🚀 go-pugleaf

Okay, just a little more nitpicking, if you don't mind.

You said:  Clearly, the research shows that
> even for those individuals with genetic predispositions to particular
> disorders, the crucial factor is the environment.

But what I was saying was: there's no such thing as either. Only the
environment-organism matrix (the organism part consisting partly of
genetic probabilities)

Then you said:
 I hoped what I was saying would sound like "this person has a definite
genetic risk for developing alcoholism and the chances of their becoming
> alcoholic are greater than the chances for other males without alcoholic
 fathers." Doesn't this position support the fact that this person has some
 biological abnormality?

No, the _position_ supports the _assertion_ of a biological abnormality.
The evidence, on the other hand, supports quite different "facts" (I'm
hesitant to use such a powerful word as this in any of these discussions
although I often find myself seducted into using it quite often).
There's no evidence so far for an _individual_ being at greater genetic
risk for alcoholism for 2 reasons:
1. there's been no _replicated_ research showing a gene locus that
predicts incidence rates for a given sample.
2. even if such a locus was found, genetics is a science of population
statistics, not individual biology. So one can carry the gene and not
have any biological abnormality (in fact, we all carry a huge number of
"copying errors" as we replicate our DNA, but these "abnormalities" are
of no consequence until a problematic phenotype, e.g., behavior,
emerges).

You said:
The explanation that their alcoholism is due
> to the environment doesn't work, because sons of some alcoholic fathers are at
 a higher risk for alcoholism regardless of their environment.

I am baffled by this claim and we may simply be at loggerheads over this
one, because I can not accept, on principle, that anything happens
"regardless of environment" (see my argument about statistical factoring
below).

You said:
> The research I have been referring to (see Cloninger's work) separated
> out the effects of genetics and environment on the development of
> alcoholism for adoptees. The researchers were able to analyze the
> contributions of alcoholic biological parents and adoptive families, as well
 as of non-alcoholic biological parents and adoptees.

I am no expert on statistical regression, but the factoring or
separating out of effects is an artificial, mathematical construct (of
accounting for variability, and it can not account for real-world
synergistic effects and other complex phenomena); it is not a real
process of "separating out." As I said a few days ago, There is a faith
that we have in the power of our mathematics and science, that as you
begin to move in closer, like an impressionist painting it all falls
apart. Like an impressionist painting, you can tell beautiful stories
with these techniques, and they can cast spells over us that generate
all kinds of beliefs, public policies, and financial rewards. They may
even do quite a bit of good. But only a bit and only for some people.
The danger lies in mistaking the genetic approach for being anything
more than another potentially useful story. But we wind up treating it
like "fact" and "truth" over and above other stories because there are
numbers, statistics, and hard sciences involved. But, we need not feel
inferior (I'm not saying this personally, but for all of us as
psychologists) just because we recognize the limitations of our stories
that describe human nature, human suffering, and human healing.


You wrote that I wrote:
>Tolerance and withdrawal are not biological factors. They are social and>
 >environmental factors.
Then you responded:
> I do not understand how you can say that tolerance and withdrawal are not
 biological processes. I understand your reluctance to discuss biological
 factors in the absence of environmental influences, but tolerance and
 withdrawal- come on!

Okay, I was a little loose on that one, but only a little. What I was
trying to say that _both_ tolerance and withdrawal have been shown to be
profoundly affected by environmental and psychological factors. Hell,
quite a few people have root canals done with only hypnosis for
anaesthetic. I'm not then claiming that root canals don't result in
biological pain stimuli. I'm just saying that amazing things can be done
by staying only within the realm of mind and behavior, but we're
pressured to think of some things primarily as "medical" special cases
that are off limits. I'm not espousing treating cancer with meditation,
but complex behavioral and mental problems, while completely biological,
are effectively treated with psychotherapy as opposed to drugs (yes,
there is quite a large research base for highly effective tx even of
schizophrenia without drugs [horrors!] that usually results in better
long-term outcomes and thus, lower costs--but you have to look hard
("Psychotherapy of Schizophrenia" by Karon and VandenBos is a good place
to start).

You wrote:
 I am thinking that I may have been using conventional wisdom based on
politics and not research. Darn it! I think that the establishment is
trying to brainwash me into believing in the disease concept. I will
continue to try to fight this!

I knew it! I knew it! The pod-people are after us too...Watch out!

Take care, Brett, and much luck in your work. I've also enjoyed this
discussion, although I'm a little disappointed that our colleagues
haven't jumped in. Some day we'll have to have a _drink_ together!
-Jason
jseidel@acsu.buffalo.edu