Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[zerospeaks]

Did you ignore the evidence that people can and do become alcoholics without any genetic predisposition? Can people become alcoholic without this predisposition or not?

I addressed that by stating that it could be possible that some people are not alcoholics but are classified that way.
I think it's a hard line to draw.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I'm sure it's not an either/or situation. People can probably become alcoholics with or without their genes playing a role, and the severity of their alcoholism will probably depend on a number of things.

I mentioned a book in another thread once that illustrated this. I'll quote part of what I said here since it's relevant. The book doesn't actually have anything to do with alcoholism, but happens to mention an experience the author had in a hospital working with alcoholics:

In a book about recovery from agoraphobia, (Freedom from Agoraphobia by Mark Eisenstadt), the author even goes so far as to say he once worked for six months as the doctor on an alcohol dependency ward, and some of the patients explained what they called "bottoming out". They said that was when an alcoholic had reached the point when drinking just cost too much to go on doing it so they'd stop. They said it was as if a decision made itself in them - something happened that finally made them decide they couldn't go on like that. The patients said for some alcoholics, it would take a lot more to get to that point than for others. For some, the point they made the firm decision to stop drinking would be when they'd lost their wives and kids, their jobs and their homes, and they found themselves sitting in freezing doorways drinking alcohol out of a bottle in a paper bag. On the next level up, some wouldn't stop drinking till they'd lost all that but had also had physical problems that had left them needing emergency treatment and had nearly killed them. The patients said for others, they wouldn't stop drinking this side of the grave.

The author said the patients also told him that if a man hadn't reached the point where the costs of drinking were just too high for him to carry on, then no matter how much part of him wanted to stop, and no matter how well-intentioned anyone who tried to help him was, he couldn't be helped.

The author says he thinks that's why Alcoholics' Anonymous has the concept of a higher power that can help people who are otherwise helpless to give up drinking themselves.

---------

But perhaps some good approaches just hadn't been tried with them that would have worked on some. Motivational counselling might go quite some way to changing the mind-sets of some of those people - talking them into being convinced that giving up will actually have benefits they really want, rather than simply being something they have to deny themselves. This might be one reason why religion can work for some - it can give them the promise of a new hopeful start in life, as well as a new set of things in their lives they can enjoy, which make up to some extent for the loss of drink in their lives so they're not just faced with a big void.

This article, based on a book called Freedom From Addiction contends that addiction is caused by very real physical phenomena working alongside psychological ones, and yet it can be mastered without recourse to a higher power or professional help, and by psychological means, (although clearly withdrawal from some things will have to take place under medical supervision). It explains in detail some psychological techniques that can be used. Just what percentage of addicts trying to stop it would help, I don't know. Still, such techniques might very well have a much higher success rate than Alcoholics Anonymous - I've read that their success rate is extremely low.

 

[MikeSun5]

Already posted it TWICE. You guys don't look at what I post and then demand evidence?
Thats a nice form of debating you got there.
You can never lose.

No. You said, "When they can condition a fear into an animal and then the offspring are BORN with the fear. "
Read the study again.

Don't waste your time, Jeff. Trust me. lionking, you too. I'm convinced that zerospeaks is simply trolling now (if not the entire time).

The word "sin" does not appear in the Big Book, nor does the name "Jesus Christ", but the absence of any mention of a thing in a given book is not a barrier to concluding that the book is in fact based on that very thing.

It's WELL understood by devout members of AA that religious salvation is pretty much the only path to sobriety. Anyone saying it's not is intentionally lying, deceiving themselves, or is extremely gullible.

Everyone knows you're not supposed to say "God" or "Jesus," so they just say stuff like "the creator," or "my God." They attempt to skirt the religion thing by claiming to be a non-denominational organization, but I mean how is this not religious? I guess atheists and agnostic alcoholics are just screwed.

So what have we learned? Alcoholism is a disease and the only way to manage said disease is God. Got it.

 

[AlBell]

It's WELL understood by devout members of AA that religious salvation is pretty much the only path to sobriety.

You are, at best, mis-informed.

Anyone saying it's not is intentionally lying, deceiving themselves, or is extremely gullible.

