrong and you're just sarcastic and misguided and I've missed the

> drift of the discussion.

>

> > I also agree on not allowing for the fact that alcoholic parents

> will be

> > screened out. I have not read twin studies to know for sure that

> they *did

> > not* or that they *did* control for this.

> > I'll accept " biodeterminist " as a definition of my approach, no

> problem with

> > that.

>

> I've got a lot of problems with it. Explain yourself.

>

>

>

> =============

> DETERMINISM SUCKS!

>

> INCLUDING BIODETERMINISM (fancy phrenology), AND OTHER FORMS OF

> POSITIVISM whose only goal is to figure out why people can't make

> choices because they are too individually fucked up. Or their mothers

> are.

>

> NEXT STOP, !!!!!!!EUGENICS!!!!!!! Let's make sure the wee bastards

> aren't even born!

>

> Human beings deserve better.

I already talked about this when I answered Rita last week. And she didn't

go aroudn name calling. Biodeterminism is " fancy phrenology? " Where the hell

did that come from?

And I have never talked about preventing anybody from being born. However,

if I did, what's the difference between that and aborting a fetus with

severe medical problems? Thousands of women do that every year in America,

and I'm sure they would all be surprised, at the least, to be called

eugenicists.

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

> One thing I don't understand is appears to be putting the cart before the=

> horse in factoring ethnicity out. Why would one do that unless Peele

> believes that certain ethnic groups have a greater predisposition to

> alcoholism? And in doing so, it sounds to me like he's presuming in advan=

ce

> that his view that heridity is not involved is correct. In other words, i=

t

> sounds like he's engaged in circular reasoning there.

> Steve

---------------

  I think you're missing something here, Steve... or maybe there's a lin=

guistic misunderstanding? -- you've never been quite clear on what YOU mean=

by " alcoholism " ... I know that Peele (and myself, and many people) use " al=

coholism " to mean the behavior of drinking frequently and in a manner that c=

auses repeated and significant problems in one's life -- i.e. " Alcohol Depen=

dence " . By that definition " alcoholism " is in no way permanent or incurable=

(can occur as a 'phase' in someone's life) -- and does not exist in the abs=

ence of drinking.

If, on the other hand, YOUR definition of " alcoholism " is " a genetic d=

efect affecting the way alcohol is metabolized or the way it 'feels' to the =

individual " , then it is, as steppers insist, an " incurable " condition that e=

xists independently of whether a person drinks or not.

But what you are doing here is looking at the writings of Peele and vi=

ewing them with YOUR perception of " alcoholism " , not Peele's. You are thus =

creating 'contradictions' that aren't actually there.

That certain ethnic groups have significantly lower rates of harmful d=

rinking behavior (the behavioral description of " alcoholism " ) is irrefutable=

from the sociological/demographic studies. There is absolutely no proof th=

ere of " heritability " -- quite the opposite, it demonstrates that value syst=

ems learned in different cultures and subcultures have profound effects on d=

rinking behavior. Converts to Judaism, for instance, will begin to drink th=

e way Jews (i.e. observant Jews) do -- depending on their original backgroun=

d, this might entail actually drinking MORE alcohol than they're used to (al=

cohol consumption is an important part of many observances), but in a contro=

lled and " spiritually " significant context in which drunkenness and " alcohol=

ic " behavior are unacceptable. Studies have shown BOTH that Jews who are no=

n-observant and lacking in religious Jewish values re alcohol have " alcoholi=

sm " rates approaching that of the general population, AND that converts to r=

eligious Judaism have very low rates of " alcoholism " similar to what observa=

nt Jews have consistently shown in previous studies. In short, the theory o=

f a Jewish " anti-alcoholism gene " (or lack of an " alcoholic gene " ) has been =

thoroughly and completely de-bunked. Low rates of Jewish alcoholism are due=

to learned behavior and cultural values.

In France, where wine is consumed daily by most citizens, there is a h=

igher-than-average rate of alcohol-related medical problems by middle to old=

age -- but no evidence of either high rates of " alcoholic " behavior i.e. re=

peated job, marital, social, legal problems caused by excessive alcohol inta=

ke; nor any evidence of a " genetic " cause of fondness for fine wine among Fr=

enchmen. Winedrinking in France is a CULTURAL preference, a learned behavio=

r, which immigrants to the country can also rapidly learn.

I hope this clarifies what Peele means by different " alcoholism " rates=

among different ethnic groups.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > One thing I don't understand is appears to be putting the cart before

>the=

>

> > horse in factoring ethnicity out. Why would one do that unless Peele

> > believes that certain ethnic groups have a greater predisposition to

> > alcoholism? And in doing so, it sounds to me like he's presuming in

>advan=

>ce

> > that his view that heridity is not involved is correct. In other words,

>i=

>t

> > sounds like he's engaged in circular reasoning there.

