Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a Bush?)

[Guest guest]

The Scientist as the modern day High Priest. Just as corrupt and misguided

using theories as fact to further power.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: <12-step-free >

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 23:45:31 -0500

>

> >> Now, to address your point -- if you acknowledge that drinking

>instruction learned in the home has a significant effect on

>adolescent/adult

>drinking decisions, why the posts advocating meds for all children deemed

>to

>be " potential future alcohol abusers " ?? You have presented the position

>that those who are labeled by someone else to have the hypothetical

>POTENTIAL for alcohol abuse ought to be PREVENTED, by chemical means (or

>even in-utero manipulation of some kind) from ever being able to even TRY

>moderate drinking.<<

>

>Let me rephrase. I don't advocate mandatory meds. I think the offer of such

>meds, should we reach that state, should be made. Similar to say,

>naltrexone

>is now offered.

>And, in line with your thought, those meds might help some people become

>moderate drinkers. I don't advocate moderation for alcoholics myself. I was

>advised a lot of people do on this list, and that's fine for you. I don't,

>is all I'm saying.

> >

> > > I am certainly no Luddite. I welcome scientific research and

>inquiry. But genetic/biochemical manipulation to rid fetuses/children of

>hypothetical future " undesirable " traits and behaviors seems dreadfully

>reminiscent of eugenicism and Nazism to me. <<

>

>Ahh, now we get to the heart of the matter. As I noted in earlier posts,

>this is exactly why behaviorism became ***the*** school of psychological

>thought in America after WWII. (Not to mention unenlightened

>sterilizations,

>etc. here in America.) However, that's an illogical line of thought, of

>course. First of all, Nazi eugenics ideas were not scientific. None of

>their

>racist ideas were. Modern genetic engineering would be focused on

>individuals, not races. And that's a parental choice. To me, it's similar

>to

>arguments over abortion. Controversial, indeed. Individual rights are

>involved at the bottom. (And hopefully, as I wish were the case with

>abortion, where I am a true moderate, these individual rights are balanced

>by informed societal ethics.)

>

> >>Who gets to decide what is an " undesirable " human trait? You are the

>one

>who mentioned homosexuality -- many people are frightened of the

>phenomenon -- but what kind of society would encourage parents to attempt

>genetic/biochemical experimentation/alteration on fetuses/infants/children

>in an attempt to wipe out the " undesirable " future trait of

>homosexuality??<<

>

>Some parents might want to do that precisely to save their children from

>the

>bigotry that many homosexuals now face. I'm not saying I agree with

>thoughts

>like that. I'm not saying I condemn them either, though. And, speaking

>purely from a scientific point of view, homosexuality is not the " normal "

>sexual preference.

>People are already talking about having genetically engineered kids -- at

>least those rich enough to do it. If doctors can't do that here in the

>US...

>the Bahamas are just a quick flight away. Like I said, it's like atomic

>power. The ability is there. The desire for it to be further developed is

>also there. Why try to put an escaped genie back in a bottle? Instead, as

>people like Oppenheimer did after Hiroshima with atomic power, and to quote

>Isaiah, " come, let us reason together. "

> >

> >> Though genetic/biochemical factors may prove to be of some

>significance in the level of CHALLENGE involved in keeping drinking

>behavior

>within healthy parameters, I cannot support any ideology that seeks to

>prevent the challenge from being met. It really does sound to me like

>advocating the creation of an Uebermensch who excels at everything and

>finds

>nothing to be a challenge. There is something less than human about such

>an

>image.<<

>

>Genetic engineering would never be that effective. Now, the behaviorist is

>worried about the ultimately triumphant power of uebergenes? Won't happen.

>First, as I alluded to in one other post, many medical scientists are

>coming

>to a rough consensus that maternal hormones may have almost as much effect

>on a developing fetus as genetics. Barring a true artificial womb (which

>does sound sterile), that's unavoidable.

>And otherwise, genetics just set out parameters of behavior. For example,

>let's say 0 represents extreme shyness and 100 represents, say, Tony

>Robbins. Let's say, as per Kagan, a certain child has the genetic makeup to

>be moderately shy. That " moderately shy " could run from 20 to 35.

>Behavioral

>development will say where on that range. And that whole range may have

>shifted by the time the kid is 40. It may be, say 27-42 by that point.

>Steve

> >

> > I have rare occasion to agree with CoolGuy -- trust me, if he and I

>see eye-to-eye on this issue, it is very significant.

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

> >

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

,

Yes, people should think for themselves, however, if you make some general

claim, and want it to be taken seriously and thoughtfully, perhaps you could

try being more specific.

