[quote=zk][quote=Rustico]ZK, Please show me links to studies which show that the genetic issue is unequivocally decided to the extent that the gene for “alcoholism” is uncovered.In my book prima facie doesn’t count.[/quote]
Wow, unequivocally decided? “The” gene for alcoholism? It’s much more complicated than that. I’ve only got a few minutes before I have to go to work, but I’ll get you some links later.
[quote=Rustico] Even the identical twin studies are not conclusive. There are several problems, but the correlation can be explained by the fact that identical twins are likely to relate more exactly to the alcoholic teacher in the family than non physically identical twins because parents treat kids differently based on appearance.How they are treated relates to how the imitate the model. Either way none of it leads to a direct hit on a gene.[/quote]
When I brought up identical twins, I didn’t say anything about twins studies proving that alcoholism was genetic. I said that identical twins studies show remarkable personality similarities despite different upbringings. I said that I believe that there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. My point was that there is a genetic component to one’s personality. And personality factors can influence who becomes an alcoholic. For instance, social inhibition can contribute to alcoholism, and social inhibition has a genetic component.
Let me ask you this: Do you think that each human is born a blank slate with no individual personality and that all personality traits are a result of upbringing? If so, then that is the root of our disagreement and we can discuss that issue. If not, then do you think that personality traits can not contribute to alcoholism? If not, why not?
[quote=Rustico]
Furthermore show me proof that the millions of alcoholics have a gene that specifically determines that the weapon of their self destruction will be alcohol. Would they be fine if alcohol didn’t exists?
[/quote]
Again, it’s much more complicated than that. It’s not “a” gene. It’s not even entirely genetic. There are genetic components. And even if two people have exactly the same genes that doesn’t mean that either neither or both of them will be alcoholics. But if you have one group of people with all the genes that contribute to alcoholism, including the genes for social inhibition and other personality traits, and you have another group without any of those genes, the percentage of alcoholics will be much higher in the group with the genes than in the group without the genes. That’s what “genetic component” means. It doesn’t mean that there’s one gene for alcoholism and if you have it you’re an alcoholic and if you don’t you aren’t. As far as whether they’d be fine if alcohol didn’t exist, again, it’s complicated. They obviously wouldn’t be alcoholics. But they might be addicted to some other drug. If there were no drugs at all, they might be addicted to sex or the internet or video games or something else. Or they might just be really introverted and unable to relate because there’s no alcohol to loosen them up.
[quote=Rustico]The disease issue is interesting, does the anorexic, bulimic, or alcoholic who has the issue to deal with but regains mostly healthy habits have a weaker gene for these diseases than the ones that don’t and who die miserably?
It just doesn’t add up.[/quote]
Again, you’re not seeing the “genetic component” part of the equation. You’re seeing – “with the gene, disease, without it, no disease.” It doesn’t work that way. It adds up plenty if you stop looking at it so simply. If there are multiple genes that contribute, each increasing the probability of becoming mentally ill, and the genetic component is just that – a component and not the sole determining factor – then the severity of the disease depends on both the person’s genes and their upbringing. So you’ve got groups of persons a,b,c,d,e, and f.
A: all the genes that contribute to anorexia and a mother who told her she was fat all the time.
B: none of the genes and a mother who told her she was fat all the time.
C: all the genes and a mother who raised her right.
D: none of the genes and a mother who raised her right.
E: some of the genes and parents who raised her right.
F: some of the genes and parents who raised her wrong.
In those groups, the highest percentage of anorexia cases would be in group A, the lowest in group D. Groups B,C,E, and F would fall in between, and my guess is that group C would be higher than group B. And the cases in group A are more likely to be the ones who die miserably whereas the cases from the other groups are more likely to deal with the issue and regain healthy habits.
It’s the same with alcoholism. There’s a genetic component and an environmental component. There’s not one gene, there are multiple ones. And there are also genetic components that don’t always directly cause alcoholism, but which increase one’s predisposition, such as genes for social inhibition. And there are environmental components as well.
That it’s unequivocally decided and that there’s “a” gene for alcoholism is not what I said. I said I believe that there’s a strong genetic component and that there are environmental factors as well.[/quote]
ZK, Just so you know, I didn’t see this comment from page one. I am sure it would have made the discussion flow better, had I seen it. I don’t yet have any more faith in a poly-genetic argument for problem drinking than for the single gene theory.