> > Steve

>

>---------------

>

>  I think you're missing something here, Steve... or maybe there's a

>lin=

>guistic misunderstanding? -- you've never been quite clear on what YOU

>mean=

> by " alcoholism " ... I know that Peele (and myself, and many people) use

> " al=

>coholism " to mean the behavior of drinking frequently and in a manner that

>c=

>auses repeated and significant problems in one's life -- i.e. " Alcohol

>Depen=

>dence " . By that definition " alcoholism " is in no way permanent or

>incurable=

> (can occur as a 'phase' in someone's life) -- and does not exist in the

>abs=

>ence of drinking.

I don't agree with AA that " alcoholism " is an incurable disease. But, to the

degree that I believe in genetic predisposition, **that** currently is

incurable. I think it's clear my view of alcoholism is not " behavior-only. "

Unlike steppers, I don't insist that biology is insurmountable. To me the

whole old idea of " nature-vs.-nuture " is wrong. Human development in

general, and in individual traits, is " nature and nurture. "

> But what you are doing here is looking at the writings of Peele and

>vi=

>ewing them with YOUR perception of " alcoholism " , not Peele's. You are thus

>=

>creating 'contradictions' that aren't actually there.

I don't think I'm " creating contradictions. " instead, I'm wondering why

Peele would factor out ethnicity, and believe that it needed to be factored

out, if he is a " behaviorist only, " or nearly so. To me, it's simple logic

if someone gives little or no credence to genetic influence on alcoholism,

they would have no logical reason to factor out ethnicity.

>

> That certain ethnic groups have significantly lower rates of harmful

>d=

>rinking behavior (the behavioral description of " alcoholism " ) is

>irrefutable=

> from the sociological/demographic studies. There is absolutely no proof

>th=

>ere of " heritability " -- quite the opposite, it demonstrates that value

>syst=

>ems learned in different cultures and subcultures have profound effects on

>d=

>rinking behavior. Converts to Judaism, for instance, will begin to drink

>th=

>e way Jews (i.e. observant Jews) do -- depending on their original

>backgroun=

>d, this might entail actually drinking MORE alcohol than they're used to

>(al=

>cohol consumption is an important part of many observances), but in a

>contro=

>lled and " spiritually " significant context in which drunkenness and

> " alcohol=

>ic " behavior are unacceptable. Studies have shown BOTH that Jews who are

>no=

>n-observant and lacking in religious Jewish values re alcohol have

> " alcoholi=

>sm " rates approaching that of the general population, AND that converts to

>r=

>eligious Judaism have very low rates of " alcoholism " similar to what

>observa=

>nt Jews have consistently shown in previous studies. In short, the theory

>o=

>f a Jewish " anti-alcoholism gene " (or lack of an " alcoholic gene " ) has been

>=

>thoroughly and completely de-bunked. Low rates of Jewish alcoholism are

>due=

> to learned behavior and cultural values.

>

> In France, where wine is consumed daily by most citizens, there is a

>h=

>igher-than-average rate of alcohol-related medical problems by middle to

>old=

> age -- but no evidence of either high rates of " alcoholic " behavior i.e.

>re=

>peated job, marital, social, legal problems caused by excessive alcohol

>inta=

>ke; nor any evidence of a " genetic " cause of fondness for fine wine among

>Fr=

>enchmen. Winedrinking in France is a CULTURAL preference, a learned

>behavio=

>r, which immigrants to the country can also rapidly learn.

>

Re France, we have talked about this in LSR. The higher overall French

drinking rate is also, I'm sure, attributable in part to them not having

religious denominations such as the Church of Christ who preach abstinence

in general.

But, Peele appears to be talking about factoring out all ethnicity, not just

that of certain ethnic groups. Again, if alcoholism is purely behavioral, I

see no logical need to factor it out. For one thing, if some ethnic groups

are " above average " drinkers, simple statistics says others will be " below

average " drinkers. And they will all balance out at point zero. So why

factor them out?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

At 10:04 AM 8/1/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I don't think I'm " creating contradictions. " instead, I'm wondering why

>Peele would factor out ethnicity, and believe that it needed to be factored

>out, if he is a " behaviorist only, " or nearly so.

Since Peele is neither a behaviorist nor " nearly so, " your argument

is based on invalid assumptions.

Why are you having so much trouble grasping this simple concept?

You've even heard it straight from the horse's mouth, yet continue

to try to introduce this silly red-herring-cum-strawman.

Do you have some sort of personal dislike for Stanton Peele? Why

else would you consistently do your best to misrepresent him in

a negative manner?

[Guest guest]

One of the things I want from people and often fail to get is... intimacy,

sexual attraction, trust, respect, visibillity, attention, understanding,

nurturring, affirmation, affection, love. romance, romantic magnetism, job

recognition, advancement, new job windows opening.

