- This topic has 960 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 22, 2011 at 10:19 AM #680740March 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM #679732
zk
Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
March 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM #679786Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
March 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM #680403Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
March 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM #680539Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
March 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM #680890Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
March 22, 2011 at 9:22 PM #679782NotCranky
ParticipantZK, 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. 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.
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?
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.
March 22, 2011 at 9:22 PM #679836ParticipantZK, 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. 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.
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?
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.
March 22, 2011 at 9:22 PM #680453ParticipantZK, 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. 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.
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?
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.
March 22, 2011 at 9:22 PM #680589ParticipantZK, 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. 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.
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?
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.
March 22, 2011 at 9:22 PM #680940ParticipantZK, 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. 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.
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?
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.
March 23, 2011 at 3:50 AM #679832CA renter
ParticipantHaving seen alcoholism up close and personal, I agree very much with zk. IMHO, addictive behaviors are not a matter of being weak-willed. These addicted people, for the most part, have a disease.
Like others have pointed out, many of these addicts need to replace one addiction with another — like giving up alcohol to become a marathon runner, or a workaholic. I’ve seen this behavior as well, and think that this is the ONLY way some people are able to abstain from drinking or drug use.
——————A study released today reveals a cellular mechanism involved in alcohol dependence. The study, in the May 28 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience, shows that gabapentin, a drug used to treat chronic pain and epilepsy, reduces alcohol intake in alcohol-dependent rats by normalizing chemical communication between neurons, which is altered by chronic alcohol abuse. The central amygdala, a part of the brain involved in emotions such as stress and fear, is important in regulating alcohol consumption. Most central amygdala neurons communicate via a chemical signal known as GABA, which is an inhibitory neurotransmitter. Alcohol dependence has been associated with the strengthening of inhibitory synapses in this brain region.
March 23, 2011 at 3:50 AM #679884ParticipantHaving seen alcoholism up close and personal, I agree very much with zk. IMHO, addictive behaviors are not a matter of being weak-willed. These addicted people, for the most part, have a disease.
Like others have pointed out, many of these addicts need to replace one addiction with another — like giving up alcohol to become a marathon runner, or a workaholic. I’ve seen this behavior as well, and think that this is the ONLY way some people are able to abstain from drinking or drug use.
——————A study released today reveals a cellular mechanism involved in alcohol dependence. The study, in the May 28 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience, shows that gabapentin, a drug used to treat chronic pain and epilepsy, reduces alcohol intake in alcohol-dependent rats by normalizing chemical communication between neurons, which is altered by chronic alcohol abuse. The central amygdala, a part of the brain involved in emotions such as stress and fear, is important in regulating alcohol consumption. Most central amygdala neurons communicate via a chemical signal known as GABA, which is an inhibitory neurotransmitter. Alcohol dependence has been associated with the strengthening of inhibitory synapses in this brain region.
March 23, 2011 at 3:50 AM #680502ParticipantHaving seen alcoholism up close and personal, I agree very much with zk. IMHO, addictive behaviors are not a matter of being weak-willed. These addicted people, for the most part, have a disease.
Like others have pointed out, many of these addicts need to replace one addiction with another — like giving up alcohol to become a marathon runner, or a workaholic. I’ve seen this behavior as well, and think that this is the ONLY way some people are able to abstain from drinking or drug use.
——————A study released today reveals a cellular mechanism involved in alcohol dependence. The study, in the May 28 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience, shows that gabapentin, a drug used to treat chronic pain and epilepsy, reduces alcohol intake in alcohol-dependent rats by normalizing chemical communication between neurons, which is altered by chronic alcohol abuse. The central amygdala, a part of the brain involved in emotions such as stress and fear, is important in regulating alcohol consumption. Most central amygdala neurons communicate via a chemical signal known as GABA, which is an inhibitory neurotransmitter. Alcohol dependence has been associated with the strengthening of inhibitory synapses in this brain region.
March 23, 2011 at 3:50 AM #680639ParticipantHaving seen alcoholism up close and personal, I agree very much with zk. IMHO, addictive behaviors are not a matter of being weak-willed. These addicted people, for the most part, have a disease.
Like others have pointed out, many of these addicts need to replace one addiction with another — like giving up alcohol to become a marathon runner, or a workaholic. I’ve seen this behavior as well, and think that this is the ONLY way some people are able to abstain from drinking or drug use.
——————A study released today reveals a cellular mechanism involved in alcohol dependence. The study, in the May 28 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience, shows that gabapentin, a drug used to treat chronic pain and epilepsy, reduces alcohol intake in alcohol-dependent rats by normalizing chemical communication between neurons, which is altered by chronic alcohol abuse. The central amygdala, a part of the brain involved in emotions such as stress and fear, is important in regulating alcohol consumption. Most central amygdala neurons communicate via a chemical signal known as GABA, which is an inhibitory neurotransmitter. Alcohol dependence has been associated with the strengthening of inhibitory synapses in this brain region.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.