As to aa, you still haven't addressed the deceptive nature in which it was

conceived, nor it's continuing deceptive nature. Nor the fact that it

exacerbates many people problems more than it helps them. Nor the fact that

it's a great place to meet liars, cons, thieves, sociopaths, and the plain

ignorant and helpless. In light of what aa truly is - Oxford Group Movement

continued - a religion, with front men in treatment facilities, prisons, and

the National Counsel on Alcohol and Drug Abuse through with it receives

millions of federal dollars creating a state supported religion - it's far

from extreme to renounce it. I think it's time to expose and oppose it.

Jan

Oh also, I think Steve's emotional age is rather mature.

------------------------------------------

In a message dated 7/29/01 5:53:15 AM Central Daylight Time,

W51@... writes:

<< There are moderates on both sides of the divide and I feel that they help

people a lot more than the extremists do. Though those in here see AA to be

misguided it have been the first step to a recovery of sorts for many.

Changing ones life and understanding can be approached from many angles and

moved on from when one is ready.Without it many would not, could not, have

moved on to the positions they now hold in their refutation of it. In much

the same way medications have also been used short term as a help to see

people through a crisis and they may have not achieved a better life without

their help in the beginning.

One who is skilled with words can imply many certainties and prejudices

which escape the less literate. That is why I keep my comments to a minimum.

People should think for themselves.

In school if a teacher instructs that 2 + 2 = 5 then the brighest child in

class is he/she who can regurgitate that erroneous answer the fastest. This

relationship to heirarchy carries on into adulthood for many, many people. A

man who repeats whqat they do not understand is no more than an ass carrying

books. Do not confuse being well read with being knowledgable because it

does not follow.

I thought I had made the link between age and emotional understanding

quite clear in my earlier posts.

>From: doglvr000@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 06:32:38 EDT

>

>In a message dated 7/29/01 5:21:06 AM Central Daylight Time,

>W51@... writes:

>

><< A Stepper? Good heavens no. Does everyone that has a variant on your

>views

> have to be labeled and thus discarded so the views you hold remain firm

>in

> light of contradiction? I have been to aadeproramming.com on many

>occasions

> but i have little time for extremists on either side. >>

>

>:

>No, I don't need anyone to agree with me completely about anything. I

>don't

>believe aadeprogramming.com is extremist. It's very factual and a good

>source of information as to the true nature of 12 step groups. aa is scary

>and well financed by the federal govt. to the tune of millions of dollars.

>I

>apologize if I have labeled you. You do seem anti science, and kind of

>hostile to Steve. Steve's post are usually more specific than yours - you

>tend towards generalities. But keep on posting. I don't have to agree

>with

>you. I don't have to agree with anyone. If you would read the posts

>between

>Mona and Steve, it would be apparent that they respectfully disagree many

>times. However, you have flamed at Steve with questions like how old is

>he?

>What the hell difference does that make? Such a question undermines your

>credibility, not his.

>Jan

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> The Scientist as the modern day High Priest. Just as corrupt and misguided

> using theories as fact to further power.

First, I've never called scientists in general, as a class, high priests.

Any research by scientists would be decided on by politicians acting on

behalf of the citizenry in a republican government.

Example: Oppenheimer et al invented and crafted the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman, and not them, made the decision to use it.

Second, that's either an ignorant and willful misunderstanding of science.

The nature of science is not to " further " anything but the search for

knowledge. The whole nature of the scientific enterprise, by definition, is

that it *does not* claim it has possession of *any* absolute truth, unlike

high priesthoods.

Third, not all high priesthoods are corrupt.

Fourth, as far as societal power, scientists in America, unfortunately,

don't have any " power " to further. Your misinformed view of the nature of

science would be Exhibit A.

Now, how many more people on this list want to view scientific research and

advancement as a bogeyman, a front man for fascism, or any other misguided

thoughts you have?

Steve

[Guest guest]

Science has been of great benefit to SOME of humanity, not all of it by any

means. Whole cultures and creeds have been wiped out by the use of

scientific inventions for the benefit of some at cost to the many. Saying

that science has benefitted ALL mankind exhibits a myopacy borne out of

elitism. It is the fuel of Social Darwinianism.

>From: MonaHolland@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:24:10 EDT

>

>In a message dated 7/27/01 2:04:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

>steverino63@... writes:

>

>

> > I do believe " scientism " is an appropriate word for the philosophy that

> > would make the scientific approach to the world, a reductionist

>approach,

> > an overriding metaphysic for life. Science can't explain Shakespeare or

> > Rembrandt, for example.

> > But, as unbiased as possible, science can explain the facts of material

> > existence, and what we can do with those facts, far better than anything

> > else.

> >

>

>I could have written that entire post, but you put it all so well I'm glad

>I

>didn't try. I agree, scientism is not adequate to the human condition, but

>that science has been of inestimable value to humanity could be denied only

>by an idiot. I would not be alive today had I been born even 200 years go.

>Nor would I be communicating with people I like and enjoy, and experiencing

>the intellectually satisfying phenomenon of a world without borders.

>

>Science is the greatest benefit to humanity ever. It is not sufficient to

>human happiness, but it surely seems to have been necessary.

