Addiction Is Not A Disease, But A Choice
I've long been in favor of the work of Stanton Peele, who said the above and has been saying it for decades. Now, Sally Satel writes at TNR of a new book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, by Gene M. Heyman:
In a most impressive display of brain technology, scientists have used scanning technology to observe metabolic activity of the brain in action. In a typical demonstration, addicts are shown drug-related videos that depict people handling a crack pipe or needle. Brain scans capture the viewer's reaction to these provocative images and represent it as glowing technicolor splotches of color that represent activation in drug-sensitized brain regions. (Videos of neutral content, such as landscapes, induce no such response.) Even in users who quit several months ago, neuronal alterations may persist, leaving them vulnerable to sudden, strong urges to use. But addiction is not a brain state, it is a behavior. As philosopher Daniel Shapiro of West Virginia University puts it, "You can examine pictures of brains all day, but you'd never call anyone an addict unless he acted like one."Furthermore, as Heyman says, much of the public, and a dismaying number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and neuroscientists, mistakenly believe that if a behavior is influenced by genes or mediated by the brain then the actor cannot choose his actions. While every behavior has a biological correlate (and a genetic contribution) and every experience that changes behavior does so by changing the brain, the critical question, Heyman wisely says, is not whether brain changes occur (they do) but whether these changes block the influence of the factors that support self-control.
In fairness, the scientists who forged the brain disease concept had good intentions. By placing addiction on equal footing with more conventional medical disorders, they sought to create an image of the addict as a hapless victim of his own wayward neurochemistry. They hoped this would inspire companies and politicians to allocate more funding for treatment. Also, by emphasizing dramatic scientific advances, such as brain imaging techniques, and applying them to addiction, they hoped researchers might reap more financial support for their work. Finally, promoting the idea of addiction as a brain disease would rehabilitate the addict's public image from that of a criminal who deserves punishment into a sympathetic figure who deserves treatment.
A friend of mine, who also holds the view that addiction is not a disease, point out, "There is no virus, germ or defect that forces you to walk into a bar and bend your elbow."
Speaking for myself, I also don't believe addiction is a disease. However, I'm in favor of what works. If it helps people to go to meetings in church basements, sit on metal folding chairs, drink horrible coffee and talk about their "disease," then I wouldn't dream of asking them to stop or disabusing them of anything.
If AA, NA, etc. gets people to stop abusing their drug of choice, and get sober, more power to them.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 3:03 AM
Sometimes those meetings create something worse than an addict.... they create born-again Christians.
Kendra at March 17, 2010 3:50 AM
Yes, I've often thought that seems like one addiction is being substituted for the other.
crella at March 17, 2010 4:03 AM
... and how do these findings impact the lame "born that way" propaganda of the gay rights movement?
Can all you "freethinkers" make the connection between one PC Big Lie and another?
Ben-David at March 17, 2010 4:04 AM
"... and how do these findings impact the lame "born that way" propaganda of the gay rights movement?
Can all you "freethinkers" make the connection between one PC Big Lie and another?"
"Big Lie"?
I might be reading your post wrongly, but I suspect you are completely wrong about how people are built.
Completely!
This is not to say promiscuity is not a learned behavior - and it is far more destructive than just being gay - but gender ID is damned well in your build code, and you have to deal with that.
Radwaste at March 17, 2010 5:11 AM
Best line: [R]econciling advances in brain science with their meaning for personal, legal, and civic notions of agency and responsibility will be one of our next major cultural projects.
This will be in true is all sorts of uncomfortable realms, including the accountability of student who don't come from homes with good study habits, etc.
The second-best line is the last one: The mechanical “brain disease” rhetoric is a symptom of the growing tendency to privilege neuroscientific explanations as the most authentic way of understanding human behavior.
That's what I was harshing Amy about yesterday when she talked about being "genetically programmed".
Y'know, all of life's a circle.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 5:35 AM
... and how do these findings impact the lame "born that way" propaganda of the gay rights movement?