Some here appear to be afflicted by one or more of those defects I bolded.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I'll quote something else I posted as part of a long post in another thread, since some people might also be interested. It's from the What is the appeal of anti-psychiatry thread. Alcoholism may often run in families, but it isn't inevitable that it will do so, so any genetic factors there may be, it seems, can be over-ridden under the right circumstances. I posted a quote from a book called Living on the Razor's Edge: Solution-Oriented Brief Family Therapy with Self-Harming Adolescents by Matthew Selekman, about research that's been done into people who come from stressful backgrounds, and yet don't suffer the serious problems as adults that many others do as a result of traumatic upbringings. The quote's just a very brief outline of the research, along with some of his opinions:

Over the past 30 years, there have been a number of studies conducted with at-risk children and adolescents growing up in high-stress, abusive, and chaotic home and community environments who have "beat the odds " and prevailed over adversity. (gives about half a dozen references] In some cases, these "super kids" had to cope throughout their childhoods with a parent who grappled with a chronic mental illness or a serious alcohol or substance abuse problem. Researchers have identified a core set of protective factors that appear to contribute to the resiliency of these children and adolescents. They are: effective and creative problem-solving abilities, strong social skills, the presence of at least one responsible and supportive caretaker, and successful experiences in school. ...

Some self-harming adolescents report feeling alienated and lack meaningful connections with their teachers. This is in line with a recent Search Institute survey of 100,000 students from 6th through 12th grades, which found that only one in four students reported that they went to a school where adults and other students cared about them (Applebome, 1999). I honestly believe that if every child or adolescent had a meaningful connection with at least one teacher in their school for emotional support and guidance, there would be far fewer extreme behavioral difficulties such as youth violence and self-harming behaviors occurring in our schools. Some good empirical evidence supports this belief. In his longitudinal research, Anthony (1984, 1987) found that the primary protective factor that at-risk inner-city children identified as helping them to overcome adversity while growing up was their inspirational others. The inspirational others were older siblings, extended family members, teachers, coaches, clergy, adult friends of the family, and community leaders.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Having given the Study Zerospeaks posted another look, and some further thought, and comparing it to a report I have just read, and a programme I watched this afternoon on the so-called Warrior Gene; I am prepared to tentatively conclude that the theory commonly known as "Lamarckism" may have some amount of merit to it.

Science Daily--'Warrior Gene' Predicts Aggressive Behavior After Provocation:

Several studies have found a correlation between the low-activity form of MAOA and aggression in observational and survey-based studies. Only about a third of people in Western populations have the low-activity form of MAOA. By comparison, low-activity MAOA has been reported to be much more frequent (approaching two-thirds of people) in some populations that had a history of warfare. This led to a controversy over MAOA being dubbed the “warrior gene.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

It doesn't really change my stance vis a vis the topic of this thread, if anything I think it demonstrates that my position that more one model is necessary to understand behaviour patterns, addictive or otherwise.

However, it is suggestive that in some cases genetic predispositions in offspring might indeed be caused by environmental and prior behavioural stressors modifying genetic expressions in the parents.

"Lamarckism" may be an out-dated term, and I'm certainly not suggesting we ought to adopt every aspect of that theory, but in principle "epigenetic" factors could plausibly be considered as having effects on Natural Selection.

Inasmuch as I think more than model is necessary to understand the varying causes, and types of addictive behaviour, we probably should be willing to consider that our previous concepts of Natural Selection should be expanded, particularly in terms of predispositions towards behaviour patterns in some population groups.

I'm not sure that Zerospeaks choice of wording quite conveyed the complexities of these issues, but I do think that he has a point. And I no longer think he was missing the point of the study regarding lasting effects of epigenetic influences on behaviours.

Clearly many more studies need to be done in this area before reaching any hard and fast conclusions, but the empirical data presented dictates that we should be open to expanding our concepts.

But to reiterate; this doesn't alter my position that the Disease Model of addiction is only appropriate in some cases. Nor does it alter my view that "addiction" is not an appropriate term for some behaviours currently falling into that category.

Nor does it change my view that AA is a Religious Programme.

GB

 

[jiggeryqua]

I guess you haven't read the Bible,

You're wrong.

examined the doctrines of various major Christian Denominations,

Also wrong.

been to Christian Churches,

Wrong again.

hung out with Christians,

And wrong again.

or argued with Christians very much then.