>

>--Mona--

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Its not about getting drunk more quickly, its about getting drunk all the

time.

>From: rita66@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:24:25 -0000

>

>

> >

> > I'm not denying that sociological conditions are an important

>predisposition

> > toward alcoholism. Perhaps the primary one.

> > Studies have shown that a majority of Orientals do not metabolize

>alcohol as

> > efficiently as other ethnic groups. Hence, raw alcohol builds up in

>their

> > bloodstream more quickly, meaning they can get drunk on less amount of

> > alcoholic beverages.

> > Whether that then leads to alcoholism more readily, I don't know.

> > And I grew up in Gallup, New Mexico, right across an arroyo from the

>city

> > jail, where at least 50 if not 100 Navajos would be discharged every

> > Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning.

> > Nobody needs to tell me about sociological factors behind alcoholism.

>But,

> > even if the sociological factors are primary, that doesn't exclude the

> > genetic influence, at least the one that causes many of Oriental/Amerind

> > background to get drunk more readily.

> > Steve

>

>------------------

>

> Hi Steve --

>

> Well, first off, demographic studies consistently show that Asians

>e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese have in fact very low rates of alcohol

>abuse/dependence -- even third-generation Chinese living in American

> " Chinatowns " have many firmly held cultural restrictions against

>over-indulgence, and very moderate drinking is widespread. So no, the

> " Asian flush " to which you alluded does not cause or correlate with alcohol

>abuse/dependence.

>

> But the crucial issue is that there is a tendency, when looking at

>genetic issues, to completely IGNORE cultural and socioeconomic factors in

>alcohol abuse/dependence. And the question should be asked, which subject

>is of more relevance to helping stop alcohol misuse? (Drugs as well, but

>let's keep the subject on alcohol for now.) " Alcoholism " , as says,

>is a folk expression that generally refers to the DSM diagnosis of Alcohol

>Dependence. It's only steppers who ascribe any other meaning to it -- e.g.

>an inborn " alcoholic personality " (completely discredited by research), a

> " spiritual emptiness " or " hole in the heart where God belongs " (mystical)

>-- and these beliefs then lead to the certainty that " alcoholism " is a

>permanent condition, and exists even if you become completely abstinent.

>

> But if you stick to the DSM criteria, it becomes obvious that

> " alcohol dependence " describes current and recent behavior only -- anyone

>who has not experienced any alcohol problems for over a year no longer can

>be diagnosed as " alcohol dependent " . And all studies show that the rate of

>so-called " relapses " falls off to near zero when more than a year has gone

>by with no drinking problems. Sobriety becomes easier with practice.

>

> Therefore, recovery paradigms based on an assumption that alcohol

>abuse/dependence is a BEHAVIORAL disorder, and that focus on changing that

>behavior, would seem to be more effective and appropriate than paradigms

>that lay a " permanent, incurable " status on the individual. And genetic

>pronouncements do just that. It's no surprise that steppers very much like

>to quote snippets from genetic studies -- it dovetails nicely with their

>already-held belief in alcoholism as an " incurable " condition that requires

>lifelong involvement with AA to keep " in remission " .

>

> Though I disagree with many things Jack Trimpey says and does, I do

>like what he says about the genetic studies -- namely, what difference does

>it make if someone has a " pre-disposition " toward liking alcohol very much

>-- no matter how much someone loves or craves alcohol, he/she can learn to

>ignore and resist that craving. And the genetic researchers offer

>absolutely no advice in that direction.

>

>~Rita

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

So, if debatatable sciencific methodology claims that there is an inherent

preinclination to alcoholism, that is acceptable ; but if dodgy theology

claims that there is the same condition then they have arrived at that

correct conclusion by erroneous means. Which temple or laboratory do we

attend to worship your form of logic and thought process Mona?

>From: MonaHolland@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 11:02:45 EDT

>

>In a message dated 7/27/01 7:26:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

>rita66@...

>writes:

>

>

> > Therefore, recovery paradigms based on an assumption that alcohol

> > abuse/dependence is a BEHAVIORAL disorder, and that focus on changing

>that

> > behavior, would seem to be more effective and appropriate than paradigms

> > that lay a " permanent, incurable " status on the individual. And genetic

> > pronouncements do just that. It's no surprise that steppers very much

>like

> > to quote snippets from genetic studies -- it dovetails nicely with their

> > already-held belief in alcoholism as an " incurable " condition that

>requires

> > lifelong involvement with AA to keep " in remission " .

> >

>

>Rita, I largely agree with everything you have posted, but let us not fall

>into the trap of rejecting truth because it is amenable to AA. The twin

>studies show a virtually inarguable genetic predisposition to over 200

>traits, including heavy consumption of alcohol. These studies are useful

>in

>demonstrating, for example, that homosexual orientation is not a " choice "

>or

>even necessarily the byproduct of nurture. Too many identical twins,

>raised

>apart, are both homosexual than could be explained by chance or choice.

