- This topic has 960 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 25, 2011 at 5:48 AM #681850March 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM #680697
NotCranky
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=Rustico]Thanks for sticking with me.That 33% for genetic component alcoholism seems very high to me compared to other poly-genetic multi-factorial disease occurrences in families.[/quote]
I’m just giving you a possible scenario. not saying we are really looking at 33%. I don’t think there’s any true data on that.[/quote]
Thanks, I know it’s just kind of a non-scientific plausibility exercise.March 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM #680749NotCranky
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=Rustico]Thanks for sticking with me.That 33% for genetic component alcoholism seems very high to me compared to other poly-genetic multi-factorial disease occurrences in families.[/quote]
I’m just giving you a possible scenario. not saying we are really looking at 33%. I don’t think there’s any true data on that.[/quote]
Thanks, I know it’s just kind of a non-scientific plausibility exercise.March 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM #681366NotCranky
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=Rustico]Thanks for sticking with me.That 33% for genetic component alcoholism seems very high to me compared to other poly-genetic multi-factorial disease occurrences in families.[/quote]
I’m just giving you a possible scenario. not saying we are really looking at 33%. I don’t think there’s any true data on that.[/quote]
Thanks, I know it’s just kind of a non-scientific plausibility exercise.March 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM #681505NotCranky
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=Rustico]Thanks for sticking with me.That 33% for genetic component alcoholism seems very high to me compared to other poly-genetic multi-factorial disease occurrences in families.[/quote]
I’m just giving you a possible scenario. not saying we are really looking at 33%. I don’t think there’s any true data on that.[/quote]
Thanks, I know it’s just kind of a non-scientific plausibility exercise.March 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM #681855NotCranky
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=Rustico]Thanks for sticking with me.That 33% for genetic component alcoholism seems very high to me compared to other poly-genetic multi-factorial disease occurrences in families.[/quote]
I’m just giving you a possible scenario. not saying we are really looking at 33%. I don’t think there’s any true data on that.[/quote]
Thanks, I know it’s just kind of a non-scientific plausibility exercise.March 25, 2011 at 6:37 AM #680701NotCranky
Participanthttp://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/add…
This is the way I have always thought about it, except I didn’t realize the brain changes, I just thought the lessons of insecurity, fear, distrust, self hate, confusion and inherent poor coping skills and diminished quality of life, were enough to perpetuate “disease”.Maybe I still think that way, and brain “plasticity” is really just a name for doing better as one reduces some of these negatives.It appears that the the Dr. disavows genetic theories, or there worth to society and individuals anyway. I am prone to the same, even if some connections are proven.
March 25, 2011 at 6:37 AM #680754NotCranky
Participanthttp://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/add…
This is the way I have always thought about it, except I didn’t realize the brain changes, I just thought the lessons of insecurity, fear, distrust, self hate, confusion and inherent poor coping skills and diminished quality of life, were enough to perpetuate “disease”.Maybe I still think that way, and brain “plasticity” is really just a name for doing better as one reduces some of these negatives.It appears that the the Dr. disavows genetic theories, or there worth to society and individuals anyway. I am prone to the same, even if some connections are proven.
March 25, 2011 at 6:37 AM #681371NotCranky
Participanthttp://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/add…
This is the way I have always thought about it, except I didn’t realize the brain changes, I just thought the lessons of insecurity, fear, distrust, self hate, confusion and inherent poor coping skills and diminished quality of life, were enough to perpetuate “disease”.Maybe I still think that way, and brain “plasticity” is really just a name for doing better as one reduces some of these negatives.It appears that the the Dr. disavows genetic theories, or there worth to society and individuals anyway. I am prone to the same, even if some connections are proven.
March 25, 2011 at 6:37 AM #681510NotCranky
Participanthttp://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/add…
This is the way I have always thought about it, except I didn’t realize the brain changes, I just thought the lessons of insecurity, fear, distrust, self hate, confusion and inherent poor coping skills and diminished quality of life, were enough to perpetuate “disease”.Maybe I still think that way, and brain “plasticity” is really just a name for doing better as one reduces some of these negatives.It appears that the the Dr. disavows genetic theories, or there worth to society and individuals anyway. I am prone to the same, even if some connections are proven.
March 25, 2011 at 6:37 AM #681860NotCranky
Participanthttp://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/add…
This is the way I have always thought about it, except I didn’t realize the brain changes, I just thought the lessons of insecurity, fear, distrust, self hate, confusion and inherent poor coping skills and diminished quality of life, were enough to perpetuate “disease”.Maybe I still think that way, and brain “plasticity” is really just a name for doing better as one reduces some of these negatives.It appears that the the Dr. disavows genetic theories, or there worth to society and individuals anyway. I am prone to the same, even if some connections are proven.
March 25, 2011 at 6:43 AM #680706NotCranky
ParticipantI’ll have to look at your post later CARenter. I am capable of understanding that without reading more. Is the genetic defect for sickle cell and the breast cancer the same class as we are talking about as being claimed for addiction?
March 25, 2011 at 6:43 AM #680759NotCranky
ParticipantI’ll have to look at your post later CARenter. I am capable of understanding that without reading more. Is the genetic defect for sickle cell and the breast cancer the same class as we are talking about as being claimed for addiction?
March 25, 2011 at 6:43 AM #681376NotCranky
ParticipantI’ll have to look at your post later CARenter. I am capable of understanding that without reading more. Is the genetic defect for sickle cell and the breast cancer the same class as we are talking about as being claimed for addiction?
March 25, 2011 at 6:43 AM #681515NotCranky
ParticipantI’ll have to look at your post later CARenter. I am capable of understanding that without reading more. Is the genetic defect for sickle cell and the breast cancer the same class as we are talking about as being claimed for addiction?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
