Re: More Genetic Counseling

[Guest guest]

>

> > Or even earlier in Alateen or 'ala-tots'.

>

> These are junior Al-Anon, yes?

>

> P.

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

Yes. I've also seen it referred to as " Ala-Pre-Teen " .

My understanding is that these are classroom-like things with an adult

" teacher " , and the kids draw and do other arts & crafts, and talk a bit about

how their parents have a " disease " and " can't help themselves " if they get drunk

and obnoxious.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> Mona, it is still happening today. This is where you go wrong. You

> think that all this shit is " fixed, " and it just isn't so.

Where?

> How

> would it

> > help " morons " (a clinical term that has passed into pejorative use)

> to

> > prohibit research into what makes them such?

>

> How does it help them? ???

>

> Mona, I know that we've become polarized on some issues...but when you

> first came on here I was impressed by your stance against the WOD. In

> a very real way, the WOD is a result of the " science " that was

> *funded.* This has related back to the *social policy* that has

> created the breaucracy that continues and maintains the WOD. All of

> these giant issues are interrelated. Not one of them will solve the

> others.

I don't see, myself, where science has any connection to it. It's a

political issues, pure and simple.

>

> The continual focus on the individual as the problem absolves the

> other elements that contribute to the situation.

>

> My plea...my stance...is that we need to be open to seeing other

> factors as participants. Complexity in this situation helps, rather

> than hinders.

>

> >

> > I do understand that in the 1930s eugenics was nearly as popular in

> this

> > country, among the elite, as it was in parts of Europe. Indeed,

> many are

> > shocked to learn that the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood,

> Margaret

> > Sanger, was a raging racist and eugenicist. But that movement fell

> out of

> > such disfavor that ardent Planned Parenthood supporters today

> frequently

> > become irate if one brings up this unpleasant history. As long as

> this

> > country remains rooted in respect for individual rights, what makes

> you think

> > such odious beliefs would gain currency so strong that all genetic

> research

> > into heritable traits should end?

>

> Bleh. You know I didn't say that. I am actually more intersted in

> finding more common ground rather than less.

>

> A " heritable trait " is different than a behavior. Why does that annoy

> you?

>

> Your stance confuses me. On the one hand, you are a libertarian, a

> term I associate with free will. OTOH, you seem enamored with the

> " science " of determining that " alcoholism " is genetic. This is a

> position that I associate with people *not* exercising their free

> will. Which is it?

It has nothing to do with people exercising free will. If bipolar disorder

is shows to have a genetic component, how does that affect free will?

People, whether bipolar has a genetic basis or not, can still **choose**

whether or not to get professional help, whether or not to take meds, etc.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> > A minority, a definite minority, did engage in some of these... I'll

> > acknowledge the first three. Scientists didn't execute any mentally

> > challenged people.... governments did... just like still happens,

> sadly,

> > here in Texas.

> > Steve

>

> Well, that is the crux of the problem. The scientists themselves

> don't necessarily have control over the information they create, once

> it is created. It may very well be others, especially governments.

> And, in very many cases the results they obtain are adulterated to

> mesh with the ends they are seeking, rather than the full findings

> the scientists actually made. It is about power.

And that's about governments, again, not scientists. The science of geology

says there's oil in the Arctic wilderness, but science doesn't **cause**

Bush to want to go drilling there. That's a political choice he and

Congressional Republicans make.

>

> With the areas of information that it is possible to seek, why are

> certain ideas and areas of research almost exclusively sought over

> others? Follow the money.

>

> It wasn't a " minority " . Ideas about " born criminals " or " feeble

> minded " were developed by scientists and became mainstream.

> *Policy* was developed around these ideas.

I think such ideas were " developed " by larger society, and would have been

justified by society on either sociological/cultural behavior or genetic

reasons.

>

> IMO, much of the attempt to dissociate with our hx of these human

> rights violations is d/t the reaction of Nazism. They did it *more*,

> perhaps, but idealogically we were right there with them. It was the

> science of the times.

And I think some people today want to raise the fear of Nazism with any

legitimate research on genetic influences on personality.

>

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

> > I couldn't have said it better myself, Mona.