Religion makes for such ugly non-thinkers.
Ben-David, know any G-A-Y people? I do. Here's a typical coming out story of a friend of mine. She assumed she was straight because most people are straight. She's gorgeous and she even went with a guy to prom. But, she came to realize that she wasn't really attracted to guys, so she dates girls. This isn't about propaganda. This isn't about finding gay (with all the discrimination and harshness from others) appealing. It's about realizing that you were born with a same-sex orientation, same as I was born with an orientation to like tall men.
And Crid, neuroscientific explanations are a way of understanding human behavior -- I've seen the brain scans. But, along the lines Patrick said, being, perhaps, prone to drink doesn't mean you must drink.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 6:04 AM
> - I've seen the brain scans.
Oh FOR FUCK'S SAKE. What does that even mean?
'I saw colored lights on a screen; therefore moral agency is a daydream'....?
Puh-LEEZE.
"I have SEEN THE BRAIN SCANS!! Science!!"
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 6:19 AM
You can argue about how terrible born again Christians are, but I've never had to worry about being killed by a born again Christian behind the wheel of a car.
You're comparing homosexuality to drinking? How interesting. It seems we have a political celebrity in our midst, and Ben-David is really Trent Lott.
What does the propensity to drink have to do the causes of homosexuality?
But yes, I was born that way. While there may be several things that caused me to be homosexual, in my case, the most likely cause is known as the older brother effect which is explained at the link.
In a nutshell, a woman's body regards the male fetus inside her as a foreign object, and her body produces antibodies which feminize the fetus. The more boys she has, the more adept she becomes at this. Each older brother increases the odds that a child will be homosexual by 28%-48%.
And it has little to nothing to do with the environment, as this phenomenon has been observed even when the homosexual male child was not raised with his brothers.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 6:21 AM
Oh I agree 100 percent. I smoked for 30 years and used all the excuses. From "oh this addiction is soooo hard to succesfully fight" to "once I can afford the really expensive quitting programs, I will but until then I cant do anything sinc I have an ADDICTION". 4 months ago I said Im done. Then put them down and made myself ignore the cravings. So yah, it is a behaviour and a habit. People will quit when they decide somewhere deep inside that they are going to quit and stay quit.
So a bit off topic but still kinda related...I decided to lose weight and have been working out, getting healthy and learning how to move and breath again (at the same tme!)and decided to do the lw-carb/no-carb thing. Well somewhere deep inside me I have not decided to give up carbs hahahahaha and that lasted a week. :D Still habit, but no strong desire and choice to stop.
rsj at March 17, 2010 6:24 AM
Amy I do know gay people. Starting with my bisexual mom. I was raised in the community. I have seen more than a few gay men sneaking around for female prostitutes or whatever woman they could get and plenty of lesbians going to bed with men. Many of these lesbians were that way because of sexual abuse.
Common occurrence I was a kid. Being at one of mom's friend's houses and being told that we had to go in the back room because "that man is here again trying to take the baby away". Would have been more accurate to say "the man I slept with and got pregnant by and collect a check from every month is here to exercise his visitation rights". I saw plenty of lesbians denying fathers their rights. Hell I was taken from my father at the age of 5 in kindergarten and didn't see him again till I was 13. Some would say that has been solved invitro and IUI but I am guessing it has just changed the problem.
As to addiction being a choice? Yeppers. And it is a choice that is subsidized by welfare. If welfare were ended tomorrow my sister, who has a hubby addict, and most of my mothers family would have to straighten out and get jobs.
josephineMO6 at March 17, 2010 6:25 AM
Is it just my imagination, or is Crid freaking out much earlier in the threads than usual? Someone peed in his corn flakes today!
Patrick at March 17, 2010 6:29 AM
Anyone watch the last ep of House? They do a brain imaging scan and see that this young broad is dreaming of her boyfriend's daddy.
Gotchya!
I'm a little confused. If science agrees that neurological tendencies exist, and are rooted in our biology...then doesn't it follow that there is some reduced level of self-control?
