Re: Ken, Alcohol abuser = abused child?

[Guest guest]

Ben Bradley wrote:

> At 11:36 AM 4/5/01 -0700, Ken wrote:

> >

> >

> >rita66@... wrote:

>

> >> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of

> your recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to

> pronouncements about human beings in general.

> > You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol

> abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all* alcohol abusers

> *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you mention ONE

> mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about mothers of

> schizophrenics in general??

>

> I noticed that too, but I don't think Ken is just picking incidences

> to support a hypothesis. I mostly agree with Ken's opinions, and it seems

> that those who disagree are reacting as if Ken were claiming absolute

> proof.

> I'd like to discuss the actual topic more (childhood experiences and

> adult alcohol use and/or general adult behavior), but I feel like I'd

> have to write a book to say anything significant.

Ben,

That is the subject that I've most wanted to research and write about ever

since finishing " More Revealed. " Maybe one of these days I'll get to it. Of

course, it is getting easier with time because there is now a vast body of

research and, surprising to me, much of it is coming from neurologist --

" simple " empirical evidence. You are correct, it really would take a book to

say anything meaningful.

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ben Bradley wrote:

> At 11:36 AM 4/5/01 -0700, Ken wrote:

> >

> >

> >rita66@... wrote:

>

> >> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of

> your recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to

> pronouncements about human beings in general.

> > You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol

> abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all* alcohol abusers

> *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you mention ONE

> mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about mothers of

> schizophrenics in general??

>

> I noticed that too, but I don't think Ken is just picking incidences

> to support a hypothesis. I mostly agree with Ken's opinions, and it seems

> that those who disagree are reacting as if Ken were claiming absolute

> proof.

> I'd like to discuss the actual topic more (childhood experiences and

> adult alcohol use and/or general adult behavior), but I feel like I'd

> have to write a book to say anything significant.

Ben,

That is the subject that I've most wanted to research and write about ever

since finishing " More Revealed. " Maybe one of these days I'll get to it. Of

course, it is getting easier with time because there is now a vast body of

research and, surprising to me, much of it is coming from neurologist --

" simple " empirical evidence. You are correct, it really would take a book to

say anything meaningful.

Ken

[Guest guest]

>

> > Actually, Ken, my question was directed at the Szasz advocates.

If

> > you are one of them, I was not aware of it, and missed whatever

you

> > said about it.

>

> Kayleigh,

>

> I don't know if I qualify as a Szasz advocate or not, but I have

read

> " Manufacture of Madness " and " The Myth of Mental Illness " and was

> _very_ impressed by both. It seems to me that the arguments about

Szasz

> get side-tracked over things that I don't see, at least from the

perspective

> of

> the aforementioned books, that he ever said, or if he did, where in

an

> entirely

> different context.

>

As things are in the United States right now, I doubt whether large

numbers of psychiatrists overdiagnose. Most likely they

underdiagnose, given the bias against hospitalization. In the case of

substance abuse, overdiagnosis continues, though perhaps to a lesser

extent. I am not sure what you mean by " get sidetracked over things

that I don't see.... " My simple belief is that if people are in

distress they need help, and I don't believe in labeling them while

supplying that help. Unfortunately, insurance companies and the like

require the labeling.

> > The Szasz advocates seem to say, " If you claim this is

> > a disease, then show me some organic difference. " This hasn't got

to

> > do with genes, so far as I know, nor does it have to do with

adaptive

> > organic differences, like that of your taxi drivers.

>

> But brain differences are often traipsed out as proof of disease,

whether to

> Szasz supporters or the general public.

>

You are right, but that doesn't mean that organic differences don't

exist. You can deny that phlogiston exists, but you can't really deny

that oxidation exists. Naturally people seek explanations, and

naturally not all of them will be correct, perhaps most of them will

be incorrect. It's the luck of the draw that some people get caught

in the fad of the day, as you and I and most of the rest of the list

were caught in the " alcoholism diagnosis " fad. It's too bad, but it

happens, and it's something I have to get over, personally, and

something that I find it worthwhile to change, though I'm not sure I'm

willing to channel as much energy into it as you and , and Jack

Trimpey and others. To me that is in part to be still caught up in

the syndrome. But that is how I look at it, and I am certainly glad

that we have Kens and s and Jacks, and that you guys have the

courage to do what you do. I don't know whether I would.

> >

> >

> > I think the point's been made, probably by Pete, that epilepsy was

> > once considered a " mental illness. " We know now, of course, that

it

> > is not. To say that schizophrenia is not a disease until we can

show

> > organic reasons for the phenomenon is really an exercise in

semantics,

> > and irresponsible (in my opinion) if some people who really suffer

> > from their conditions find no relief.

> >

>

> Wouldn't it also be irresponsible to simply label it a disease and

then spend

>

> millions of dollars gene-hunting and prematurely announce the

finding of a

> gene with much fanfare when the evidence simply hasn't been found by

any

> means that hasn't found to provide credible, repeatable results

before?

> Doesn't

> giving the disease label give an impression of helplessness, go

counter to

> ones efforts at coping?

>

I agree that this is irresponsible, but as I said before, I was not

talking about genes at all. Human beings like simple explanations, it

relieves them from having to think, also, I suppose, many can breathe

a sigh of relief and say, " Thank God, I don't have that gene " (as if

they really knew). In particular, " alcoholism " having been

stigmatized as it has, people are even less willing to think about it

than they are about, for example, cancer (after all, they might really

get cancer). Even so, they still say " cancer " as if it were one

syndrome, and it is not, it is hundreds. The gene search makes no

sense to me, but then, some of our best minds (assuming our best minds

are the ones that we elect to be in charge of the grants and also the

ones that receive the grants) either find it plausible or are

profoundly cynical about why they do what they do. I think the level

of intelligence on this list is way above the norm, and I think we all

see through things that many are simply willing to accept.

As an example from an unrelated field, I grew up during the height of

the Cold War, and when I was in 4th grade, we were distributed a

pamphlet that told us what to do in the event of nuclear attack. We

were supposed to hide under our desks and cover our eyes. I remember

thinking, " Are they nuts? " I knew it wouldn't do any good. I read

newspapers -- I saw newsreels. (Anybody on the list remember what

those are?) I thought I'd rather be vaporized instantly than suffer

radiation disease. But it seemed that every adult that I knew took

all this stuff seriously (perhaps my parents didn't, but I didn't

ask), and moreover, they took it seriously until the threat of nuclear

war seemed to be past. The feeling I had then is very much akin to

the feeling of astonishment and alienation that I felt when I went to

treatment.

> >

> > Personally, I try to avoid using the word " disease " unless there's

no

> > alternative, mostly because I think that using the word in the

case of

> > " alcoholism " (a word I find both distasteful and undefinable) has

let

> > people off the hook entirely in considering the effectiveness of

the

> > solutions they propose to assist a person suffering from that

> > condition.

>

> Isn't " mental illness " as " brain disease " often very similar?

>

> Ken

I try to avoid " mental illness " also, okay?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/5/01 11:01:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rita66@...

writes:

<< Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child

would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a

" schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long

ago discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of

schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc.,

are as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human

beings at large.

~Rita

>>

Here Here!! Hi Rita. Piper

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/5/01 11:01:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rita66@...

writes:

<< Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child

would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a

" schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long

ago discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of

schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc.,

are as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human

beings at large.

~Rita

>>

Here Here!! Hi Rita. Piper

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/5/01 11:01:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rita66@...

writes:

<< Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child

would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a

" schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long

ago discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of

schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc.,

are as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human

beings at large.

~Rita

>>

Here Here!! Hi Rita. Piper