Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 So, then, similar to, say, Stanton Peele, do you believe "alcoholism," to use your scare quotes, is nothing other than a name for behavioral phenomena? I tend to see it that way. There are many different progressions and histories among people who become physically dependent on alcohol, and at least some of them do have a "mere" behavior problem. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 Nope. I've seen 'em, and they aren't convincing. There are lots more twins who *don't* share drinking behavior than who do. There I completely disagree, and even Peele has been given pause by the studies of twins. When identical twins are separated at birth, they tend to both be alcoholics at rates far higher than chance, and far higher than fraternal twins or mere siblings. Even Peele concedes this is suggestive of a predisposition; he merely denies, I think rightly, that this fact supports the "disease" theory. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 When Peele has written about humans, he generally places a strong emphasis on the importance of values and choices. If I had to sum it up in a nutshell, it'd be that recovery requires a value which is more important than drinking and which is incompatible with drinking. Peele is simply correct on this score. Even the first 100 members of AA demonstrate this point, and I recently read a physician who studied these early AA success stories who candidly stated that it was their being well-educated with careers, and having families, that pretty much made the difference between who made it and who did not. AA doesn't like this, as it is unegalitarian and flies in the face of their "we are all drunks" levelling. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 Pete, This is obviously footage of Dubya taken years ago. So what if he is drinking? To tell you the truth, I am supect of people who can go 24/7/365 with out drinking! IMO. nothing suspect going on here......... Pam > Sober as a Bush? > > > I finally got to view (and listen to) the clip of Dubya apparently > tipsy after the date when he claims he stopped drinking. It's > impossible for me to be objective, but he does sound rather slurred > and incoherent, and it is interesting that he disses a couple for not > drinking and smoking. The site also includes stuff on Hitler (no > logical segue here of course) - including an account of jhis lasy > days in the bunker where he was nice enough to share his bathtub with > Goebbels' children and also a report where he compares himself to > Jesus. > > This is the URL for the Bush clip: > > > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.shtml > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 At 10:39 PM 7/26/01 +0100, you wrote: >Pete, > >This is obviously footage of Dubya taken years ago. > >So what if he is drinking? To tell you the truth, I am supect of people who >can go 24/7/365 with out drinking! > >IMO. nothing suspect going on here......... Finally viewed the notorious clip . . . I tend to agree with you. While I'm hardly a Dubya fan, this clip seems pretty innocuous to me. The repetition of " Only in America " and so forth does seem to indicate that he may have had a few, but he hardly seems stumbling drunk. His speech is quite clear, for instance. This is, in fact, exactly what I hoped the clip was. Our current President is someone who gave up (heavy recreational) drinking, but still lifts a glass or two on special occasions. That's a good role model for people currently drinking too much -- you're not diseased and you don't need to convert to AA, just quit drinking so much! I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm suspicious of people who never drink, though. :-) There are lots of perfectly normal people who choose to abstain for whatever reason. I know some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >At 10:39 PM 7/26/01 +0100, you wrote: > >Pete, > > > >This is obviously footage of Dubya taken years ago. > > > >So what if he is drinking? To tell you the truth, I am supect of people >who > >can go 24/7/365 with out drinking! > > > >IMO. nothing suspect going on here......... > >Finally viewed the notorious clip . . . I tend to agree with you. While >I'm hardly a Dubya fan, this clip seems pretty innocuous to me. The >repetition of " Only in America " and so forth does seem to indicate that >he may have had a few, but he hardly seems stumbling drunk. His >speech is quite clear, for instance. > >This is, in fact, exactly what I hoped the clip was. Our current >President is someone who gave up (heavy recreational) drinking, >but still lifts a glass or two on special occasions. That's a good >role model for people currently drinking too much -- you're not >diseased and you don't need to convert to AA, just quit drinking >so much! > >I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm suspicious of people who >never drink, though. :-) There are lots of perfectly normal people >who choose to abstain for whatever reason. I know some. > > I agree in part. Some people who go to or are sent to AA are not alcoholic. However, there are such things as alcoholics. So, I'm suspicious of people who are suspicious of people who never drink. Do they believe there is no such thing as alcoholism? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 At 05:05 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote: >I agree in part. Some people who go to or are sent to AA are not alcoholic. >However, there are such things as alcoholics. So, I'm suspicious of people >who are suspicious of people who never drink. Do they believe there is no >such thing as alcoholism? I'm not sure these two things are related. One could disbelieve the disease model while still accepting that some people avoid alcohol for their own reasons -- that's my own position. People may choose not to drink for religious reasons, because they hate the taste, because they once had some problems and decided it wasn't worth the hassle, etc. I'm certainly not suspicious of people who abstain, yet I don't believe in " alcoholism " in the common sense. To me, " alcoholism " is a folk expression for heavy long-term drinking. It is not a precise term, much less a specific condition. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >At 05:05 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote: > >I agree in part. Some people who go to or are sent to AA are not >alcoholic. > >However, there are such things as alcoholics. So, I'm suspicious of >people > >who are suspicious of people who never drink. Do they believe there is no > >such thing as alcoholism? > >I'm not sure these two things are related. One could disbelieve the >disease model while still accepting that some people avoid alcohol >for their own reasons -- that's my own position. People may choose >not to drink for religious reasons, because they hate the taste, >because they once had some problems and decided it wasn't worth >the hassle, etc. I'm certainly not suspicious of people who abstain, >yet I don't believe in " alcoholism " in the common sense. Well, I think a lot of people believe in the reality of alcoholism as a biochemical addiction, yet don't believe in the " disease " model. I am one myself. And is there an uncommon sense definition of alcoholism? > >To me, " alcoholism " is a folk expression for heavy long-term drinking. >It is not a precise term, much less a specific condition. So, then, similar to, say, Stanton Peele, do you believe " alcoholism, " to use your scare quotes, is nothing other than a name for behavioral phenomena? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 At 05:25 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote: > >To me, " alcoholism " is a folk expression for heavy long-term drinking. > >It is not a precise term, much less a specific condition. >So, then, similar to, say, Stanton Peele, do you believe " alcoholism, " to >use your scare quotes, is nothing other than a name for behavioral >phenomena? Those aren't scare quotes; those are distancing quotes. Yeah, I guess I basically agree with Peele. I have never seen any biochem evidence which was convincing, or even consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >Those aren't scare quotes; those are distancing quotes. > >Yeah, I guess I basically agree with Peele. I have never seen >any biochem evidence which was convincing, or even consistent. > > Not even twin studies on the genetic disposition? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 At 05:31 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote: >Not even twin studies on the genetic disposition? Nope. I've seen 'em, and they aren't convincing. There are lots more twins who *don't* share drinking behavior than who do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 At 05:33 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote: >I'm suspicious of Peele, I'll tell you that right off the bat. I believe he >has his motives for his beliefs. Really? Like what? >Also, I don't find behaviorism, certainly not in a sweeping version, that >scientific. That's in part because it reacted to fears of eugenics in the >wake of World War II as well as a philosophical fear of physical >determinism. If you mean pure behaviorism, I'd agree. That's no longer a very popular belief. Behaviorism certainly had some good points, but it's hard to accept it as the whole story. I've never heard Peele express a belief similar to behaviorism. On the contrary, he seems to believe in free will and human choice. Have you read anything by him which seems behaviorist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >Nope. I've seen 'em, and they aren't convincing. There are >lots more twins who *don't* share drinking behavior than >who do. > > > Ahh, but these twin studies don't claim to show, or purport to show, that genetics is the *only* cause of alcoholism. That's the old Aristotelean unexcluded middle. Since these studies aren't expecting to show genetics as the only cause, it's not at all surprising that they don't show a 100 percent correlation. However, they do show a correlation much greater than random chance. It's just like diabetes. I don't know of anybody who would argue against a genetic component to diabetes. But, in the case of adult-onset Type II diabetes, one twin could get it by eating a lot of junk food early in life and another avoid gettting diabetes. In some cases, a genetic predisposition, because it likely involves mulitple genes, may not even involve an environmental trigger like that. Twin studies have shows (or I certainly believe they have) a genetic component to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Yet, they don't show, or claim to show, one gene is to blame or that the genetic component is the only one. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >I've never heard Peele express a belief similar to behaviorism. On >the contrary, he seems to believe in free will and human choice. Have >you read anything by him which seems behaviorist? > > I don't un-believe in free will or human choice myself. I quote from Peele's website: " In this classic piece, Stanton and DeGrandpre review human and animal research against the claim that cocaine is such a powerful reinforcer that it invariably causes the organism with unlimited access to self-administer the drug to the exclusion of all other activity and reward, often until death. In place of this model, Stanton and Rich apply behavioral economic research and models which show that animals balance the opportunities for available rewards, among which cocaine appears to be a strong but far from overwhelming or unique example. They contrast their view with that of Nobel prize-winning economist Becker, who rather than suggesting an economic model of behavior instead imagines that drugs create a biologically compelling state that drives the addict's behavior. " To me, it sounds like he's talking the classic language of behaviorism when he talks abot " animals (who) balance the opportunities for available rewards. " Sounds like the language of operant conditioning to me. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 At 05:53 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote: >To me, it sounds like he's talking the classic language of behaviorism when >he talks abot " animals (who) balance the opportunities for available >rewards. " Sounds like the language of operant conditioning to me. Well, yes, but he's talking about mice and rats. What else are you going to do, ask them " How are you feeling today, little mousie? " While rodents may have values, if they exist they probably aren't comprehensible to humans. My pet mice sometimes do things which baffle me. When Peele has written about humans, he generally places a strong emphasis on the importance of values and choices. If I had to sum it up in a nutshell, it'd be that recovery requires a value which is more important than drinking and which is incompatible with drinking. BTW, I'm happy to agree to disagree. If you believe that heavy drinking/alcoholism/whatever is genetic, that's fine with me. I feel no need to convince others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >At 05:53 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote: > >To me, it sounds like he's talking the classic language of behaviorism >when > >he talks abot " animals (who) balance the opportunities for available > >rewards. " Sounds like the language of operant conditioning to me. > >Well, yes, but he's talking about mice and rats. What else are >you going to do, ask them " How are you feeling today, little mousie? " >While rodents may have values, if they exist they probably aren't >comprehensible to humans. My pet mice sometimes do things >which baffle me. > >When Peele has written about humans, he generally places a strong >emphasis on the importance of values and choices. If I had to >sum it up in a nutshell, it'd be that recovery requires a value which >is more important than drinking and which is incompatible with >drinking. > >BTW, I'm happy to agree to disagree. If you believe that heavy >drinking/alcoholism/whatever is genetic, that's fine with me. I >feel no need to convince others. > > I'm not trying to convince, just state my views and discover yours. Related to your earlier post: " To me, " alcoholism " is a folk expression for heavy long-term drinking. It is not a precise term, much less a specific condition, " I guess I'm wondering more of what this group is about. I am alcoholic (yes, my definition) but not involved with AA. I am involved with " secular " recovery, though. Other than steering people away from AA, what is the focus of this group? And more specific to your quote above, what is your focus in this group, what are you seeking from or for it, etc.? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >BTW, I'm happy to agree to disagree. If you believe that heavy >drinking/alcoholism/whatever is genetic, that's fine with me. I >feel no need to convince others. > > Related specifically to this, I am curious as to your beliefs about the mental illnesses, diabetes, etc and the genetic components I see in all of them. I'd like to know if you don't see any of them as having genetic components, or if you do see them as having genetic components but not alcohol. That would give me more insight into your beliefs about alcoholism, alcohol dependence, heavy drinking or whatever you call it (beyond what you may choose to directly express about your philosophy). Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >>To me, " alcoholism " is a folk expression for heavy long-term drinking. It is not a precise term, much less a specific condition.<< This is true about other things that medical science neverthless does consider to be specific conditions. Take unipolar depression, for example. If memory serves me correctly, the DSM-IV has nine " identifiers " for depression, five of which must be " passed " for a diagnosis of depression. That right there leaves a fair amount of latitude as to what constitutes depression, but I believe most the medical world still considers it a specific condition, even if it can't be nailed to the wall a lot better than jello. Or schizophrenia... again, diagnostic symptoms do not all have to be met for a diagnosis to be made. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >In a message dated 7/26/01 3:25:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >steverino63@... writes: > > > > So, then, similar to, say, Stanton Peele, do you believe " alcoholism, " >to > > use your scare quotes, is nothing other than a name for behavioral > > phenomena? > > > >I tend to see it that way. There are many different progressions and >histories among people who become physically dependent on alcohol, and at >least some of them do have a " mere " behavior problem. > >--Mona-- In a later post, Mona, you'll notice that I myself note that *some* people who go to AA or whatever are not alcoholic. And in the LSR email list, I've already mentioned the woes of sending such, especially younger adults or juveniles, to AA. However, *some* is much different from *all*. And all, as in all " alcoholism " is nohting other than a " folk description, " () or 'mere' " behavioral phenomena, " (my interpretation of that), is much different from that being true in some cases. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >In a message dated 7/26/01 3:42:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >malgeo@... writes: > > > > Nope. I've seen 'em, and they aren't convincing. There are > > lots more twins who *don't* share drinking behavior than > > who do. > > > > > >There I completely disagree, and even Peele has been given pause by the >studies of twins. When identical twins are separated at birth, they tend >to >both be alcoholics at rates far higher than chance, and far higher than >fraternal twins or mere siblings. Even Peele concedes this is suggestive >of >a predisposition; he merely denies, I think rightly, that this fact >supports >the " disease " theory. > >--Mona-- Agreed, Mona, see my post about the analogies with diabetes and certain mental illnesses and twin studies on them. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 > At the moment, not a lot. When I joined I was seeking other people > to talk to about bad experiences with AA and about the best ways > to move on from them. At this point I just stay because I like the > company. > > > So, then did you have " behavioral problems with alcohol " yourself. I wasn't even sure of that from your earlier posts? Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 The "free" market is not free when it's controlled by those who own it and you know that, Mona. Or I should say, to paraphrase Orwell, it's not equally free for all. That's why the phrase "wage slave" originated. No one "owns" the free market, by definition. The notion of being a "wage slave" is colorful, but not literally true. Slaves no doubt could explain the distinction better than I could. If you don't like the wages paid by an employer, quit. If your skills do not command what you think you are worth, retrain. But complaining about it is not useful; your labor remains only as valuable as an employer is willing to pay for it, just as the value of a widget is only that which you are willing to pay. Government attempts to change this reality are coercive, intrusive and distorting of the market. They are wrong in virtually every instance. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 I grew up partly in the Deep South during our own American version of apartheid and in my late teens and early 20s worked in Las Vegas and have a great deal of difficulty having sympathy for the "loss of freedom" of the people who ran public accomodations and facilities. The issue is not "sympathy" for anyone, but liberty. The free speech clause is necessary to protect only unpopular speech, and what will be unpopular will vary with time and circumstances. Yet the *principle* stands to protect everyone's speech no matter the times and circumstances. I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight like hell for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like it if Joe Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even less like it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I certainly object that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from working in my office. Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be able to set me stright here. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 We are not talking about the Aryan Brotherhood "expressing their views" when we are talking about the need for U.S. Civil Rights Act unless we are describing lynchings, beatings and cross-burnings (in someone's yard who doesn't want it there) as people "expressing their views." The CRA is not necessary, and not even particularly used for, prohibiting such activity. Homicides, assault and battery, and trespass are against the law regardless of motive, and with or without the CRA. >>If a restaurant owner ( or shop owner ) was to allow the "colored" (anyone of non-European descent) to eat or shop, they would be subject to great intimidation ranging from cross-burnings in their yard to being burned out.<< Which is illegal, quite aside from the CRA. If the CRA existed only to prohibit such behavior (it does not) I would have no problem with. >>It was this sort of thing (among others) that the civil rights legislation put a stop to.<< No, it did not. What the CRA did was hand people in my profession the key to the bank (or, more accurately, the bank accounts of businessmen), so that employment discrimination lawsuits can rob business owners of their money, with a good 1/3 of the "damages" going to me and mine. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > What you say about the twin studies may be true, but nevertheless in > the bigger picture it is extremely irrelevant. Are you not more interested > in demographic and sociological studies of alcohol use/abuse?< > > Another reason why I believe a genetic predisposition is quite relevant. > What if a purely choice/behaviorist approach tells people over and over that > it is nothing but their choice and their fault they get drunk time after > time, when a genetic predisposition says, while you are choosing to drink, > indeed, you are, to some degree due to an inheirted genetic makeup, affected > differently? > The net result is sociological and psychological -- that these people don't > beat themselves up with so much self recrimination. > Plus, some researchers stressing the genetic predisposition believe it's > specifically related to neurotransmitters in the limbic system. In another > post, I mentioned the possibility of genetic engineering in utero to > allieviate this genetic predisposition. Even before that point, if SSRI's or > something newer in the psychopharmaceutical bin were found to treat the > specific neurotransmitters of potential alcoholics or addicts before they > became that way, and such potential alcoholics or addicts were identified > based on genetic testing, it would again be very relevant. > Steve -------------------- But again your focus on biological issues prevents you from looking at social factors -- if there are social factors in alcohol abuse, then there are social factors in AVOIDING alcohol misuse. To use a rather extreme example, look at the teenage pregnancy phenomenon. Teenage birth rates have fallen off dramatically in the last two decades and continue to do so. Contraceptives have been available for much longer than that, but it's well-known that there was a teenage subcultural phenomenon of both unrestrained sexual activity, and non-use of contraceptives. Now, teens could have been injected with hormones to blot out their sexual urges, and this may well have produced the same drop in teen pregnancy. But, instead, educational outreach -- and an ensuing shift in the teenage sexuality subculture -- were astoundingly successful. And not a moment too soon -- teenage HIV infections were also rising alarmingly, and have dropped off. More and more teens are rejecting the idea of casual/recreational sex, and most who are sexually active are using condoms and other " safe sex " procedures. Teenage sexual culture increasingly encourages responsibility in sexuality. My suggestion is that if we have a resurgence of cultural and familial encouragement of moderation in alcohol use, i.e. making the phenomena of culturally-based low rates of alcoholism among Jews and Asians more widespread, that this would be a better and more humane way of preventing alcohol abuse/dependence than encouraging people with a supposed " genetic predisposition " to take psychotropic drugs in an attempt to " ward off " alcohol abuse before it occurs. Why don't you read some of the studies that Peele cites? -- particularly studies of families where parents specifically teach moderate drinking behavior to their children, do not stigmatize alcohol (thereby making drinking a secret, forbidden activity that can't be discussed), and generally teach responsibility as well as problem-solving skills. Their DNA hasn't changed, nor has their biochemistry -- but alcohol abuse/dependence rates are very significantly lower than the general population in such families. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.