OT – Alcoholism and Addiction

[NotCranky]

[quote=Rustico][quote=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.[/quote]
Yes he has a bias,but he hasn’t been wrong over and over and over.[/quote]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.

His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences. I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.

Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view. Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? “Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly. Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[jpinpb]

If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.

[jpinpb]

If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.

[jpinpb]

If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.

[jpinpb]

If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.

[jpinpb]

If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.[/quote]

liver enzyme issue is BS. Asians and Native Americans both have the enzyme issue. Obviously one have significantly lower alcohol issue than the other.

there is a genetic predisposition, there’s no question about it, but we are more likely to find that in relation to neurotransmitters than liver enzyme.

but genetics is only part of the issue. and can only explain a subset of the alcoholic population.

alcohol is a sedative and works great for folks with anxiety disorder or other mood disorders. so you have a huge subset that essentially found their way to use it for purposes of self-medication. (just like large number of folks with ADHD end up finding tobacco, which does end up treating their disorder, but with deadly consequences.)

people with mood disorder that self medicate with alcohol and become addicted are more likely to respond to behavioral and psychologic treatment because they don’t really have the genetic predisposition. these also likely make up the bulk of alcoholics that “wake up” and realize they need to quit and do.

unfortunately, the genetic guys are sh!t out of luck. the typical pattern is generation I is alcoholic. generation II is split between ones that follow the lead of gen I vs the ones that swear to abstinence because they were repulsed by gen I. The interesting thing is members of gen III (offsprings of the abstinent gen II) still end up becoming alcoholics.

so you end up with these heated debates that goes on forever because nobody is stepping up to separate these groups from the very beginning and treat them differently.

please realize what is happening is folks are using the “mood disorder origin alcoholics” to disprove the genetic model. and on the other camp we have folks using the “genetic alcoholics” to disprove the environmental and will power model.

this is why brian’s friend need to go see a psychiatrist first, to figure out just which camp he belongs before the right strategy can be implemented.

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.[/quote]

liver enzyme issue is BS. Asians and Native Americans both have the enzyme issue. Obviously one have significantly lower alcohol issue than the other.

there is a genetic predisposition, there’s no question about it, but we are more likely to find that in relation to neurotransmitters than liver enzyme.

but genetics is only part of the issue. and can only explain a subset of the alcoholic population.

alcohol is a sedative and works great for folks with anxiety disorder or other mood disorders. so you have a huge subset that essentially found their way to use it for purposes of self-medication. (just like large number of folks with ADHD end up finding tobacco, which does end up treating their disorder, but with deadly consequences.)

people with mood disorder that self medicate with alcohol and become addicted are more likely to respond to behavioral and psychologic treatment because they don’t really have the genetic predisposition. these also likely make up the bulk of alcoholics that “wake up” and realize they need to quit and do.

unfortunately, the genetic guys are sh!t out of luck. the typical pattern is generation I is alcoholic. generation II is split between ones that follow the lead of gen I vs the ones that swear to abstinence because they were repulsed by gen I. The interesting thing is members of gen III (offsprings of the abstinent gen II) still end up becoming alcoholics.

so you end up with these heated debates that goes on forever because nobody is stepping up to separate these groups from the very beginning and treat them differently.

please realize what is happening is folks are using the “mood disorder origin alcoholics” to disprove the genetic model. and on the other camp we have folks using the “genetic alcoholics” to disprove the environmental and will power model.

this is why brian’s friend need to go see a psychiatrist first, to figure out just which camp he belongs before the right strategy can be implemented.

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.[/quote]

liver enzyme issue is BS. Asians and Native Americans both have the enzyme issue. Obviously one have significantly lower alcohol issue than the other.

there is a genetic predisposition, there’s no question about it, but we are more likely to find that in relation to neurotransmitters than liver enzyme.

but genetics is only part of the issue. and can only explain a subset of the alcoholic population.

alcohol is a sedative and works great for folks with anxiety disorder or other mood disorders. so you have a huge subset that essentially found their way to use it for purposes of self-medication. (just like large number of folks with ADHD end up finding tobacco, which does end up treating their disorder, but with deadly consequences.)

people with mood disorder that self medicate with alcohol and become addicted are more likely to respond to behavioral and psychologic treatment because they don’t really have the genetic predisposition. these also likely make up the bulk of alcoholics that “wake up” and realize they need to quit and do.

unfortunately, the genetic guys are sh!t out of luck. the typical pattern is generation I is alcoholic. generation II is split between ones that follow the lead of gen I vs the ones that swear to abstinence because they were repulsed by gen I. The interesting thing is members of gen III (offsprings of the abstinent gen II) still end up becoming alcoholics.

so you end up with these heated debates that goes on forever because nobody is stepping up to separate these groups from the very beginning and treat them differently.

please realize what is happening is folks are using the “mood disorder origin alcoholics” to disprove the genetic model. and on the other camp we have folks using the “genetic alcoholics” to disprove the environmental and will power model.

this is why brian’s friend need to go see a psychiatrist first, to figure out just which camp he belongs before the right strategy can be implemented.

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]If the liver enzyme is BS, then that changes my view quite a bit. That makes me think then that some people just have a weaker constitution/personality. That makes me think will power plays a much stronger role than I thought.[/quote]

liver enzyme issue is BS. Asians and Native Americans both have the enzyme issue. Obviously one have significantly lower alcohol issue than the other.

there is a genetic predisposition, there’s no question about it, but we are more likely to find that in relation to neurotransmitters than liver enzyme.

but genetics is only part of the issue. and can only explain a subset of the alcoholic population.

alcohol is a sedative and works great for folks with anxiety disorder or other mood disorders. so you have a huge subset that essentially found their way to use it for purposes of self-medication. (just like large number of folks with ADHD end up finding tobacco, which does end up treating their disorder, but with deadly consequences.)

people with mood disorder that self medicate with alcohol and become addicted are more likely to respond to behavioral and psychologic treatment because they don’t really have the genetic predisposition. these also likely make up the bulk of alcoholics that “wake up” and realize they need to quit and do.

unfortunately, the genetic guys are sh!t out of luck. the typical pattern is generation I is alcoholic. generation II is split between ones that follow the lead of gen I vs the ones that swear to abstinence because they were repulsed by gen I. The interesting thing is members of gen III (offsprings of the abstinent gen II) still end up becoming alcoholics.

so you end up with these heated debates that goes on forever because nobody is stepping up to separate these groups from the very beginning and treat them differently.

please realize what is happening is folks are using the “mood disorder origin alcoholics” to disprove the genetic model. and on the other camp we have folks using the “genetic alcoholics” to disprove the environmental and will power model.

this is why brian’s friend need to go see a psychiatrist first, to figure out just which camp he belongs before the right strategy can be implemented.

[Author]

Posts