>

>If there is a genetic predisposition to the heavy consumption of alcohol,

>that is not changed merely because AA finds the fact pleasing.

>

>--Mona--

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

>Science has been of great benefit to SOME of humanity, not all of it by any

>means. Whole cultures and creeds have been wiped out by the use of

>scientific inventions for the benefit of some at cost to the many. Saying

>that science has benefitted ALL mankind exhibits a myopacy borne out of

>elitism. It is the fuel of Social Darwinianism.

Ahh, you're blaming science for something that's not its fault. It is

politicians, military leaders, etc., who make the decisions to use these

scientific instruments for less than noble or moral purposes.

And, in most of these cases, if country A had not used these scientific

instruments in an ignoble way, some other country would have later.

And science does not take cultural stands, elitist or otherwise. However, to

the degree that science empowers people, it offers potential strength to

anti-elitists.

Science is certainly not the fuel of social Darwinism, either. A misuse, a

twisting of bits of science, is instead.

Let's look at the idea of " races, " for example. There is more genetic

variation within races than between them. So true science shows there is no

justification for social Darwinist racist theories.

Finally, I sense an almost Rousseauian extolling of the " noble savage. " Such

a culture never existed.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> So, if debatatable sciencific methodology claims that there is an inherent

> preinclination to alcoholism, that is acceptable ; but if dodgy theology

> claims that there is the same condition then they have arrived at that

> correct conclusion by erroneous means. Which temple or laboratory do we

> attend to worship your form of logic and thought process Mona?

I won't speak for Mona, but as I started this thread, I will offer my own

thoughts.

I don't worship at any temple. Science does not set itself up as a temple.

Rather, it sets up the discovery of knowledge and development of theories

with more explanatory power for the elements of life as a temple, if you

will.

Steve

[Guest guest]

The rates of alcoholism in Japan have shot through the roof since western

cultural norms were introduced post 1945. If Asian societies uses other

drugs for recreational purposes then it is in that direction a researcher

must look for abuse statisitics. To do otherwise makes the results of

addiction studies nigh on useless.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:52:42 -0500

>

>--------------

> >

> > Hi Steve --

> >

> > Well, first off, demographic studies consistently show that Asians

> >e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese have in fact very low rates of alcohol

> >abuse/dependence -- even third-generation Chinese living in American

> > " Chinatowns " have many firmly held cultural restrictions against

> >over-indulgence, and very moderate drinking is widespread. So no, the

> > " Asian flush " to which you alluded does not cause or correlate with

>alcohol

> >abuse/dependence.

>Well, I wasn't sure it did, either. So, I that's why I said I didn't know

>whether it was causative for alcoholism or not.

> >

> > But the crucial issue is that there is a tendency, when looking at

> >genetic issues, to completely IGNORE cultural and socioeconomic factors

>in

> >alcohol abuse/dependence. And the question should be asked, which

>subject

> >is of more relevance to helping stop alcohol misuse? (Drugs as well, but

> >let's keep the subject on alcohol for now.) " Alcoholism " , as

>says,

> >is a folk expression that generally refers to the DSM diagnosis of

>Alcohol

> >Dependence. It's only steppers who ascribe any other meaning to it --

>e.g.

> >an inborn " alcoholic personality " (completely discredited by research), a

> > " spiritual emptiness " or " hole in the heart where God belongs " (mystical)

> >-- and these beliefs then lead to the certainty that " alcoholism " is a

> >permanent condition, and exists even if you become completely abstinent.

>Wrong on your one sentence. It is NOT just steppers who ascribe " any other

>meaning " to it. Those who believe in genetic causes (and other biochemical

>causes, such as maternal hormones) do believe that the condition exists

>even

>if one becomes abstinent. Just as mania potential exists even if one is

>taking lithium

> >

> > But if you stick to the DSM criteria, it becomes obvious that

> > " alcohol dependence " describes current and recent behavior only -- anyone

> >who has not experienced any alcohol problems for over a year no longer

>can

> >be diagnosed as " alcohol dependent " . And all studies show that the rate

>of

> >so-called " relapses " falls off to near zero when more than a year has

>gone

> >by with no drinking problems. Sobriety becomes easier with practice.

>Actually, what I've seen, and yes, the surveys may be focused more toward

>12-step members, 5 years is considered a " cutoff " point -- 90 percent who

>have been sober 5 years, from longitudinal studies, remain so for life. I

>don't believe that " just " one year offers that level of relapse guarantee.

>Of course that depends also on exactly how you define relapse.

> >

> > Therefore, recovery paradigms based on an assumption that alcohol

> >abuse/dependence is a BEHAVIORAL disorder, and that focus on changing

>that

> >behavior, would seem to be more effective and appropriate than paradigms

> >that lay a " permanent, incurable " status on the individual. And genetic

> >pronouncements do just that. It's no surprise that steppers very much

>like

> >to quote snippets from genetic studies -- it dovetails nicely with their

> >already-held belief in alcoholism as an " incurable " condition that

>requires

> >lifelong involvement with AA to keep " in remission " .