And wrong again. Consistent, aintcha

But in the Christian World-view,

My emphasis. Wrong again...

generally speaking,

Ah, I see now how the errors creep in...

everything starts with Original Sin.

Everything?

Disease, and Death are all due to Sin in the Christian World-view.

Ah, those two things. ('Both' would be more correct than 'all', by the way).

Of course many non-literalist, liberal, and casual Christians may not pay much attention to that Doctrine.

Ah, there we are - the christians I have hung out or argued with haven't been 'true scotsmen christians'.

But it is at the core of Christian Doctrine. Not so much in Judaism which doesn't have the concept of Original Sin.

Or in Buddhism, I suppose? Why are you confusing the issue with other religions? That said, the original sin was Adam & Eve's, wasn't it? They're not part of christianity, per se, they're from the jewish writings that Christ would have been educated in.

But Conservative Protestant Evangelical Christianity is the dominant form of Christianity in the US.

Is it? I'll have to take your word for it (though on your current record that doesn't seem to stand for much). May I remind you that this is the world-wide web? While many americans seem to imagine they are the standard by which other cultures are measured, other cultures don't always see it that way and it's certainly not true that American Conservative Protestant Evangelical Christianity is christianity, nor is it the dominant form of anything outside the US.

And they take those Doctrines very seriously. AA is based on Evangelical Protestantism. All of its founders and the people surrounding them (Rev Shoemaker, the good Dr Silkworth, Norman Vincent Peale et al) were all Protestants. Thus the basic tenets of AA are based on Protestant Christian Doctrine. In that Doctrine Sin=Disease, that is why the good Dr Silkworth called Christ the "Great Physician".

See the links in the post above for more information on Dr Silkworth and his relationship with Bill Wilson and AA.

GB

How interesting (though irrelevant to your claim that prompted my wry comment and your litany of inaccurate guesswork).

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You're wrong.



Also wrong.



Wrong again.



And wrong again.



And wrong again. Consistent, aintcha



My emphasis. Wrong again...



Ah, I see now how the errors creep in...


Everything?



Ah, those two things. ('Both' would be more correct than 'all', by the way).



Ah, there we are - the christians I have hung out or argued with haven't been 'true scotsmen christians'.



Or in Buddhism, I suppose? Why are you confusing the issue with other religions? That said, the original sin was Adam & Eve's, wasn't it? They're not part of christianity, per se, they're from the jewish writings that Christ would have been educated in.


Is it? I'll have to take your word for it (though on your current record that doesn't seem to stand for much). May I remind you that this is the world-wide web? While many americans seem to imagine they are the standard by which other cultures are measured, other cultures don't always see it that way and it's certainly not true that American Conservative Protestant Evangelical Christianity is christianity, nor is it the dominant form of anything outside the US.



How interesting (though irrelevant to your claim that prompted my wry comment and your litany of inaccurate guesswork).

The fact that you questioned that Christian Doctrine is based on the concept of Original Sin suggests that you are not particularly familiar with Christian Doctrines.

Both Catholic and Reformation Churches adhere to the concept of Original Sin, but they distinguish themselves in part by how the issue of Grace attains to the Sinner (in many Reformation Churches Grace is achieved by Faith alone, Catholics generally subscribe to a doctrine of Good Works + Faith), and over issues such as Total Depravity which is a doctrine of some, but not all Reformed Churches.

Eastern Orthodox denominations also subscribe to a concept of Original Sin, but generally do not subscribe to the concept of Total Depravity.

http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/originalsin.htm

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/original-sin.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

http://cathvprot.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

You're very good at saying that I'm "wrong" without actually demonstrating how I'm wrong.

I brought up Judaism because of its historical connection to Christianity, and to demonstrate that the concept of Original Sin did not originate with Jewish Doctrine.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm

As I myself am not a Christian, I accept all self-identifying Christians at face value. If they want to fight over who is a "True" Christian, that's their business, not mine.

Historically Protestant Denominations have been the pre-eminent form of Christianity in the US, though some studies show that they are declining.

The largest religion in the US is Christianity, practiced by the majority of the population (76% in 2008). From those queried, roughly 51.3% of Americans are Protestants, 25% are Catholics, and 1.7% are Mormons (the name commonly used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and 1.6% to various other Christian denominations. Christianity was introduced during the period of European colonization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

I made no claim regarding the US as a standard by which other nations should be measured.

My claims that AA is religious and based on Protestant doctrine are based on documentary evidence. Please see the AA thread for the evidence.

So I can back up my assertions with evidence. Where's yours?

GB

 

[zerospeaks]

I must agree with Gandalfs beard on AA being religious and based on a more protestant doctrine.
If I were ever ordered to go to AA by a judge I would challenge the constitutionality of that ruling due to my atheism.
For they force you to accept a higher power and tell you the higher power is god of the bible.
I know.... they did a doozy on my brother.

A south park penn and teller episode sums it up nicely.

 

[jiggeryqua]

You're very good at saying that I'm "wrong" without actually demonstrating how I'm wrong.

Well, you see, the bulk of those "you're wrong"s were in regard to your guesses (and you did at least concede they were merely guesses) about me. I'm not sure how I can 'demonstrate' that I've read the bible (a number of times, and in the case of some books I still return to it), how I demonstrate that I have hung out with and argued with christians, and so on.

I just assert that you are wrong in your guesses because you are wrong. A simple, humble apology would be in order, but I don't actually expect one.

Oh, you were also wrong in referring to 'the' christian world view, as though there were only one (that doesn't need 'demonstrating', your error is self-evident) and wrong in using 'all' to refer to a list of two things (where 'both' would be correct - I could 'demonstrate' that, I suppose, if you cared to claim grammatical validity).

Really, you've just added another error, eh?

 

[jiggeryqua]

The fact that you questioned that Christian Doctrine is based on the concept of Original Sin suggests that you are not particularly familiar with Christian Doctrines.

Found another one...

You suggested something was common knowledge. I said I did not know it, and perhaps wasn't common enough.

This has become, in your mind, the following 'fact': that I questioned that Christian Doctrine is based on the concept of Original Sin.

Disregarding the other questionable elements of that, do you see how something that is in no sense a fact does not become a fact just because you label it 'fact'? I fear not...

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well, you see, the bulk of those "you're wrong"s were in regard to your guesses (and you did at least concede they were merely guesses) about me. I'm not sure how I can 'demonstrate' that I've read the bible (a number of times, and in the case of some books I still return to it), how I demonstrate that I have hung out with and argued with christians, and so on.

I just assert that you are wrong in your guesses because you are wrong. A simple, humble apology would be in order, but I don't actually expect one.

Oh, you were also wrong in referring to 'the' christian world view, as though there were only one (that doesn't need 'demonstrating', your error is self-evident) and wrong in using 'all' to refer to a list of two things (where 'both' would be correct - I could 'demonstrate' that, I suppose, if you cared to claim grammatical validity).

Really, you've just added another error, eh?

Found another one...

You suggested something was common knowledge. I said I did not know it, and perhaps wasn't common enough.

This has become, in your mind, the following 'fact': that I questioned that Christian Doctrine is based on the concept of Original Sin.

Disregarding the other questionable elements of that, do you see how something that is in no sense a fact does not become a fact just because you label it 'fact'? I fear not...

This is a Thread about Alcoholism, Addiction, and the various Conceptual models that can be used to define them. So I'll make this response as brief as possible so as not to continue your derail.

Yes, it's quite possible that I am wrong about your lack of knowledge of Christian doctrines. And I would be happy to apologize if you actually demonstrated some knowledge of Christian Doctrines. Until then...(hopefully on a more appropriate thread).

Yes, there are many denominations of Christianity with differing views. However, to the extent they all self-identify as Christian, one can assert the core doctrines and world-view that define Christianity as a whole. Then one can move on and discuss the differences between the various denominations.

As to your suggestion that you weren't "common enough" to understand my point, I simply took that as the snark you intended to convey . The "common knowledge" I referred to was that Christianity's (as a whole) Core Doctrine centered around a concept of Original Sin--from which the alleged Christ was sent to redeem us.

