OT – Alcoholism and Addiction

[NotCranky]

BG, this ones for you. I have run out of gas on this one. Type native American in the search function for more.

http://www.peele.net/lib/atlcgene.html

[NotCranky]

[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.

[NotCranky]

[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.

[NotCranky]

[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.

[NotCranky]

[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.

[NotCranky]

[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.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]O.K. ZK,

Here is my link, http://www.peele.net/faq/p3waves.html

You can read for days if you put “genetics” into the site search feature.

A lot of the points made on this thread are developed in the various archived articles.[/quote]

Basically your whole argument is this one link to this one nut’s website? Very disappointing. Here’s a guy who’s obviously got a serious bias and who will twist anything around to fit his views and sell his books.

From his website:

———————————————-
The core beliefs that the alcoholism movement has successfully promulgated are:

Alcoholics don’t drink too much because they intend to, but only because they can’t control their drinking.
Alcoholics inherit their alcoholism and thus are born as alcoholics.
Alcoholism always grow worse without treatment, so that alcoholics can never cut back or quit on their own.
Alcoholism as a disease can strike any individual—it is an “equal-opportunity destroyer”—and respects no social, religious, ethnic or sexual bounds.
Treatment based on AA principles is the only effective treatment for alcoholism—in the words of one proponent, a modern medical “miracle”—without which no one can hope to arrest a drinking problem.
Those who reject the AA approach for their drinking problems, or observers who contradict any of the contentions about alcoholism listed here, are practicing a special denial that means death for alcoholics.
—————————————–

His contention, which shows up throughout his writing, is that the “alcoholism movement,” whatever that is, says that alcoholism is completely determined by genetics, and that from the moment an alcoholic is born, he is fated to become an alcoholic. And he sets up that straw man and knocks it down. Pathetic.

I typed “genetics” in the site’s search engine. I could read for days, but it’s all written by the same biased person. The same Mr. Peele. Mr. Peele, who is trying (with some success, apparently) to sell books.

Reading that clown’s website and coming to any conclusion at all about alcoholism is like watching Fox “News” and coming to a conclusion about republicans or democrats.

Really, Rustico, move beyond Mr. Peele’s book selling malarkey, read some serious research, think for yourself, look closely to see if you don’t share nutjob’s biases, and see if you can’t get a fresh perspective on the issue.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]O.K. ZK,

Here is my link, http://www.peele.net/faq/p3waves.html

You can read for days if you put “genetics” into the site search feature.

A lot of the points made on this thread are developed in the various archived articles.[/quote]

Basically your whole argument is this one link to this one nut’s website? Very disappointing. Here’s a guy who’s obviously got a serious bias and who will twist anything around to fit his views and sell his books.

From his website:

———————————————-
The core beliefs that the alcoholism movement has successfully promulgated are:

Alcoholics don’t drink too much because they intend to, but only because they can’t control their drinking.
Alcoholics inherit their alcoholism and thus are born as alcoholics.
Alcoholism always grow worse without treatment, so that alcoholics can never cut back or quit on their own.
Alcoholism as a disease can strike any individual—it is an “equal-opportunity destroyer”—and respects no social, religious, ethnic or sexual bounds.
Treatment based on AA principles is the only effective treatment for alcoholism—in the words of one proponent, a modern medical “miracle”—without which no one can hope to arrest a drinking problem.
Those who reject the AA approach for their drinking problems, or observers who contradict any of the contentions about alcoholism listed here, are practicing a special denial that means death for alcoholics.
—————————————–

His contention, which shows up throughout his writing, is that the “alcoholism movement,” whatever that is, says that alcoholism is completely determined by genetics, and that from the moment an alcoholic is born, he is fated to become an alcoholic. And he sets up that straw man and knocks it down. Pathetic.

I typed “genetics” in the site’s search engine. I could read for days, but it’s all written by the same biased person. The same Mr. Peele. Mr. Peele, who is trying (with some success, apparently) to sell books.

