Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
ParticipantGotta go back to work, but here’s something to start you off. At the bottom are references to several studies indicating a genetic component to alcoholism.
Participant[quote=Rustico]That’s right,Arraya. I am not saying there is not a genetic contributor to this TYPE of behavior. The comment being made by other posters require data specific to the claims they are making. Specifically that there is a gene for alcoholism.[/quote]
If you’re not saying that there’s not a genetic contributor to this type of behavior, then we don’t disagree. But then you get slippery and talk about “other posters” and the claims they are making. Are you debating me with that comment or not? Because no claim that I’ve made requires data saying that “there is a gene for alcoholism.” I’m saying that there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism and that if you have many of the genes that contribute to alcoholism , then, given a poor environment, you are more likely to be an alcoholic than if you don’t have many of those genes. And those same genes can also contribute to other addictive behaviors. So if you want to say that there are genes that contribute to addictive behaviors, of which alcoholism is one, then we’d agree.
[quote=Rustico]I will go all in that we are all wired for consumption problems on some level and that there is not much variation in degree. I am not sure if this is genetic, pyschological or both, perhaps it is properly called “instinctual”. A vestigial survival device from prehistoric times. Alcoholism is a combination of a significantly poor environment interfering with mental standard that enforce proper self care, bad education on the topic, and chemistry. I agree it is very dangerous to conflate the problem by espousing that it is of a genetic origin specific to large numbers of people but not others.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “mental standard that enforce proper self care,” but it seems like you start this paragraph by saying that we are wired for consumption problems indicating, correct me if I’m wrong, you think there’s a genetic component. And then you describe alcoholism as caused by strictly environmental factors. Please clarify.
[quote=Rustico]
To the other participants,
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. “Professional” research documented in studies of questionable methods, that are incapable of getting repeatable results, which are full of disclaimers in the footnotes that render that inconclusive… are not representative of what passes for proof in this day. Please look more closely at the evidence.[/quote]Pretty sure that doesn’t apply to any of my arguments, but if you think it does, let me know.
Participant[quote=Rustico]That’s right,Arraya. I am not saying there is not a genetic contributor to this TYPE of behavior. The comment being made by other posters require data specific to the claims they are making. Specifically that there is a gene for alcoholism.[/quote]
If you’re not saying that there’s not a genetic contributor to this type of behavior, then we don’t disagree. But then you get slippery and talk about “other posters” and the claims they are making. Are you debating me with that comment or not? Because no claim that I’ve made requires data saying that “there is a gene for alcoholism.” I’m saying that there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism and that if you have many of the genes that contribute to alcoholism , then, given a poor environment, you are more likely to be an alcoholic than if you don’t have many of those genes. And those same genes can also contribute to other addictive behaviors. So if you want to say that there are genes that contribute to addictive behaviors, of which alcoholism is one, then we’d agree.
[quote=Rustico]I will go all in that we are all wired for consumption problems on some level and that there is not much variation in degree. I am not sure if this is genetic, pyschological or both, perhaps it is properly called “instinctual”. A vestigial survival device from prehistoric times. Alcoholism is a combination of a significantly poor environment interfering with mental standard that enforce proper self care, bad education on the topic, and chemistry. I agree it is very dangerous to conflate the problem by espousing that it is of a genetic origin specific to large numbers of people but not others.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “mental standard that enforce proper self care,” but it seems like you start this paragraph by saying that we are wired for consumption problems indicating, correct me if I’m wrong, you think there’s a genetic component. And then you describe alcoholism as caused by strictly environmental factors. Please clarify.
[quote=Rustico]
To the other participants,
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. “Professional” research documented in studies of questionable methods, that are incapable of getting repeatable results, which are full of disclaimers in the footnotes that render that inconclusive… are not representative of what passes for proof in this day. Please look more closely at the evidence.[/quote]Pretty sure that doesn’t apply to any of my arguments, but if you think it does, let me know.