One of the ways I can make it difficult for people to give me what I want

is... distancing, not being clear about my desires>Why are you having so

much trouble grasping this simple concept?

>You've even heard it straight from the horse's mouth, yet continue

>to try to introduce this silly red-herring-cum-strawman.

Why do you have trouble grasping the simple concept that I've been talking

about " both-and, " as in both nature and nurture?

>

>Do you have some sort of personal dislike for Stanton Peele? Why

>else would you consistently do your best to misrepresent him in

>a negative manner?

Here’s Peele’s response to my email:

Oh, behaviorist in that sense -- anti-geneticist.  Oh, you're right then --

I

view the idea -- " I was born alcoholic " (or virtually anything else) -- a

trap, and don't see it as being free from AA or anything.

Steve Snyder wrote:

>Perhaps I use the term more broadly than its original sense, but yes, I'm

>the one on 12-step-free to whom Pete Watts refers in calling you a

>behaviorist.

>I'm a strong geneticist myself. And find that liberating.

>Steve Snyder

Nowhere did I say that I **only** believed in genetics as a cause for

alcoholism; nowhere did I say I **denied** behavioral or sociological

causes. However, Peele chooses to believe that because I advocate genetic

predisposition as a partial cause, that I’m advocating “born alcoholic,” in

the sense that an alcoholic predisposition means that I **automatically**

will become an alcoholic if I have one drink. I’ve never said **that**

either. Now, who’s misrepresenting whom?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

I once told Peele in a private e-mail that I thought " alcoholic " was a

virtually meaningless word and that it use continued to propagate the

myth that there was something called " alcoholism. " He replied that

Archie Brodsky agreed with me but that he (Peele) continued to use the

term to mean " one who believes that his/her drinking is out of

control. " This is different from " alcohol dependence " as defined in

the DSM. This also ties in with the argument about whether AA

" teaches " people to drink -- people who believe their drinking is out

of control are more likely, not less, to drink more than people who

believe they can control their drinking.

> >

> > One thing I don't understand is appears to be putting the cart

before the=

>

> > horse in factoring ethnicity out. Why would one do that unless

Peele

> > believes that certain ethnic groups have a greater predisposition

to

> > alcoholism? And in doing so, it sounds to me like he's presuming

in advan=

> ce

> > that his view that heridity is not involved is correct. In other

words, i=

> t

> > sounds like he's engaged in circular reasoning there.

> > Steve

>

> ---------------

>

>   I think you're missing something here, Steve... or maybe

there's a lin=

> guistic misunderstanding? -- you've never been quite clear on what

YOU mean=

> by " alcoholism " ... I know that Peele (and myself, and many people)

use " al=

> coholism " to mean the behavior of drinking frequently and in a

manner that c=

> auses repeated and significant problems in one's life -- i.e.

" Alcohol Depen=

> dence " . By that definition " alcoholism " is in no way permanent or

incurable=

> (can occur as a 'phase' in someone's life) -- and does not exist in

the abs=

> ence of drinking.

>

> If, on the other hand, YOUR definition of " alcoholism " is " a

genetic d=

> efect affecting the way alcohol is metabolized or the way it 'feels'

to the =

> individual " , then it is, as steppers insist, an " incurable "

condition that e=

> xists independently of whether a person drinks or not.

>

> But what you are doing here is looking at the writings of Peele

and vi=

> ewing them with YOUR perception of " alcoholism " , not Peele's. You

are thus =

> creating 'contradictions' that aren't actually there.

>

> That certain ethnic groups have significantly lower rates of

harmful d=

> rinking behavior (the behavioral description of " alcoholism " ) is

irrefutable=

> from the sociological/demographic studies. There is absolutely no

proof th=

> ere of " heritability " -- quite the opposite, it demonstrates that

value syst=

> ems learned in different cultures and subcultures have profound

effects on d=

> rinking behavior. Converts to Judaism, for instance, will begin to

drink th=

> e way Jews (i.e. observant Jews) do -- depending on their original

backgroun=

> d, this might entail actually drinking MORE alcohol than they're

used to (al=

> cohol consumption is an important part of many observances), but in

a contro=

> lled and " spiritually " significant context in which drunkenness and

" alcohol=

> ic " behavior are unacceptable. Studies have shown BOTH that Jews

who are no=

> n-observant and lacking in religious Jewish values re alcohol have

" alcoholi=

> sm " rates approaching that of the general population, AND that

converts to r=

> eligious Judaism have very low rates of " alcoholism " similar to what

observa=

> nt Jews have consistently shown in previous studies. In short, the

theory o=

> f a Jewish " anti-alcoholism gene " (or lack of an " alcoholic gene " )

has been =

> thoroughly and completely de-bunked. Low rates of Jewish alcoholism

are due=

> to learned behavior and cultural values.