>And non-steppers can believe the physical predisposition is permanent

>without having any " recruitment agenda. " Plus, as I said in other posts, a

> " genetic pronouncement " may offer a better hope for cure than does an

>entirely behaviorial model. Third, again, I am not myself talking about

> " either-or " -- I am talking about " both-and " , which, I notice in many

>online

>forums, is quite rare.

> > Though I disagree with many things Jack Trimpey says and does, I do

> >like what he says about the genetic studies -- namely, what difference

>does

> >it make if someone has a " pre-disposition " toward liking alcohol very

>much

> >-- no matter how much someone loves or craves alcohol, he/she can learn

>to

> >ignore and resist that craving. And the genetic researchers offer

> >absolutely no advice in that direction.

>Not true. Again, if that predisposition involves brain chemistry, and drugs

>already on the market can help with that, the genetic angle says, look, we

>may be able to help you in advance.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

A biochemical/gentetic predisposition towards alcoholism is theory only, not

fact To attack others with theory and call it scientific truth is the alter

ego of Steppers in action. Both sit on the margins to validate their own

fragile reality.

>From: MonaHolland@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:18:28 EDT

>

>In a message dated 7/27/01 9:13:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

>rita66@...

>writes:

>

>

> > I think it is very ill-advised to tell people they have a

> > " biochemical/genetic pre-disposition " towards abusive drinking -- it

> > presents an " I can't help myself " excuse for continued unhealthy

>behavior.

> >

> > Instead, I feel that it's far better to simply say, " You've been

> > engaging in unhealthy drinking behavior, but you have the power to

>change

> > that behavior. " There are, of course, many different methods of

> > facilitating that behavioral change (of which AA is among the least

> > effective and for those of us on this list, the most repulsive!).

> >

>

>Telling people the truth is virtually always the right thing to do.

>Withholding from them that they have a biochemical/genetic predisposition

>to

>heavy drinking is morally wrong, because this is information about a

>person's

>own body to which he or she is manifestly entitled.

>

>Armed with this information, a person could exercise greater care about how

>they use alcohol. Certainly it need not translate into an " I can't help

>myself " attitude, because a predisposition is just that -- not an

>irresistible compulsion.

>

>--Mona--

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

No doubt the Steppers would say, God is hard to define but there is a God,

in much the same way you say " boundries are pretty fuzzy at times but there

are, nonetheless, boundries. mmmmmmmmmmmm???

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:10:59 -0500

>

>

> >

> > OK -- but shouldn't EVERYONE " watch their drinking " ? The vast

> >majority of DUI's are committed by people who are NOT " alcoholics " , and

>who

> >therefore would not have the " genetic pre-disposition " of which you

>speak.

>Yes, but I believe that those with a biological/genetic predisposition have

>a *greater need* to watch it.

> >

> > My point is not that there IS no genetic variance, but rather that

> >teaching/learning responsible drinking is appropriate for everyone,

> >regardless of genetics or biochemistry. (As is teaching healthy eating

> >habits.)

> >

> > In short, I'm not a big fan of seeing the human population as

>sharply

> >divided into " alcoholics " and " non-alcoholics " . The behavioral

> >understanding involves seeing alcohol use and alcohol problems as being

>on

> >a continuum, and that in different periods of one's life, one can very

>well

> >move in any direction on the continuum. Longitudinal studies bear this

> >out.

>Oh, I agree that's true. And glad to hear you say it, too. I also believe

>there's fuzzy boundaries on the definition of alcoholics... maybe that's a

>better way, or a nuanced way of saying it. In other words, my POV is that

>its a continuum with a pretty thin midsection.... boudaries are pretty

>fuzzy at times, but there are nonetheless bondaries.

>Steve

>

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

>A biochemical/gentetic predisposition towards alcoholism is theory only,

>not

>fact To attack others with theory and call it scientific truth is the alter

>ego of Steppers in action. Both sit on the margins to validate their own

>fragile reality.

What part of factual clinical research do you not understand? Research has

also shown that personality traits such as shyness have a genetic component

to them. May I suggest something by Jerome Kagan of Harvard?

And facts aren't used to attack, they are simply presented as information.

Third, neither I nor Mona is at the altar ego of steppers. Just because

science and AA may agree on something doesn't mean that the science is only

a theory and an attacking one at that.

To put it directly, if both science and the " big book " said the earth

rotated around the sun, would you then believe this was only a theory and

not truth? Would you believe anybody who advocated this truth was acting as

the altar ego of 12 steppers?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>No doubt the Steppers would say, God is hard to define but there is a God,

>in much the same way you say " boundries are pretty fuzzy at times but there

>are, nonetheless, boundries. mmmmmmmmmmmm???

