OT – Alcoholism and Addiction

[CA renter]

Having 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.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/28/new.study.reveals.brain.cell.mechanism.alcohol.dependence

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Arraya]

[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. 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.[/quote]

Even though some may portray it that way, It’s not quite that simple. If I read you correctly you are irritated at the idea genetic determinism? Meaning that genes equal things that can’t be changed or things that are inevitable and we should not waste energies on trying to fix? Most complex conditions my have a genetic component but that is just one small component of a much more complex picture with a myriad of influences. The fact is genes give us different ways of dealing with our environment and are not just some program of behavior. Saying it’s genetic is kind of a dangerous line of thinking in a lot of ways. The more appropriate way to articulate genetic contributions to any type of behavior or condition is: There is a genetic contribution to how an organism responds to environment and genes may influence the readiness of the way this organism will deal with a certain environmental challenges.

It’s been shown in studies that prenatal stress will produce a higher level of susceptibility to addictions, along with genetic modifications due to the stress. Actually prenatal stress causes a host of psychological conditions. Same as severe abuse as a child. So, it’s not quite a simple “it’s in the genes” answer as some would indicate. Conversely, saying genetic contributions to behaviors are not present is equally false. Also, given a proper healthy environment, genetic contributions to negative behaviors probably won’t manifest.

[Arraya]

[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. 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.[/quote]

Even though some may portray it that way, It’s not quite that simple. If I read you correctly you are irritated at the idea genetic determinism? Meaning that genes equal things that can’t be changed or things that are inevitable and we should not waste energies on trying to fix? Most complex conditions my have a genetic component but that is just one small component of a much more complex picture with a myriad of influences. The fact is genes give us different ways of dealing with our environment and are not just some program of behavior. Saying it’s genetic is kind of a dangerous line of thinking in a lot of ways. The more appropriate way to articulate genetic contributions to any type of behavior or condition is: There is a genetic contribution to how an organism responds to environment and genes may influence the readiness of the way this organism will deal with a certain environmental challenges.

It’s been shown in studies that prenatal stress will produce a higher level of susceptibility to addictions, along with genetic modifications due to the stress. Actually prenatal stress causes a host of psychological conditions. Same as severe abuse as a child. So, it’s not quite a simple “it’s in the genes” answer as some would indicate. Conversely, saying genetic contributions to behaviors are not present is equally false. Also, given a proper healthy environment, genetic contributions to negative behaviors probably won’t manifest.

[Arraya]

[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. 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.[/quote]

Even though some may portray it that way, It’s not quite that simple. If I read you correctly you are irritated at the idea genetic determinism? Meaning that genes equal things that can’t be changed or things that are inevitable and we should not waste energies on trying to fix? Most complex conditions my have a genetic component but that is just one small component of a much more complex picture with a myriad of influences. The fact is genes give us different ways of dealing with our environment and are not just some program of behavior. Saying it’s genetic is kind of a dangerous line of thinking in a lot of ways. The more appropriate way to articulate genetic contributions to any type of behavior or condition is: There is a genetic contribution to how an organism responds to environment and genes may influence the readiness of the way this organism will deal with a certain environmental challenges.

It’s been shown in studies that prenatal stress will produce a higher level of susceptibility to addictions, along with genetic modifications due to the stress. Actually prenatal stress causes a host of psychological conditions. Same as severe abuse as a child. So, it’s not quite a simple “it’s in the genes” answer as some would indicate. Conversely, saying genetic contributions to behaviors are not present is equally false. Also, given a proper healthy environment, genetic contributions to negative behaviors probably won’t manifest.

[Arraya]

[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. 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.[/quote]

Even though some may portray it that way, It’s not quite that simple. If I read you correctly you are irritated at the idea genetic determinism? Meaning that genes equal things that can’t be changed or things that are inevitable and we should not waste energies on trying to fix? Most complex conditions my have a genetic component but that is just one small component of a much more complex picture with a myriad of influences. The fact is genes give us different ways of dealing with our environment and are not just some program of behavior. Saying it’s genetic is kind of a dangerous line of thinking in a lot of ways. The more appropriate way to articulate genetic contributions to any type of behavior or condition is: There is a genetic contribution to how an organism responds to environment and genes may influence the readiness of the way this organism will deal with a certain environmental challenges.

It’s been shown in studies that prenatal stress will produce a higher level of susceptibility to addictions, along with genetic modifications due to the stress. Actually prenatal stress causes a host of psychological conditions. Same as severe abuse as a child. So, it’s not quite a simple “it’s in the genes” answer as some would indicate. Conversely, saying genetic contributions to behaviors are not present is equally false. Also, given a proper healthy environment, genetic contributions to negative behaviors probably won’t manifest.

[Arraya]

[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. 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.[/quote]

Even though some may portray it that way, It’s not quite that simple. If I read you correctly you are irritated at the idea genetic determinism? Meaning that genes equal things that can’t be changed or things that are inevitable and we should not waste energies on trying to fix? Most complex conditions my have a genetic component but that is just one small component of a much more complex picture with a myriad of influences. The fact is genes give us different ways of dealing with our environment and are not just some program of behavior. Saying it’s genetic is kind of a dangerous line of thinking in a lot of ways. The more appropriate way to articulate genetic contributions to any type of behavior or condition is: There is a genetic contribution to how an organism responds to environment and genes may influence the readiness of the way this organism will deal with a certain environmental challenges.

It’s been shown in studies that prenatal stress will produce a higher level of susceptibility to addictions, along with genetic modifications due to the stress. Actually prenatal stress causes a host of psychological conditions. Same as severe abuse as a child. So, it’s not quite a simple “it’s in the genes” answer as some would indicate. Conversely, saying genetic contributions to behaviors are not present is equally false. Also, given a proper healthy environment, genetic contributions to negative behaviors probably won’t manifest.

[scaredyclassic]

Ok, now get drunk and have the same debate

[scaredyclassic]

Ok, now get drunk and have the same debate

[scaredyclassic]

Ok, now get drunk and have the same debate

[scaredyclassic]

Ok, now get drunk and have the same debate

[Author]

Posts