>

> In France, where wine is consumed daily by most citizens, there

is a h=

> igher-than-average rate of alcohol-related medical problems by

middle to old=

> age -- but no evidence of either high rates of " alcoholic " behavior

i.e. re=

> peated job, marital, social, legal problems caused by excessive

alcohol inta=

> ke; nor any evidence of a " genetic " cause of fondness for fine wine

among Fr=

> enchmen. Winedrinking in France is a CULTURAL preference, a learned

behavio=

> r, which immigrants to the country can also rapidly learn.

>

> I hope this clarifies what Peele means by different

" alcoholism " rates=

> among different ethnic groups.

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

If you stopped believing Peele is a behaviorist, Steve, and took that

out of the filter through which you look at his writings, they might

make more sense to you.

> > >

> > > One thing I don't understand is appears to be putting the cart

before

> >the=

> >

> > > horse in factoring ethnicity out. Why would one do that unless

Peele

> > > believes that certain ethnic groups have a greater

predisposition to

> > > alcoholism? And in doing so, it sounds to me like he's presuming

in

> >advan=

> >ce

> > > that his view that heridity is not involved is correct. In other

words,

> >i=

> >t

> > > sounds like he's engaged in circular reasoning there.

> > > Steve

> >

> >---------------

> >

> >  I think you're missing something here, Steve... or maybe

there's a

> >lin=

> >guistic misunderstanding? -- you've never been quite clear on what

YOU

> >mean=

> > by " alcoholism " ... I know that Peele (and myself, and many

people) use

> > " al=

> >coholism " to mean the behavior of drinking frequently and in a

manner that

> >c=

> >auses repeated and significant problems in one's life -- i.e.

" Alcohol

> >Depen=

> >dence " . By that definition " alcoholism " is in no way permanent or

> >incurable=

> > (can occur as a 'phase' in someone's life) -- and does not exist

in the

> >abs=

> >ence of drinking.

>

> I don't agree with AA that " alcoholism " is an incurable disease.

But, to the

> degree that I believe in genetic predisposition, **that** currently

is

> incurable. I think it's clear my view of alcoholism is not

" behavior-only. "

> Unlike steppers, I don't insist that biology is insurmountable. To

me the

> whole old idea of " nature-vs.-nuture " is wrong. Human development in

> general, and in individual traits, is " nature and nurture. "

>

> > But what you are doing here is looking at the writings of

Peele and

> >vi=

> >ewing them with YOUR perception of " alcoholism " , not Peele's. You

are thus

> >=

> >creating 'contradictions' that aren't actually there.

>

> I don't think I'm " creating contradictions. " instead, I'm wondering

why

> Peele would factor out ethnicity, and believe that it needed to be

factored

> out, if he is a " behaviorist only, " or nearly so. To me, it's

simple logic

> if someone gives little or no credence to genetic influence on

alcoholism,

> they would have no logical reason to factor out ethnicity.

> >

> > That certain ethnic groups have significantly lower rates of

harmful

> >d=

> >rinking behavior (the behavioral description of " alcoholism " ) is

> >irrefutable=

> > from the sociological/demographic studies. There is absolutely

no proof

> >th=

> >ere of " heritability " -- quite the opposite, it demonstrates that

value

> >syst=

> >ems learned in different cultures and subcultures have profound

effects on

> >d=

> >rinking behavior. Converts to Judaism, for instance, will begin to

drink

> >th=

> >e way Jews (i.e. observant Jews) do -- depending on their original

> >backgroun=

> >d, this might entail actually drinking MORE alcohol than they're

used to

> >(al=

> >cohol consumption is an important part of many observances), but in

a

> >contro=

> >lled and " spiritually " significant context in which drunkenness and

> > " alcohol=

> >ic " behavior are unacceptable. Studies have shown BOTH that Jews

who are

> >no=

> >n-observant and lacking in religious Jewish values re alcohol have

> > " alcoholi=

> >sm " rates approaching that of the general population, AND that

converts to

> >r=

> >eligious Judaism have very low rates of " alcoholism " similar to

what

> >observa=

> >nt Jews have consistently shown in previous studies. In short, the

theory

> >o=

> >f a Jewish " anti-alcoholism gene " (or lack of an " alcoholic gene " )

has been

> >=

> >thoroughly and completely de-bunked. Low rates of Jewish

alcoholism are

> >due=

> > to learned behavior and cultural values.

> >

> > In France, where wine is consumed daily by most citizens,

there is a

> >h=

> >igher-than-average rate of alcohol-related medical problems by

middle to

> >old=

> > age -- but no evidence of either high rates of " alcoholic "

behavior i.e.

> >re=

> >peated job, marital, social, legal problems caused by excessive

alcohol

> >inta=

> >ke; nor any evidence of a " genetic " cause of fondness for fine wine

among

> >Fr=

> >enchmen. Winedrinking in France is a CULTURAL preference, a

learned

> >behavio=

> >r, which immigrants to the country can also rapidly learn.