Reading that clown’s website and coming to any conclusion at all about alcoholism is like watching Fox “News” and coming to a conclusion about republicans or democrats.

Really, Rustico, move beyond Mr. Peele’s book selling malarkey, read some serious research, think for yourself, look closely to see if you don’t share nutjob’s biases, and see if you can’t get a fresh perspective on the issue.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]O.K. ZK,

Here is my link, http://www.peele.net/faq/p3waves.html

You can read for days if you put “genetics” into the site search feature.

A lot of the points made on this thread are developed in the various archived articles.[/quote]

Basically your whole argument is this one link to this one nut’s website? Very disappointing. Here’s a guy who’s obviously got a serious bias and who will twist anything around to fit his views and sell his books.

From his website:

———————————————-
The core beliefs that the alcoholism movement has successfully promulgated are:

Alcoholics don’t drink too much because they intend to, but only because they can’t control their drinking.
Alcoholics inherit their alcoholism and thus are born as alcoholics.
Alcoholism always grow worse without treatment, so that alcoholics can never cut back or quit on their own.
Alcoholism as a disease can strike any individual—it is an “equal-opportunity destroyer”—and respects no social, religious, ethnic or sexual bounds.
Treatment based on AA principles is the only effective treatment for alcoholism—in the words of one proponent, a modern medical “miracle”—without which no one can hope to arrest a drinking problem.
Those who reject the AA approach for their drinking problems, or observers who contradict any of the contentions about alcoholism listed here, are practicing a special denial that means death for alcoholics.
—————————————–

His contention, which shows up throughout his writing, is that the “alcoholism movement,” whatever that is, says that alcoholism is completely determined by genetics, and that from the moment an alcoholic is born, he is fated to become an alcoholic. And he sets up that straw man and knocks it down. Pathetic.

I typed “genetics” in the site’s search engine. I could read for days, but it’s all written by the same biased person. The same Mr. Peele. Mr. Peele, who is trying (with some success, apparently) to sell books.

Reading that clown’s website and coming to any conclusion at all about alcoholism is like watching Fox “News” and coming to a conclusion about republicans or democrats.

Really, Rustico, move beyond Mr. Peele’s book selling malarkey, read some serious research, think for yourself, look closely to see if you don’t share nutjob’s biases, and see if you can’t get a fresh perspective on the issue.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]O.K. ZK,

Here is my link, http://www.peele.net/faq/p3waves.html

You can read for days if you put “genetics” into the site search feature.

A lot of the points made on this thread are developed in the various archived articles.[/quote]

Basically your whole argument is this one link to this one nut’s website? Very disappointing. Here’s a guy who’s obviously got a serious bias and who will twist anything around to fit his views and sell his books.

From his website:

———————————————-
The core beliefs that the alcoholism movement has successfully promulgated are:

Alcoholics don’t drink too much because they intend to, but only because they can’t control their drinking.
Alcoholics inherit their alcoholism and thus are born as alcoholics.
Alcoholism always grow worse without treatment, so that alcoholics can never cut back or quit on their own.
Alcoholism as a disease can strike any individual—it is an “equal-opportunity destroyer”—and respects no social, religious, ethnic or sexual bounds.
Treatment based on AA principles is the only effective treatment for alcoholism—in the words of one proponent, a modern medical “miracle”—without which no one can hope to arrest a drinking problem.
Those who reject the AA approach for their drinking problems, or observers who contradict any of the contentions about alcoholism listed here, are practicing a special denial that means death for alcoholics.
—————————————–

His contention, which shows up throughout his writing, is that the “alcoholism movement,” whatever that is, says that alcoholism is completely determined by genetics, and that from the moment an alcoholic is born, he is fated to become an alcoholic. And he sets up that straw man and knocks it down. Pathetic.

I typed “genetics” in the site’s search engine. I could read for days, but it’s all written by the same biased person. The same Mr. Peele. Mr. Peele, who is trying (with some success, apparently) to sell books.