You obviously cannot understand that not all divisions in life are sharp

ones.

To give a simple example, where exactly is the boundary line between the

colors red and orange. You may call a certain shade red, whereas I call it

orange. Some other people may agree with me, and others with you.

Now, let's say we move further toward the orangish portion of the spectrum.

You may now agree with me and call this shade red. However, some of the

other people who agreed with you before may still call this new shade red.

Nevertheless, if we move far enough into the orangish portion of the

spectrum, we will eventually reach a shade that all will call orange and

none will call red.

Hence, it's perfectly simple to understand how one can talk about fuzzy

boundaries.

Fuzzy logic, which has many practical applications, such as computer

controls on most newer automatic transmissions, is somewhat analogous.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Using pseudo-facts to frighten people into agreeing with your postulations

is acceptable to you Steve? Does it keep your own world view intact? Ok, we

know where you stand. Thank you.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:55:47 -0500

>

>

> > > Telling people the truth is virtually always the right thing to do.

> > > Withholding from them that they have a biochemical/genetic

> >predisposition to

> > > heavy drinking is morally wrong, because this is information about a

> >person's

> > > own body to which he or she is manifestly entitled.

> > >

> >----------------

> >

> > Well, I certainly agree with you on the right to know medical

>truths

> >about yourself -- but as of this writing, " biochemical/genetic

> >pre-disposition " is merely speculation, not concrete scientific fact.

> >There IS no way to test for this purported " pre-disposition " gene --

>people

> >who have problem drinkers in their family are simply TOLD without any

> >proof, that they are " pre-disposed " to alcoholism.

>I believe it is truth. And it will prove to be more than one gene, which

>will make matters more complicated.

>

> > I wasn't referring to prevention of future alcohol problems -- I

> >meant that when a person is already engaging in irresponsible, unhealthy

> >drinking patterns, telling them their biology makes them do it is

> >counterproductive as well as unprovable. It often IS interpeted as

> > " irresistible compulsion " -- most definitions of " addiction " involve such

>a

> >concept.

>Well, let's turn this thread back to prevention of future alcohol problems.

>That was the focus of my posts, and I believe, of Mona's as well. From our

>belief that there is a genetic disposition, to me it makes excellent

>sense

>to tell people, " Look, you have this certain genetic makeup. "

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>Using pseudo-facts to frighten people into agreeing with your postulations

>is acceptable to you Steve? Does it keep your own world view intact? Ok, we

>know where you stand. Thank you.

No you don't know where I stand. You've never met me in person, and you've

only been reading my emails for 24 hours or so.

And I don't use pseudo-facts, only real ones. Your reaction to said facts is

your choice. You can choose to be enlightened rather than scared.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

What is the difference between, " one cant help himself but the group/HP can "

and " one can't help himself but the medications/gentic implants can? " Two

sides of the same coin.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:09:59 -0000

>

>

> > In a message dated 7/27/01 9:13:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

>rita66@w...

> > writes:

> >

> >

> > > I think it is very ill-advised to tell people they have a

> > > " biochemical/genetic pre-disposition " towards abusive drinking --

>it

> > > presents an " I can't help myself " excuse for continued unhealthy

>behavior.

> > >

> > > Instead, I feel that it's far better to simply say, " You've

>been

> > > engaging in unhealthy drinking behavior, but you have the power

>to change

> > > that behavior. " There are, of course, many different methods of

> > > facilitating that behavioral change (of which AA is among the

>least

> > > effective and for those of us on this list, the most repulsive!).

> > >

> >

> > Telling people the truth is virtually always the right thing to

>do.

> > Withholding from them that they have a biochemical/genetic

>predisposition to

> > heavy drinking is morally wrong, because this is information about

>a person's

> > own body to which he or she is manifestly entitled.

> >

> > Armed with this information, a person could exercise greater care

>about how

> > they use alcohol. Certainly it need not translate into an " I

>can't help

> > myself " attitude, because a predisposition is just that -- not an

> > irresistible compulsion.

>

> You are correct again Mona, and strangely enough I have never

>heard someone say, " you have a genetic predisposition to alcoholic

>drinking " wihtout being followed by " and that is a disease that can

>not be cured except by working the steps. "

> So, when the truth comes out as part of a lie, it does just as

>much harm as good, and in most cases does more harm than good. Most

>often it used as part of the XA lie, which conveys that one can't

>help himself, that only the group and the higher power can. And I

>sense that that is what Steve is trying to do, use the truth as a

>part of a bigger lie. By convincing us of this predisposition... I

>have a feeling he is about to lay something on us. Or I could be

>wrong; maybe it just seems that way. At least I am curious what the

>hell his point is/ or where he is going with all this?

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>What is the difference between, " one cant help himself but the group/HP

>can "

>and " one can't help himself but the medications/gentic implants can? " Two

>sides of the same coin.