> >

> Re France, we have talked about this in LSR. The higher overall

French

> drinking rate is also, I'm sure, attributable in part to them not

having

> religious denominations such as the Church of Christ who preach

abstinence

> in general.

>

> But, Peele appears to be talking about factoring out all ethnicity,

not just

> that of certain ethnic groups. Again, if alcoholism is purely

behavioral, I

> see no logical need to factor it out. For one thing, if some ethnic

groups

> are " above average " drinkers, simple statistics says others will be

" below

> average " drinkers. And they will all balance out at point zero. So

why

> factor them out?

> Steve

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> I also agree on not allowing for the fact that alcoholic parents

will be

> screened out. I have not read twin studies to know for sure that

they *did

> not* or that they *did* control for this.

There isnt any way that they can - they cant tell adoption agencies

what policies to pursue!

> I'll accept " biodeterminist " as a definition of my approach, no

problem with

> that.

> One thing I don't understand is appears to be putting the cart

before the

> horse in factoring ethnicity out. Why would one do that unless Peele

> believes that certain ethnic groups have a greater predisposition to

> alcoholism? And in doing so, it sounds to me like he's presuming in

advance

> that his view that heridity is not involved is correct. In other

words, it

> sounds like he's engaged in circular reasoning there.

I myself thought this initially, and some of those who favor genetic

theories (such as my ex sponsor) claim that ethnic variability as

evidence in support. I'm not sure if I included it in the section of

the Peele review I posted here, but in it Peele points out tha te

variability as a result of gender and ethnicity is so large that

those experts supporting genetic theories usually conceded it is *too

large* to be explained by genetics alone. " Ethnicity " as used by

Peele refers to the *cultural background* of an individual. Lower

alcoholism rates among Jews and Chinese say, he interpets as cultural

rather than genetic phenomena. Support for this is shown when a

group may change its habits rapidly. There were almost no women AA

members in the 1940s, now they are 38% of members. Women's genetics

can hardly have changed in that time. The " Asian Flush " , a reddening

of the skin in response to alcohol often with a headache is generally

thought aversive to Chinese and is cited as a possibe reason for

their low alcoholism rates, yet Eskimos and First Americans also show

the Asian flush and can have high rates of alcoholism. A paper of

which my former sponsor was a co-author shows massive gender effects

for addictive patterns, yet the paper almost ignores it and suggests

it might the result of " diagnostic bias " !

P.

[Guest guest]

At 11:14 AM 8/1/01 -0500, you wrote:

>One of the things I want from people and often fail to get is... intimacy,

>sexual attraction, trust, respect, visibillity, attention, understanding,

>nurturring, affirmation, affection, love. romance, romantic magnetism, job

>recognition, advancement, new job windows opening.

>One of the ways I can make it difficult for people to give me what I want

>is... distancing, not being clear about my desires

Not sure what your point is here. How is this relevant to the

discussion?

> >Why are you having so

>much trouble grasping this simple concept?

> >You've even heard it straight from the horse's mouth, yet continue

> >to try to introduce this silly red-herring-cum-strawman.

>

>Why do you have trouble grasping the simple concept that I've been talking

>about " both-and, " as in both nature and nurture?

I haven't said otherwise. I don't really care about your beliefs about

genetics -- I told you a long time ago that I'm happy to agree to

disagree.

Yes, you are talking about about a combination of both nature and

nurture. Other people understand you perfectly, *and* *disagree*

*with* *you* *anyway.*

This is very important. When someone disagrees with you, it does

not necessarily mean that the person in question doesn't understand

you or is misrepresenting you.

You seem to have a lot of trouble believing that someone can

believe genes to be relatively unimportant without being one of

those dirty rotten behaviorists who believe people are automata.

Yet it is so. People have a wide variety of beliefs about, and

models for, human behavior.

Take Jack Trimpey and RR, for example, with the structural

model they use. It's a flaky model IMO, but it does exist and

people do believe it, and it's neither genetic nor behaviorist.

> >Do you have some sort of personal dislike for Stanton Peele? Why

> >else would you consistently do your best to misrepresent him in

> >a negative manner?

>

>Here's Peele's response to my email:

>

>

>Oh, behaviorist in that sense -- anti-geneticist. Oh, you're right then --

>I

>view the idea -- " I was born alcoholic " (or virtually anything else) -- a

>trap, and don't see it as being free from AA or anything.

Sooooo, you essentially tell him that a behaviorist is anyone who

isn't a " strong geneticist. " He graciously agrees that according to

that twisted definition, he would in fact be a behaviorist.

Trouble is, though, that you then hop from your broad definition to

your dirty-word definition of behaviorist as someone who believes

that humans are no more than soda machines. Once you make

that leap, everyone who isn't a strong geneticist believes that

people are only automata.

This just isn't true. There are lots of other views. Some people,

for example, believe in total or near-total free will.