Participant[quote=Rustico]That’s right,Arraya. I am not saying there is not a genetic contributor to this TYPE of behavior. The comment being made by other posters require data specific to the claims they are making. Specifically that there is a gene for alcoholism.[/quote]
If you’re not saying that there’s not a genetic contributor to this type of behavior, then we don’t disagree. But then you get slippery and talk about “other posters” and the claims they are making. Are you debating me with that comment or not? Because no claim that I’ve made requires data saying that “there is a gene for alcoholism.” I’m saying that there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism and that if you have many of the genes that contribute to alcoholism , then, given a poor environment, you are more likely to be an alcoholic than if you don’t have many of those genes. And those same genes can also contribute to other addictive behaviors. So if you want to say that there are genes that contribute to addictive behaviors, of which alcoholism is one, then we’d agree.
[quote=Rustico]I will go all in that we are all wired for consumption problems on some level and that there is not much variation in degree. I am not sure if this is genetic, pyschological or both, perhaps it is properly called “instinctual”. A vestigial survival device from prehistoric times. Alcoholism is a combination of a significantly poor environment interfering with mental standard that enforce proper self care, bad education on the topic, and chemistry. I agree it is very dangerous to conflate the problem by espousing that it is of a genetic origin specific to large numbers of people but not others.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “mental standard that enforce proper self care,” but it seems like you start this paragraph by saying that we are wired for consumption problems indicating, correct me if I’m wrong, you think there’s a genetic component. And then you describe alcoholism as caused by strictly environmental factors. Please clarify.
[quote=Rustico]
To the other participants,
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. “Professional” research documented in studies of questionable methods, that are incapable of getting repeatable results, which are full of disclaimers in the footnotes that render that inconclusive… are not representative of what passes for proof in this day. Please look more closely at the evidence.[/quote]Pretty sure that doesn’t apply to any of my arguments, but if you think it does, let me know.
Participant[quote=Rustico]That’s right,Arraya. I am not saying there is not a genetic contributor to this TYPE of behavior. The comment being made by other posters require data specific to the claims they are making. Specifically that there is a gene for alcoholism.[/quote]
If you’re not saying that there’s not a genetic contributor to this type of behavior, then we don’t disagree. But then you get slippery and talk about “other posters” and the claims they are making. Are you debating me with that comment or not? Because no claim that I’ve made requires data saying that “there is a gene for alcoholism.” I’m saying that there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism and that if you have many of the genes that contribute to alcoholism , then, given a poor environment, you are more likely to be an alcoholic than if you don’t have many of those genes. And those same genes can also contribute to other addictive behaviors. So if you want to say that there are genes that contribute to addictive behaviors, of which alcoholism is one, then we’d agree.
[quote=Rustico]I will go all in that we are all wired for consumption problems on some level and that there is not much variation in degree. I am not sure if this is genetic, pyschological or both, perhaps it is properly called “instinctual”. A vestigial survival device from prehistoric times. Alcoholism is a combination of a significantly poor environment interfering with mental standard that enforce proper self care, bad education on the topic, and chemistry. I agree it is very dangerous to conflate the problem by espousing that it is of a genetic origin specific to large numbers of people but not others.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “mental standard that enforce proper self care,” but it seems like you start this paragraph by saying that we are wired for consumption problems indicating, correct me if I’m wrong, you think there’s a genetic component. And then you describe alcoholism as caused by strictly environmental factors. Please clarify.
[quote=Rustico]
To the other participants,
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. “Professional” research documented in studies of questionable methods, that are incapable of getting repeatable results, which are full of disclaimers in the footnotes that render that inconclusive… are not representative of what passes for proof in this day. Please look more closely at the evidence.[/quote]Pretty sure that doesn’t apply to any of my arguments, but if you think it does, let me know.
Participant[quote=Rustico]That’s right,Arraya. I am not saying there is not a genetic contributor to this TYPE of behavior. The comment being made by other posters require data specific to the claims they are making. Specifically that there is a gene for alcoholism.[/quote]
If you’re not saying that there’s not a genetic contributor to this type of behavior, then we don’t disagree. But then you get slippery and talk about “other posters” and the claims they are making. Are you debating me with that comment or not? Because no claim that I’ve made requires data saying that “there is a gene for alcoholism.” I’m saying that there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism and that if you have many of the genes that contribute to alcoholism , then, given a poor environment, you are more likely to be an alcoholic than if you don’t have many of those genes. And those same genes can also contribute to other addictive behaviors. So if you want to say that there are genes that contribute to addictive behaviors, of which alcoholism is one, then we’d agree.