Maybe the brain wiring isn't MAKING someone walk into the bar and get hammered on a Monday night, but it makes them really, really, really, want to, like. 100 times more than I want to (but since it doesn't appeal to me at all, that's 100x0 = 0 but I won't get nitpicky here).
It's not that these people are suffering, perhaps against their will, but it's that their actual WILL is affected. Even though they are suffering, and fully comprehend this, they still WANT to do the "thing" more than NOT do the thing.
...so there's "choice" b/c no one has a gun to his/her head, but it's significantly harder to make the "right" choice b/c of these proclivities, which are determined by neurology. So addiction isn't a big lie and some people do lack the ability to say no to stuff...
Right? I feel like I am missing the entire point here. Sorry if I am dumb.
Gretchen at March 17, 2010 6:33 AM
I'm not even touching the gay argument her because I'm not quite sure how a post about addiction turned into a gay debate. As far as alcoholism and drug addiction, I am very mixed on it and probably because I come at it from personal experience which of course causes an emotional response. My father was an alcoholic, a very functioning alcoholic. I have 3 brothers, one who is a very funtioning alcoholic like my father was, another who can't fall asleep at night without his bottle of Jack, and a brother who is is a huge enabler. My sister married an alcoholic who gets violent when he drinks but when sober seems the most perfect loving husband and father. I've often wondered if it was a gene or patterns of dysfuntional behavior that we learned in our family that we repeat.
I also am mixed because of some of the kids my kids were friends with that they brought home. I've spoken before about the father who was shooting up while the mother dranks herself into such stupors she ended up living behind a grocery store. This couple had 2 beautiful children that they basically abandoned for drugs and alcohol. I just cannot fathom that anyone would choose to do this. That is where the choice argument gets me. Who would ever choose to live the way some of these addicts do? There has to be more pros than cons and I don't see it.
I'm not saying that its one or the other. I'm just saying that it is something I question despite evidence from both sides because of what I have seen. I live in a pretty wealthy area where the majority of residents are highly educated yet I've seen things that are often thouht to only exist in inner cities.
Kristen at March 17, 2010 6:37 AM
I couldn't care less what this latest study says or whose prejudices it supports. The over-representation among drug addicts of people who were sexually, emotionally and physically abused as innocent young children speaks volumes. So call it whatever you like but most people who become addicted to one substance or another would rather have had happy, loving lives than be lying in the gutter. If you don't see that it's because you choose to, and you're probably a bible-bashing Republican of some kind, full of Judeo-Christian love and compassion. As for being gay, I just do that because I know how much it will annoy arrogant, superior twats like Ben-David. And hey, it works!
GMan at March 17, 2010 6:38 AM
Wake up, Sheeple! Amy has SEEN THE BRAIN SCANS!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 6:50 AM
Kristen, The gay thing may have been brought up because it has similarities addictions. They both seem to be compulsions. Compulsions that can in fact be changed. And because it is presented as a no choice situation. They have to be that way in the same way addicts do. You are an addict for life they say.
And I can imagine someone choosing to use drugs over caring for their children. It was done to me and now my sister is allowing it to be done to her children. She isn't even the addict. Her husband takes everything they have and the kids go without. One could say that her husband is acting on his disease/addiction/compulsion/whatever and he really can't help it. Well WTF is my sisters excuse. She doesn't need that next fix. And yet she chooses to stay with him. People can be sick sometimes and to believe otherwise is naive..
josephineMO6 at March 17, 2010 6:52 AM
Contradiction in two sentences flat!
"Amy I do know gay people. Starting with my bisexual mom."