>Steve Snyder wrote:

>

> >Perhaps I use the term more broadly than its original sense, but yes, I'm

> >the one on 12-step-free to whom Pete Watts refers in calling you a

> >behaviorist.

> >I'm a strong geneticist myself. And find that liberating.

> >Steve Snyder

>

>Nowhere did I say that I **only** believed in genetics as a cause for

>alcoholism; nowhere did I say I **denied** behavioral or sociological

>causes.

You keep insisting that you mustn't be interpreted as black-and-white.

Yet anyone who doesn't believe strongly in genetics controlling our

behavior gets labelled by you as a behaviorist, which to you is a

dirty word. Do you really think that that makes sense?

>However, Peele chooses to believe that because I advocate genetic

>predisposition as a partial cause, that I'm advocating " born alcoholic, " in

>the sense that an alcoholic predisposition means that I **automatically**

>will become an alcoholic if I have one drink. I've never said **that**

>either.

You haven't quoted anything from him which says anything of the sort

What he actually said, according to you yourself, was " I view the idea --

" I was born alcoholic " (or virtually anything else) -- a trap, and don't

see it as being free from AA or anything. " He isn't talking about you;

he's talking about

what he himself doesn't believe and objects to as a philosophy.

>Now, who's misrepresenting whom?

I'd like to second Kayleigh's suggestion for you to read a bit more

of Stanton Peele's work. You're obviously not a stupid man, so I'm

sure you could understand what Peele is saying if you just read a

solid sampling of it.

[Guest guest]

Hello Steve, folks

I don't think you get the idea of what the factoring out process

involves. I doubt Peele did this personally, I think he only cites

others who have done this (though I may be wrong).

As I indicated previously, Peele approaches ethnicity as a *cultural*,

not a genetic, influence. Hence the desire to factor out ethnicity is

derived from a wish to *statistically* " control " for those cultural

influences. Apparently when this is done on some of the adoption

study evidence, the apparent effect of heredity disappears. (I expect

this is because children are typically adopted by ppl with the same

ethnic background as their biological parents). I must say I am

myself curious as to how this actually works in practice and one day I

must look at in greater detail, or just ask Peele himself. Of course,

biodeterminists can say what you are atually factoring out is the

genetics, but other arguments regarding gender and ethnicity, offered

previously by Rita and myself, suggest this is not the case. Taking

another quick look at Peele's site as I did recently, suggests there

are far bigger criticisms of the studies on genetics and alcoholism.

Bascially the researchers seem to gerrymander the definition of

alcoholism to " torture the data until it confesses " as one academic

has put it. Such gerrymandering is utterly rife in the field.

Staunch AA supporter Vaillant (who himself has sdaid that he regards a

gene for alcoholism as unlikely as a gene for basketball playing) in

some of his research counted as " abstinent " some ppl who had actually

done some drinking. The $31M NIH MATCH project calimes support for

exclusively abstinence-based treatment approaches (including 12-step)

by including *moderate drinking outcomes* as successes. They pretty

well had to - as is usually the case, more ppl recovered to moderate

than recovered to abstain. This is particularly ridiculous in the

case of 12 step treatment, the first step of which is to persuade the

client that for them this is impossible. 12-step practitioners such

as Jim Shirk refuse to accept that an Alcohol/Substance Dependent

person is in Full Remission if they are using moderately - even though

neither the DSM-IV or ICD-9 diagnostic manuals support this view, and

claims that *all* illicit drug use is suffucuent for a dx of Substance

Abuse. He says 95% of addiction practitioners agree with him, and in

the US, unfortunately he is very likely correct! It actually was

almost impossible to get him to admit what the DSM IV actually says on

the subject, and I have no doubt that without me around to call

foul, he probably continues to claim that his views are DSM/ICD

compliant. I am sorry to say I actually gave up on addict-l

such is th futility of trying to dissuade a man of his religious

faith. Notably those who knew the truth extremely well, such as

epidemiologist Robin Room who was involved with the creation of these

manuals, found it extremely hard to tell him he was wrong - it really

was a case, metaphorically speaking, of having to tell a " Scientific

Creationist " that their views are BS.

I have unfortunately not just given up on addict-l but pretty well all

other the other addiction forums as well. It's like sweeping shit

against the tide. I don't think its restricted to the way our culture

treats alcoholism/addiction either. The growth of biodeterminism in

psychology and psychiatry, within an increasingly

religious/mystical society is where we are going. We are heading to

hell in a handcart of inhuman technology and ignorant superstition. I

hate to be a gloom merchant but I think the new Third Age is going to

be like the First one - Dark.

P.

> But, Peele appears to be talking about factoring out all ethnicity,

not just

> that of certain ethnic groups. Again, if alcoholism is purely

behavioral, I

> see no logical need to factor it out. For one thing, if some ethnic

groups

> are " above average " drinkers, simple statistics says others will be

" below

> average " drinkers. And they will all balance out at point zero. So

why

> factor them out?