[quote=Rustico]I will go all in that we are all wired for consumption problems on some level and that there is not much variation in degree. I am not sure if this is genetic, pyschological or both, perhaps it is properly called “instinctual”. A vestigial survival device from prehistoric times. Alcoholism is a combination of a significantly poor environment interfering with mental standard that enforce proper self care, bad education on the topic, and chemistry. I agree it is very dangerous to conflate the problem by espousing that it is of a genetic origin specific to large numbers of people but not others.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “mental standard that enforce proper self care,” but it seems like you start this paragraph by saying that we are wired for consumption problems indicating, correct me if I’m wrong, you think there’s a genetic component. And then you describe alcoholism as caused by strictly environmental factors. Please clarify.
[quote=Rustico]
To the other participants,
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. “Professional” research documented in studies of questionable methods, that are incapable of getting repeatable results, which are full of disclaimers in the footnotes that render that inconclusive… are not representative of what passes for proof in this day. Please look more closely at the evidence.[/quote]Pretty sure that doesn’t apply to any of my arguments, but if you think it does, let me know.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
Participant[quote=Rustico] Some individual people,even groups of people, are just better prepared by various kinds of histories, to become extremely addicted to something than others are,but probably without any genetic differences to attribute. Is bulimia/Anorexia genetic because it is largely an American Phenomena?[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re saying that because bulimia is largely an American phenomenon, it therefore probably has no genetic component. But if you are, that is faulty logic. It’s possible that a certain percentage of the population (taking away race, and counting humans as a whole) are genetically predisposed to bulimia, but only get it if they are exposed to the right (wrong) conditions. And maybe only in America do we have those conditions. So the highest rates would be among those who both have the genetic predisposition and live in America
[quote=Rustico]Belief that it is the ethnicity of the people , without an attempt to debunk with a study of culture/histories can create some self fulfilling prophecy problems that lead to this speculation/confirmation bias with regard to genetics and problem drinking, crack cocaine use or abuse of anything else. Alcoholism depends on weaknesses of all kinds, but the problem drinking is still a symptom not a disease.[/quote]
I don’t think the ethnicity of a person that predisposes a person to alcoholism. (A very large percentage of Oriental people have a gene that doesn’t allow them to metabolize alcohol the way most people do. But I don’t think that predisposes them to alcoholism. In fact, I know 7 or 8 people with that gene, including my wife. And none of them drink very much at all.) But I am fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to alcoholism. I think there’s a genetic component to nearly all things mental, emotional and physical. Anybody with two or more kids can tell you how different they were temperamentally, and how they were that way regardless of environmental influence. Studies of identical twins raised separately reveal astonishing personality similarities despite wildly different upbringings.
If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.
If you’re saying that certain races aren’t more likely than others to be alcoholics, well, that could go either way. I’m not aware of any studies that have shown one way or the other. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
Saying that there’s a genetic component doesn’t mean that it’s strictly genetic. It’s probably more similar to being shy than it is to eye color. You’re predisposed by your genes to be shy, but you can be moved toward not being shy with the proper upbringing. Whereas if your genes say green eyes, then you have green eyes.
As to whether it’s a disease, well, that depends on what you mean by disease. Is schizophrenia a disease? Can’t the schizo just ignore the voices in his head and not kill his dog? Is anorexia a disease? Just eat something, for god’s sake. Is bipolar disorder a disease? I think people hear “disease” and they think that means it’s something you catch and have no control whatsoever over. But that’s not really what disease means. Sure, the anorexic could eat. But she doesn’t want to. Why doesn’t she? Because she’s mentally ill. She has a disease. Would you argue that? I don’t know if anyone is arguing that alcoholism is a physical disease. But it’s hard to argue that it’s not a mental illness. Who in their right mind drinks until they’ve lost their family, their possessions, their friends, their health, and their will to live?
-
AuthorPosts