They are totally different. I don't believe a higher power exists, and I

don't believe other people can induce changes in my brain neurotransmitters

or other functions of my metabolism. I believe the appropriate medications

would be able to do so in the case of alcoholism. In fact, with cravings,

Naltrexone is already demonstrating this to be true.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

" The Making of Intelligence " , Ken , Weidenfield and ( CN

8755 0 000000 087551)strongly disagrees with your statement below as

regards intelligence Mona. Its a good read for an open mind. Telling people

" facts " which are only assumptions is a very dangerous practice.

>From: MonaHolland@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:10:53 EDT

>

>In a message dated 7/27/01 11:58:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

>steverino63@... writes:

>

>

> > From our

> > belief that there is a genetic disposition, to me it makes excellent

> > sense

> > to tell people, " Look, you have this certain genetic makeup. "

> >

>

>Not only does it make practical sense, but it is information to which the

>person is entitled, if it is true. Genetic influence does make a

>difference;

>the only serious argument anymore with regard to everything from

>intelligence

>to illness, is to what extent it does so.

>

>--Mona--

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> " The Making of Intelligence " , Ken , Weidenfield and ( CN

>8755 0 000000 087551)strongly disagrees with your statement below as

>regards intelligence Mona. Its a good read for an open mind. Telling people

> " facts " which are only assumptions is a very dangerous practice.

Again, you are wrong, . Studies have indeed shown the genetic

influence on intelligence, and to further Mona's comment that the only thing

" outstanding " is the discussion over the degree of correlation, the numbers

I have seen show that a broad consensus pegs the genetic influence somewhere

between 30 and 50 percent.

Again, facts, not assumptions, support this.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

You are painting with too broad a brush. To equate all genetic research with

the subject in hand is reaching out into the margins to sustain a very shaky

position and bares little scrutiny. Luddites were not against science, per

se, but against the mis-use of science, which some would say you are engaged

in.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:20:42 -0500

>

>

> >

> > > From our

> > > belief that there is a genetic disposition, to me it makes excellent

> > > sense

> > > to tell people, " Look, you have this certain genetic makeup. "

> > >

> >

> >Not only does it make practical sense, but it is information to which the

> >person is entitled, if it is true. Genetic influence does make a

> >difference;

> >the only serious argument anymore with regard to everything from

> >intelligence

> >to illness, is to what extent it does so.

> >

> >--Mona--

>

>Exactly. People who say it has no influence at all, IMO, just aren't

>arguing

>seriously. If, like Cool Guy, they apparently have some Luddite fear of

>genetic engineering, well, that isn't going away. Wishful thinking didn't

>make atomic power go away, for both good and evil. It won't make genetic

>engineering disappear either.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>You are painting with too broad a brush. To equate all genetic research

>with

>the subject in hand is reaching out into the margins to sustain a very

>shaky

>position and bares little scrutiny. Luddites were not against science, per

>se, but against the mis-use of science, which some would say you are

>engaged

>in.

Au contraire, . Judging by how quickly, and ahead of schedule, the

gene sequencing of the Human Genome Project was completed, I'd say that, if

anything, I might have painted with a conservative brush.

Luddites were actually against technology more than science in the research

sense, but in any case it was not the misuse of science or technology they

opposed. Rather, they were against any science they feel threatened them,

especially, but not only, their jobs and livelihood.

And as to " some " saying I am engaged in the misuse of science, you're the

only one I've seen posting on this tonight.

Rita sent a thoughtful, considered post yesterday, to which I replied in

kind. Apparently, for now at least, that addressed her thoughts.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

You appear to have much misplaced faith Steve. How old are you?

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:54:36 -0500

>

> > > > Like you said, this notion that major alcohol problems have a

> > > >genetic cause doesn't do the person " still suffering " a damn bit of

> > > >good, and actually causes harm in most cases.

> > > Other than giving them an " excuse " to drink (and they'll find

> >another anyway

> > > if they're looking for one), how is it harmful?

> >

> > It can (and does for lots of steppers and stepper hopefuls) alter

> >a person's belief system to the point even once they want to change,

> >they will be unable to because they are convinced they are helpless.

>

>Oh, my god!!!! You mean, they will be ***so convinced*** they are helpless

>that they are powerless over their own beliefs???? Why, Cool Guy, you sound

>just like a....... Stepper, now, don't you?

>

>

> > No. That idea doesn't frighten me, but the predictable " cures "

> >for it are about as disgusting as XA itself. What scares me is that

> >moralists will be able to decide who needs genetic " enhancement " and

> >who doesn't before one is even born. That doesn't scare me

> >personally, as I've already been born. I don't like the fact that

> >people with different morals from me (example - people like you) will

> >be able to decide who comes out as what. Of course you have faith in

> >regulatory agencies (run by such moralists) whereas I do not.