> >

>

> I'll bet you could you could have. As a pretty firm rule, I don't post

> cheerleading support to friends in online debates, cuz it just seems so

> adolescent. But that bit about finding " Hitler as I understand him... "

made

> me spew Diet Rite all over my monitor.

>

> --Mona--

Ahh, I do have a way with words at times, don't I?

Steve

[Guest guest]

> > Mona has told me herself that she ***didn't*** want him off.

> >

>

> Not exactly. I said it was a shame he left before you got here. He was a

> supreme jerk, but it still would have been interesting to see your

> interactions with him. is very bright, well read, and has an

> encyclopedic knowledge. Unfortunately, he swamps the list with endless

> harangues and accusations based on his opinion that, say, instead of

posting

> on this list, or opposing 12 Step coercion in court, we should be charging

> hills of Central America with automatic weapons, fighting with The People.

>

> --Mona--

Sorry I didn't exactly remember your thoughts on him.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> Sure. I may have an intense interest in knowing what happens to the human

> body when it is roasted at 500 degrees, but I can't shove living Pete in

an

> oven to find out. But that is only a prohibition on method and means. If

> you want to leave your body to science upon death, what would wrong with

my

> scientific inquiry moving forward then?

>

> The inquiry itself is not prohibited, merely the means permissible to

> undertake it.

>

> Can you think of something science could investigate that We Should Not

Know?

>

> --Mona--

Good question.

S

[Guest guest]

At 12:57 PM 8/3/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

> >

> > > Or even earlier in Alateen or 'ala-tots'.

> >

> > These are junior Al-Anon, yes?

> >

> > P.

>

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

>

> Yes. I've also seen it referred to as " Ala-Pre-Teen " .

>

> My understanding is that these are classroom-like things with an

> adult " teacher " , and the kids draw and do other arts & crafts, and talk a

> bit about how their parents have a " disease " and " can't help themselves "

> if they get drunk and obnoxious.

I'm glad to report that there is very little Alatot info online, which

indicates that it isn't widespread. It doesn't even have its own

domain, and is really just casually mentioned on a couple of pages

which are about Alanon or Alateen.

This is a good thing. Exposure at age 15 is bad enough, but

exposure at age 5 would be friggin' insane.

[Guest guest]

> It has nothing to do with people exercising free will. If bipolar

disorder

> is shows to have a genetic component, how does that affect free

will?

> People, whether bipolar has a genetic basis or not, can still

**choose**

> whether or not to get professional help, whether or not to take

>meds, etc.

How it effects free will Steve, is that it suggests you dont have any

choice about whether you think you are now the greatest cyclist in

America and borrow your 10 yr old's bicycle to cycle across the

nation (as one bipolar patient was considering). When someone goes

seriously nuts, one of the first things to go is any awareness that

they are actually nuts, and hence the ability to make a rational

choice about help or meds goes with it.

Now, I strongly agree with the idea that bipolar disorder has a

biiological and very likely strong genetic component to it. However,

I freely acknowledge in doing so that it compromises notions of free

will in a sufferer. They could be said in a sense to never lose free

will about whether they go for help, but they can loose the capacity

to make rational, realistic choices as to how to exercise that free

will and how to manage their emotions.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Can you think of something science could investigate that We Should

>Not Know?

How about a method by which anybody could assemble, using household

materials costing less than 10 bucks, a device that could saw the

world in half? (There was an SF short story on that theme).

The example is exagerrated to illustrate the point, not to be a

credible possibility. Science may itself be neutral or indeed,

generally speaking, the acquisition of knowledge is a good thing.

however, it provides the capacity to amplify Man's capacity for evil

to the point where the risks may be too great. This isnt just the

capacity for deliberate evil, but from emergent evil. world of

immortals, and/or incessantly self-cloning folks would soon get very

crowded, as if it isnt crowded enough already. Hence the simple

" scientific libertarianism " is as naive as I believe political

libertarinaism to be.

P.

[Guest guest]

>If there

> is a genetic component to alcoholism, bi-polar disorder, diabetes

or

> whatever, this would simply be a fact. These predispositions may

raise

> interesting questions regarding free will, but denying their

reality if they

> are facts, is, in my view, lunacy. And, as best as I can assess,

the role

> for a measure of genetic predisposition is well demonstrated.