[Guest guest]

>I have unfortunately not just given up on addict-l but pretty well all

>other the other addiction forums as well. It's like sweeping shit

>against the tide. I don't think its restricted to the way our culture

>treats alcoholism/addiction either. The growth of biodeterminism in

>psychology and psychiatry, within an increasingly

>religious/mystical society is where we are going. We are heading to

>hell in a handcart of inhuman technology and ignorant superstition. I

>hate to be a gloom merchant but I think the new Third Age is going to

>be like the First one - Dark.

>

>P.

I know Peele says the same thing about biodeterminism, and did so to me when

I said I found it was liberating. Knowledge, and the useful ends to which it

can be put, is usually liberating in my world.

Scary at times, too? Hell, yes. Most major changes in life are, especially

when they're not just individual but global.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

> > This is utter bullshit. " Attachment, " before and beyond and ad

> > nauseum. This is misogyny taken to the very extreme.

>

> So I talk about a line of research which you don't like and that's

> automatically " misogyny. "

Yes. The idea that the " intrauterine environment " is a determinant of

later behavior and personality traits is extremely misogynistic.

The idea that we could or should create artificial wombs (a reference

you deleted), is extremely repellent.

This area of " research " focuses on narrow portion of the human life

cycle, coincidentally the one that females have indisputable control

over. And always will.

Determinism is a way to narrow the discussion about why human beings

behave the way they do down to a small set of causal factors. It is a

way to eliminate complexity and focus on individual

shortcomings. Especially in vogue now is the role of the mother in

causing future alcoholism. This is a reductionistic and highly

misleading.

Hey! Maybe I could turn this around! <sarcasm here, guys, please

don't be offended>, but what if the cause of alcoholism was determined

by not hearing the father's voice in the womb before the baby was

born? Or maybe, in the competing sperm a lucky one got in, a

crooked-tail sperm perhaps!

And, I wasn't the first to mention it,

btw. It was

> in Pete's post, too.

> > The fallacies of " science " continue to amaze me. They can't even

> > define or test for " intelligence, " yet you've gotten it down to a

> > percentage point. You got it " pegged, " eh? he, he, he!

>

> Science has no fallacies. Of course, some theories are later

falsified by

> further evidence.

Well, when they've tried to figure out what absolutely is the cause of

any single behavior they have failed miserably. Yet, somehow, the

retractions do not get published with the same vigor as the original

" findings. " And the people who fall prey to " science, " especially

*positivist science* suffer huge ramifications.

For example, no one, in the history of " science " has been able to

discern a murderer. Much less an " alcoholic. "

" Attachment theory " is a good example. Probably the US is the only

place in the world where you can be told that you will fail as a

parent because you did not hold the baby within the first few minutes

of life. That you didn't " bond " properly, because of those missing

minutes or hours or days. This " scientific " finding has been totally

discredited, yet it persists and grows--because there is a scapegoat

for the problems. Skip poverty, skip violence, skip lack of options

and powerlessness. It must be the mother's fault!

> Actually, what amazes me is a vicious anti-science reaction by some

people

> on this list.

What doesn't surprise me is your feeble attempt to turn the tables.

" Science " has lied to me, us. It is built by people with no

experience with the realities of human life--for the consumption of

people with *interests* to gain. Not all. I don't say that. But

many. Who controls the purse-strings? Who sets the agenda? And why

do they do it?

<snip>

> I already talked about this when I answered Rita last week. And she

didn't

> go aroudn name calling.

Rita has always been much more reasoned and patient, though passionate

in her responses than I am. I shall read the prior posts. However,

your assertions in the current post assailed me.

Biodeterminism is " fancy phrenology? " Where

the hell

> did that come from?

Phrenology is the name for the " science " of head bumps. This was the

scientific study of people's physical anatomy, particularly the shape

of their skulls. Franz Gall literally measured people's skulls for 20

years, touring insance asylums and prisons to measure head shape.

Of course, his assumptions have been discredited. He thought there

was an intimate link between the shape of the head and the brain

beneath. Your actions are *determined.*

Biodeterminism is the same thing, but staged and reframed a different

way, with slightly more finesse. Biology does play a part, as do

physical abilities and limitations. However, no one has ever been

able to isolate a " type " of person, no matter what the lens they are

using. Determinism means just that: your actions are determined.

You don't have control. You can't help it!

> And I have never talked about preventing anybody from being born.

However,

> if I did, what's the difference between that and aborting a fetus

with

> severe medical problems? Thousands of women do that every year in

America,

> and I'm sure they would all be surprised, at the least, to be called

> eugenicists.

Steve, I am a veteran of two sessions of " genetic counseling. " The

decision to abort a fetus or not is ultimately the woman's decision.

It may be made for individual reasons, or societal reasons, or because

a woman will not be able to provide, on a daily basis, for a severely

challenged child. It may even be made for convenience.

Eugenics is a different matter. This has to do with *society's*

position on whether a child should be born or not. The Nazis were the

supreme eugenicists, thought not the only ones.

But the US is a prime example of " science " gone wrong--70,000

individuals living in the US have been *involuntarily* sterilized. I

guess they just didn't measure up.

[Guest guest]

Please unsubscribe me.........to many emails....thanks

Re: Re: Twins (was: Sober as a Bush?)

> At 11:14 AM 8/1/01 -0500, you wrote:

> >One of the things I want from people and often fail to get is...

intimacy,

> >sexual attraction, trust, respect, visibillity, attention, understanding,

> >nurturring, affirmation, affection, love. romance, romantic magnetism,

job

> >recognition, advancement, new job windows opening.

> >One of the ways I can make it difficult for people to give me what I want

> >is... distancing, not being clear about my desires

>

> Not sure what your point is here. How is this relevant to the

> discussion?

>

>

> > >Why are you having so

> >much trouble grasping this simple concept?

> > >You've even heard it straight from the horse's mouth, yet continue

> > >to try to introduce this silly red-herring-cum-strawman.

> >

> >Why do you have trouble grasping the simple concept that I've been

talking

> >about " both-and, " as in both nature and nurture?

>

> I haven't said otherwise. I don't really care about your beliefs about

> genetics -- I told you a long time ago that I'm happy to agree to

> disagree.

>

> Yes, you are talking about about a combination of both nature and

> nurture. Other people understand you perfectly, *and* *disagree*

> *with* *you* *anyway.*

>

> This is very important. When someone disagrees with you, it does

> not necessarily mean that the person in question doesn't understand

> you or is misrepresenting you.

>

> You seem to have a lot of trouble believing that someone can

> believe genes to be relatively unimportant without being one of

> those dirty rotten behaviorists who believe people are automata.

> Yet it is so. People have a wide variety of beliefs about, and

> models for, human behavior.

>

> Take Jack Trimpey and RR, for example, with the structural

> model they use. It's a flaky model IMO, but it does exist and

> people do believe it, and it's neither genetic nor behaviorist.

>

> > >Do you have some sort of personal dislike for Stanton Peele? Why

> > >else would you consistently do your best to misrepresent him in

> > >a negative manner?

> >

> >Here's Peele's response to my email:

> >

> >

> >Oh, behaviorist in that sense -- anti-geneticist. Oh, you're right

then --

> >I

> >view the idea -- " I was born alcoholic " (or virtually anything else) -- a

> >trap, and don't see it as being free from AA or anything.

>

> Sooooo, you essentially tell him that a behaviorist is anyone who

> isn't a " strong geneticist. " He graciously agrees that according to

> that twisted definition, he would in fact be a behaviorist.

>

> Trouble is, though, that you then hop from your broad definition to

> your dirty-word definition of behaviorist as someone who believes

> that humans are no more than soda machines. Once you make

> that leap, everyone who isn't a strong geneticist believes that

> people are only automata.

>

> This just isn't true. There are lots of other views. Some people,

> for example, believe in total or near-total free will.

>

>

> >Steve Snyder wrote:

> >

> > >Perhaps I use the term more broadly than its original sense, but yes,

I'm

> > >the one on 12-step-free to whom Pete Watts refers in calling you a

> > >behaviorist.

> > >I'm a strong geneticist myself. And find that liberating.

> > >Steve Snyder

> >

> >Nowhere did I say that I **only** believed in genetics as a cause for

> >alcoholism; nowhere did I say I **denied** behavioral or sociological

> >causes.

>

> You keep insisting that you mustn't be interpreted as black-and-white.

> Yet anyone who doesn't believe strongly in genetics controlling our

> behavior gets labelled by you as a behaviorist, which to you is a

> dirty word. Do you really think that that makes sense?

>

>

> >However, Peele chooses to believe that because I advocate genetic

> >predisposition as a partial cause, that I'm advocating " born alcoholic, "

in

> >the sense that an alcoholic predisposition means that I **automatically**

> >will become an alcoholic if I have one drink. I've never said **that**

> >either.

>

> You haven't quoted anything from him which says anything of the sort

> What he actually said, according to you yourself, was " I view the idea --

> " I was born alcoholic " (or virtually anything else) -- a trap, and don't

> see it as being free from AA or anything. " He isn't talking about you;

> he's talking about

> what he himself doesn't believe and objects to as a philosophy.

>

> >Now, who's misrepresenting whom?

>

> I'd like to second Kayleigh's suggestion for you to read a bit more

> of Stanton Peele's work. You're obviously not a stupid man, so I'm

> sure you could understand what Peele is saying if you just read a

> solid sampling of it.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>