Reading that clown’s website and coming to any conclusion at all about alcoholism is like watching Fox “News” and coming to a conclusion about republicans or democrats.

Really, Rustico, move beyond Mr. Peele’s book selling malarkey, read some serious research, think for yourself, look closely to see if you don’t share nutjob’s biases, and see if you can’t get a fresh perspective on the issue.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]O.K. ZK,

Here is my link, http://www.peele.net/faq/p3waves.html

You can read for days if you put “genetics” into the site search feature.

A lot of the points made on this thread are developed in the various archived articles.[/quote]

Basically your whole argument is this one link to this one nut’s website? Very disappointing. Here’s a guy who’s obviously got a serious bias and who will twist anything around to fit his views and sell his books.

From his website:

———————————————-
The core beliefs that the alcoholism movement has successfully promulgated are:

Alcoholics don’t drink too much because they intend to, but only because they can’t control their drinking.
Alcoholics inherit their alcoholism and thus are born as alcoholics.
Alcoholism always grow worse without treatment, so that alcoholics can never cut back or quit on their own.
Alcoholism as a disease can strike any individual—it is an “equal-opportunity destroyer”—and respects no social, religious, ethnic or sexual bounds.
Treatment based on AA principles is the only effective treatment for alcoholism—in the words of one proponent, a modern medical “miracle”—without which no one can hope to arrest a drinking problem.
Those who reject the AA approach for their drinking problems, or observers who contradict any of the contentions about alcoholism listed here, are practicing a special denial that means death for alcoholics.
—————————————–

His contention, which shows up throughout his writing, is that the “alcoholism movement,” whatever that is, says that alcoholism is completely determined by genetics, and that from the moment an alcoholic is born, he is fated to become an alcoholic. And he sets up that straw man and knocks it down. Pathetic.

I typed “genetics” in the site’s search engine. I could read for days, but it’s all written by the same biased person. The same Mr. Peele. Mr. Peele, who is trying (with some success, apparently) to sell books.

Reading that clown’s website and coming to any conclusion at all about alcoholism is like watching Fox “News” and coming to a conclusion about republicans or democrats.

Really, Rustico, move beyond Mr. Peele’s book selling malarkey, read some serious research, think for yourself, look closely to see if you don’t share nutjob’s biases, and see if you can’t get a fresh perspective on the issue.

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]Ok I’m willing to be evaluated.[/quote]

thank you ww! Running the tests is a no-lose situation: if they come back good, you can have peace of mind. if they come back bad, you can cut back until you’re out of the danger zone.

And i’m not saying everyone who drinks 3 glasses of wine will have problems. My gorgeous wife matched me glass for glass and her tests came back great, even though she’s only 2/3 my size. She’s cut back to 1 glass/night to support me.

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]Ok I’m willing to be evaluated.[/quote]

thank you ww! Running the tests is a no-lose situation: if they come back good, you can have peace of mind. if they come back bad, you can cut back until you’re out of the danger zone.

And i’m not saying everyone who drinks 3 glasses of wine will have problems. My gorgeous wife matched me glass for glass and her tests came back great, even though she’s only 2/3 my size. She’s cut back to 1 glass/night to support me.

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]Ok I’m willing to be evaluated.[/quote]

thank you ww! Running the tests is a no-lose situation: if they come back good, you can have peace of mind. if they come back bad, you can cut back until you’re out of the danger zone.

And i’m not saying everyone who drinks 3 glasses of wine will have problems. My gorgeous wife matched me glass for glass and her tests came back great, even though she’s only 2/3 my size. She’s cut back to 1 glass/night to support me.

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]Ok I’m willing to be evaluated.[/quote]

thank you ww! Running the tests is a no-lose situation: if they come back good, you can have peace of mind. if they come back bad, you can cut back until you’re out of the danger zone.

And i’m not saying everyone who drinks 3 glasses of wine will have problems. My gorgeous wife matched me glass for glass and her tests came back great, even though she’s only 2/3 my size. She’s cut back to 1 glass/night to support me.

[Author]

Posts