And that this Original Sin is the reason for humankind's "Fallen State", i.e. our susceptibility to Death, Disease, and Suffering. Hence, for the sake of brevity I asserted that Sin=Disease, assuming (apparently wrongly ) that most people at JREF have a basic knowledge of this Christian concept.

As to facts, you have yet to provide any factual evidence to challenge my assertions.

If, perchance, we meet again on a thread regarding Christian Doctrines, I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you.

GB

 

[zerospeaks]

I think I speak for all of us on this thread when I say that a derailment to theology is understandable due to the attempts religions play combating addiction as compared to modern empirical scientific research.

 

[littleroundman]

I think I speak for all of us on this thread when I say that a derailment to theology is understandable due to the attempts religions play combating addiction as compared to modern empirical scientific research.

Yep,

you're right.

Like the modern empirical scientific research which says that every single one of the 10 MILLION plus "alcoholics" to be currently found in the United States was born with a genetic predisposition to "alcoholism" and that there is no possible way any other factor and/or combination of factors could be at play.

 

[zerospeaks]

Like the modern empirical scientific research which says that every single one of the 10 MILLION plus "alcoholics" to be currently found in the United States was born with a genetic predisposition to "alcoholism" and that there is no possible way any other factor and/or combination of factors could be at play.

Like the modern empirical scientific research which says that every single one of the 10 MILLION plus "alcoholics" to be currently found in the United States was born with a genetic predisposition to "alcoholism" and that there is also other factors in play that need to be studied further.


There. Fixed that for you.

 

[lionking]

Like the modern empirical scientific research which says that every single one of the 10 MILLION plus "alcoholics" to be currently found in the United States was born with a genetic predisposition to "alcoholism" and that there is also other factors in play that need to be studied further.

Where is this research that shows all alcoholics in the US were born with a genetic predisposition?

You are still making things up and not even falling back on your (fictitious?) wife.

 

[zerospeaks]

Where is this research that shows all alcoholics in the US were born with a genetic predisposition?

Are we really going back to this sad, tired, overused, abused, question AGAIN?!?

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/1/34

"In this first population-based study of male twins from the United States, it was found that genetic factors played a major role in the development of alcoholism among males, with similar influence for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. Prior findings implicating the influence of common environment may be attributable to sampling strategy; in this population-based sample, environmental factors shared by family members appear to have had little influence on the development of alcoholism in males."

Didn't even need to wake up my fictitious wife, who appears in some of my youtube videos and which you can actually watch playing in the snow and riding her scooter ...yet she is fictitious... sigh... in order to answer that.

 

[lionking]

Are we really going back to this sad, tired, overused, abused, question AGAIN?!?

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/1/34

"In this first population-based study of male twins from the United States, it was found that genetic factors played a major role in the development of alcoholism among males, with similar influence for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. Prior findings implicating the influence of common environment may be attributable to sampling strategy; in this population-based sample, environmental factors shared by family members appear to have had little influence on the development of alcoholism in males."

You said EVERY SINGLE ALCOHOLIC. This is wrong in every way.

I don't put people on ignore, but will make an exception for you. I have never experienced a more wilfully stubborn person on this forum. Your posts, when not displaying ignorance, are trollish. I'm certain not to learn anything from you.

Good forum feature, ignore.

 

[zerospeaks]

You said EVERY SINGLE ALCOHOLIC.

Nope. Never said that.
In fact I said the opposite.
I have stated several times on this thread that many "alcoholics" may be misdiagnosed.

----added---

I posted a study that backed my claim, and then showed my "fictitious" wife to be real.... then I get ignored...
When did the JREF forums get taken over by people such as this?

 

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

I suppose because you've got Dr. in front of your Username I'm supposed to take your word for it on your Authority that the Disease Model is always the applicable model. Who do you think you are? Dr House? Oh...wait...that's who your fictional namesake wants to be.

Anyone who hasn't already and wants to can go to the "Why do people insist AA isn't a religion?" thread if they want to and join the discussion there. But if you post before bothering to actually read the posts there you can't expect your arguments to be given much credibility.

GB

Oy vey.
You do get that my username is as relevant to the question as your opinion (or AA's, for that matter), right ...?
Diseases aren't usually defined by consensus of laypeople on messageboards.
I think that's good.