For bipolar yes. There are many different kinds of diabetes, and the

exact importance of genetics is still hotly debated for some of them

I believe. With alcoholism the evidence is pretty weak. The

" measure of predisposition " such as it is, is probably small. I

agree that it is probably not a good idea to deny such facts when

they are known. however, the game is not that simple. Steve

referred to geology and oil drilling, and that science can tell us

whether there's likely to be oil there but otherppl decide whether to

actually drill for it. True - but we happen to know a great deal

more about the geology of likely oil-brearing rocks than we do about

others, for rather obvious reasons. Vast amounts of money can be

thrown at researching the role of genetics in mental and physical

health, so in consequence we hopefully will get to know a lot about

that. However, it's he old " If you only have a hammer, everything

looks like a nail " problem. Becasue so much effort has been expended

in one area, it feeds back into addressing all possible solutions in

terms of that area, rather than investigating other methods.

That we have two legs is totally genetically determined, however

those that have a diferent number nearly always do so for non-genetic

reasons. Even the genes of thalidomide victims have normal limb

development genes - the drug interefered with how they operated.

Genes operate within a context, and to say, as Steve has done, that

one talk abt genes accounting for x% of a behavioral phenomonon is to

misunderstand that fact. In a *particular* cultural context that

percentage might hold true, but the same ppl, in a different culture,

the result might be very different. The input of genes cannot be

parcelled out in this fashion.

P.

[Guest guest]

The terms in which the problem is related to the patient defines what

response is possible. Change the presentation and the choice changes. If a

person is told that the condition is biological or has a genetic content

then it takes away power from the individual and thus tends to weaken any

resolve for recovery that might be seeding. If they can be connected with at

any rational level, which is always possible depending on the approach, then

new path ways stemming from their own experience may be opened up. Using

medications to suppress the thought process reduces this possibility of

self-healing through insight though it may relieve symptoms in the short

term.

>From: watts_pete@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: More " Genetic Counseling "

>Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:10:23 -0000

>

>

>

> > It has nothing to do with people exercising free will. If bipolar

>disorder

> > is shows to have a genetic component, how does that affect free

>will?

> > People, whether bipolar has a genetic basis or not, can still

>**choose**

> > whether or not to get professional help, whether or not to take

> >meds, etc.

>

>How it effects free will Steve, is that it suggests you dont have any

>choice about whether you think you are now the greatest cyclist in

>America and borrow your 10 yr old's bicycle to cycle across the

>nation (as one bipolar patient was considering). When someone goes

>seriously nuts, one of the first things to go is any awareness that

>they are actually nuts, and hence the ability to make a rational

>choice about help or meds goes with it.

>

>Now, I strongly agree with the idea that bipolar disorder has a

>biiological and very likely strong genetic component to it. However,

>I freely acknowledge in doing so that it compromises notions of free

>will in a sufferer. They could be said in a sense to never lose free

>will about whether they go for help, but they can loose the capacity

>to make rational, realistic choices as to how to exercise that free

>will and how to manage their emotions.

>

>P.

>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

Oh no,

I hear the strumming of an oh too nearby Mandolin. My you were smart

Rita to spot that on just one post. Guy's got balls so big he doesnt

even bother to change his first name. I guess " " was probably a

little joke on your part. I guess I might as well let you hang around

for a bit longer under your present soubriquet. Now, what if the

person definitely *has* a neurochemical problem in the brain. Do you

not tell them? Or tell them so they can make an informed choice to

have medical treatment?

> The terms in which the problem is related to the patient defines

what

> response is possible. Change the presentation and the choice

changes. If a

> person is told that the condition is biological or has a genetic

content

> then it takes away power from the individual and thus tends to

weaken any

> resolve for recovery that might be seeding. If they can be connected

with at

> any rational level, which is always possible depending on the

approach, then

> new path ways stemming from their own experience may be opened up.

Using

> medications to suppress the thought process reduces this possibility

of

> self-healing through insight though it may relieve symptoms in the

short

> term.