>It's not faith in government regulatory agencies alone. It's faith in the

>marketplace of ideas, the moral codes most scientists follow, the

>involvement of ciizens in a democracy, and above all, being a member of the

>press myself, the watchdog work of the media.

>And ultimately, as I've said more than once... faith has nothing to do with

>it. Hitler tried to get his soldiers to have " faith " they could stop Soviet

>tanks. Didn't happen. Unless you're going to start bombing research labs,

>you can't stop further work on genetic studies, even if that gets to the

>point of genetic engineering.

>Beyond that, to follow the thought of Brave New World this time, big

>business scares me far more than big government ever will. If anybody winds

>up practicing genetic engineering for moral or psychological reasons, it

>will be Microsoft before Washington.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

In certain countries science has benefitted the individuals at a material

level but in many more it has decimated not only the cultures but the people

whol lived long and well balanced lives. Science has always promised more

than it could deliver and had little to say about the implications to others

outwith its cultural boundries. Peep out behind the Stars and Stripes and

embrace the reality of all humanity Steve, not just the ones who sustain you

in your views. Luddites, once more, are not against science per se, but

against the uses it is put too.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a

>Bush?)

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:02:26 -0500

>

> > I find a person who Believes in unbiased science both obtuse and

> >scary.

>

>First, I don't " believe " in unbiased science. It's nothing like religious

>faith. It is simply recognizing that the power of the modern scientific

>method, over the past two centuries, has extended the average human

>lifespan

>by 30 years, greatly eased human toil, allowed the senior years of one's

>life to be productive and healthy, created the potential for inexpensive

>world travel for all, and now, allowed instant communication via the

>wonders

>of email, the Internet and computers. In the future (not that I don't have

>a

>few reservations), genetically modified foods will allow us to eat more

>healthily while not putting so much strain on agricultural land.

>Irradiation

>will be fine-tuned to safely preserve even more produce foods. And more.

>If you really are going to be logically consistent about your beliefs

>above,

>you ought to unplug your computer, sell it for some stationery (after

>unsubscribing from this and other online forums), buy some candles, go chop

>some wood and plant your own garden.

>Second, I should slightly qualify my POV. Science is a human endeavor and

>no

>more unbiased than others.

>I do believe " scientism " is an appropriate word for the philosophy that

>would make the scientific approach to the world, a reductionist approach,

>an overriding metaphysic for life. Science can't explain Shakespeare or

>Rembrandt, for example.

>But, as unbiased as possible, science can explain the facts of material

>existence, and what we can do with those facts, far better than anything

>else.

>Steve

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>You appear to have much misplaced faith Steve. How old are you?

I think my " faith " is well-placed, if you are making an allusion to my faith

in scientific development. I prefer to think of it as wisdom. That wisdom is

not blindly proffered, however. I do not consider many individual scientific

advances to be unmixed blessings. Nuclear power can provide low-cost

electricity while saving the atmosphere from the pollution of coal or

natural gas burn byproducts and thus also alleviate possible global warming.

Genetic engineering of food can double or triple crop production but narrow

food variety so much that a new strain of bacterial blight could do more

damage than in the past.

My faith in scientific advances is carefully weighed and measured.

And age has nothing to do with such wisdom, or " faith, " to use your term. It

is quite possible for a 21-year old to be much wiser than many persons years

older.

In fact, when wisdom from new discovery or insight goes against a

conventional grain, youth, less entrenched in that conventional grain, may

find it easier to be wiser. Take young Einstein, who proposed the Special

Theory of Relativity at just 26 at set 250 years of Newtonian physics on its

head. The thought experiments that he used to generate his insights could

have been made by other physicists. Problems with Newtonian physics had been

around for nearly 20 years. But it was a young Einstein, not an older, more

entrenched physicists, who propounded Special Relativity.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>In certain countries science has benefitted the individuals at a material

>level but in many more it has decimated not only the cultures but the

>people

>whol lived long and well balanced lives. Science has always promised more

>than it could deliver and had little to say about the implications to

>others

>outwith its cultural boundries. Peep out behind the Stars and Stripes and

>embrace the reality of all humanity Steve, not just the ones who sustain

>you

>in your views. Luddites, once more, are not against science per se, but

>against the uses it is put too.

Now you definitely show you don't know me, , if you accuse me of

hiding behind the American flag. In other email groups, I've been attacked

as a Euro-liberal. Second, until my official identification now of myself as

an American, you had no way of knowing whether I was from this country or

not.

And I do consider all humanity. Scientifically guided hybridization has

doubled and tripled rice yields in India and East Asia in the last

generation.

Smallpox vaccinations, coming from the West but made cheaply available

*worldwide*, have eliminated that dread disease from the globe.

Peaceful nuclear power, through international atomic energy accords,

provides low cost electricity in countries that do not have abundant

reserves of coal, petroleum, or hydroelectric power.

I could go on, but I believe I've listed just a few of the benefits science

has brought to countries around the globe.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp