🚀 go-pugleaf

Message-ID: <344CB30E.5300@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:50:06 -0400
From: Jason Seidel <jseidel@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Reply-To: jseidel@acsu.buffalo.edu
Organization: UB Counseling Center
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: deacon brett jason <z966528@oats.farm.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: biology and behavior
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.971020213630.2782A-100000@oats>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Brett.
Thanks again for your e-mail. I hope that you didn't find my criticisms
too discouraging. I certainly get passionate about this stuff, but I
really enjoy talking about it and trying to aid in the dialectic. So,
here's just a tiny bit more:-)

You wrote:
> If someone's biology is screwed up (as in the case of some monozygotic
> twins of schizophrenic patients or some sons of male alcoholics), and it is
 presumed to be screwed up since birth, how can we not at least look for a
 biological explanation for what is going on? Aren't there some cases where
 biology dictates experience profoundly more than vice versa?

The biology is not assumed to be screwed up since birth, but that the
gene expression of alcoholism or schiz gets switched on at critical
stress points in the organism/environment interaction (e.g., having
one's first ETOH exposure or living away from home for the first time).
The _potential_ to be screwed up later under _possible_ circumstances of
development that _add_ to one's presumed predisposition is very
different from already being screwed up from birth. This is a crucial
point because it's the difference between biological fatalism and
existential humanism. There are no cases of complex behavior in which
biology dictates experience profoundly more than vice versa, because
experience _is_ biology. Neuronal function is in networks, and the same
neurons have functions in different networks simultaneously (there's no
"grandmother" cell, as they say), and since brain function is
continuously altered by experience, it is impossible to say either that
biology dictates experience or vice versa. They are one and the same,
and way too complex to find any root beginning or cause to anything.
Tell you the truth, Brett, the whole thing starts to make me feel
nauseous just thinking about how we're supposed to answer these
questions!

You wrote:
 a consistent finding has been an increased heritability of
 alcoholism among sons of alcoholic fathers. I meant to say  9X the risk
for sons of non-alcoholic men (17.9% vs. 1.9%). I am curious about what
methodology, assumptions, and inferences you are talking about. The only
inferences I've read in this line of research are that we now know more
about the etiology of alcoholism. This is true, although it isn't really
saying much since so much of the variance in who becomes an alcoholic is
still accounted for by the environment. So even though a disorder has a
"biological component," we can't say that it has a "biological cause" or
necessarily deserves "biological treatment."

Increased heritability does not necessarily mean it happens through a
genetic mechanism. It can mean that it is a behavior that is taught
within the family. The methodology, assumptions, and inferences I have
trouble with are just those: e.g., that heritability and genetic
transmission are the same. But they are not, and heritability that
occurs through learning is much more easy to change. But when we assume
that it is genetic, we start talking about disease and suchlike.
Furthermore, I agree with you that since so much of the variance still
comes from other factors, we should focus our eyes on those.
>
> The diagnosis of alcoholism, while incorporating psychosocial
> consequences, is based on two biological factors: tolerance and
> withdrawal.

Tolerance and withdrawal are not biological factors. They are social and
environmental factors. Research on the effects of changing environmental
conditions on heroin overdose and withdrawal are what substantiate the
instruction to the addict to not return to his/her original drug-using
environment. This research is quite fascinating as an example of how
there is no "internal" versus "external" process in psychology.
Everything interacts in a whole. This makes science, from the "logical
positivist" tradition, almost impossible to conduct with any kind of
relevance to the real world. Blech!

In addition, treatment is anything but simple and it often
> fails in part because of the biological component of the disorder. By
> this I don't mean genetics but instead the effects of chronic alcohol
> ingestion on brain functioning.

I totally disagree with you here. All treatments for alcoholism are
psychosocial. And their effectiveness is not predictable by any internal
"biological factors." The effects of chronic alcohol ingestion on brain
functioning? What effects? There's no research that I know of linking
any brain functioning study as a diagnostic or prognostic tool for any
psychological problem, incl. addiction. Again. This is conventional
wisdom based on assumptions and politics, not research.

You wrote:
Most leading alcohol researchers would
> laugh at someone that suggested that  alcoholics can learn to control
> their drinking; such psychological control would be an impossibility due to
 the disease (the biological component). I personally hate this way of thinking
 because it assumes way too much homogeneity among alcoholics, while in fact
 there is incredible heterogeneity, but this is a topic for another day.

Absolutely true that most laugh. Nonetheless it is true that controlled
drinking is at least as effective as abstinence, even after several
years followup. This demonstrates the lack of scientific good faith
under which researchers operate. They already "know" that abstinence is
required before they ever start research. It is exceedingly difficult
and dangerous to even conduct controlled drinking research in the U.S.
People endanger their jobs, promotions, and reputations in order to
conduct themselves with an open scientific mind to alternative
hypotheses. I also agree with your comment about remembering the
heterogeneity (about all diagnoses!).
>
> I think the real issue here is whether human behavior can be broken down
> into purely biological terms. My answer, and hopefully that of all
> psychologists, is definitely not! To attempt to do so would be an insult
> to the vital influences of psychological, social, spiritual, and other
> factors on our behavior. However, I think my original point was that we
> need to think about considering other explanations, particularly
> biological, ones for the phenomena we study.

I agree!

>
 My preference
> is to approach this issue completely free from any biological
> considerations. However, in doing so, I may inadvertently pass over an
> important piece of this puzzle. So as a result, I feel obligated to throw
> something in the discussion section about "possible biological
> explanations for the findings." I don't like this practice, and I think
> that for research regarding gender differences and psychopathology, a
> discussion on biological factors is a necessity.

Herein lies the politics of the matter. No one writing about the biology
of alcoholism worries about being slammed for passing over the
behavioral or environmental influences on substance abuse. The zeitgeist
is with them. I applaud your thoroughness, though.

By the way, your comments made a lot of sense. I'm sorry you had a rough
week. I hope this one's better, and I hope the tone of my comments does
not sound too arrogant and belittling. I just get kinda hot because all
this is so near to my heart.
Cheers!
Jason