Gay =/= bisexual.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 7:07 AM
Josephine, I don't get the connection between shooting a drug into your arm and being attracted to the same sex. I'm not even sure how you consider being gay a compulsion, but again, its not the argument here. As far as what you say about your sister. On the one hand you call it a choice and on the other you say people can be sick. Which one is it? While I'm sorry for what you went through, I still can't imagine someone saying to themselves the first time they shoot up or snort something or even drink, "Wow I hope that I wake up in the street and that my kids find a way to eat." But again, I've acknowledged that I have more of an emotional response due to my own experience. For me, life would be so much nicer had my father said, "no, I don't want to hang out in the bar all night and end up in Florida. I'd rather go home and be with my family." He didn't say that and I'm not sure that it was a choice or a disease. I do believe that despite his drinking, he did love us.
Kristen at March 17, 2010 7:13 AM
>>It's not that these people are suffering, perhaps against their will, but it's that their actual WILL is affected. Even though they are suffering, and fully comprehend this, they still WANT to do the "thing" more than NOT do the thing.
Oh WELL SAID, Gretchen!
And, in fact, the reviewer cited by Amy has an important caveat deeper in the linked article:
"The author of Addiction: A Disorder of Choice is a behavioral psychologist, not a clinician. This may be why he does not pay much attention to the reasons people use drugs. Clinicians, like myself, tend to see addiction as a form of self-medication. Addicts are drawn to drugs to salve depression, anxiety, boredom, self-loathing. Heyman’s training as a behavioral psychologist may also explain why he writes of addiction to drugs as barely distinct from other kinds of excessive appetites (for food, sex, shopping) in the context of the choice model. Here he does not fully persuade."
But back to Gretchen's point: I do believe - and yes, it's a belief - since I'm not a brain scan reader! - that the addict's will is deeply compromised once he or she has chosen to let addiction get a grip.
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 7:14 AM
josephineMO6,
Those lesbian mothers weren't denying the fathers visitation because they were lesbians, they did it because they were manipulative bitchs who also happenned to be lesbians. One has nothing to do with the other. I would bet that you most likely lived in a community/town that was predominately gay/lesbian (because people do tend to live in areas with other people that are "like them") so you saw it more but that is not the norm.
But anywhooo... since being gay isn't what this thread is about...
I can actually see both sides of the argument and think that both are valid. I can see where genetic predispotion can play a part and recognize that some people are likely born with addictive personalities. I can also see where personal choice plays a big part. I will use myself as an example. (I hope this makes sense, I am not as eloquant as I would like to be right now...I gave my coffee to Crid in another thread.)
I know that all my male and female relatives on my dads side, plus my dad, are all alcoholics. So were all the ones before him. And before them. It runs in the family. Mom's got a few on her side too. I also grew up in an abusive home. I saw it ruin life after life in my home. So, science says that I should be in prime form to take on an addiction. However, something clicked in me somewhere and made me decide that I didn't want to be like that. So, I made the choice NOT to start drinking and not to get involved with people who use illegal substances. I knew it was "in me" so to speak. I recognized that demon in myself and decided that I would not allow myself to succomb to it because that was my worst nightmare. So, by making that choice NOT to repeat the cycle, I feel like I sorta beat science. Were there times when I wanted to? Hell yes. But I had to force myself to stay away. My sister on the other hand, not so much. She went the completely opposite route and found herself in a world of hurt. My sister and I have completely different personalities. She is the more sensitive and vunerable one. She feels things ten times stonger than I do. She also knew it was in her, but didn't have the ability to resist like I did. So, in her case, science beat her. Perhaps her personality played a part in that. Who know? Now, I am no teatotaler. I enjoy a glass of wine or good domestic beer occasionally. But what made the difference is that I got control of myself before the addiction took over, and didn't let the addiction take control over me.
I hope that made sense...
Sabrina at March 17, 2010 7:14 AM
Thanks, Jody.
I guess I am not as confused as I thought, then.
Because while I think it's pretty fucking obvious that addiction doesn't turn people into completely mindless zombies - they KNOW what they're doing is unhealthy, that it's a waste of money, that it is destroying their relationships, that it cost them their job, their dignity/health the whole bit. They get it. Addicts aren't incapable of viewing the situation for what it is. And most say "I want to stop".
But it's a battle of will. And addiction, which I thought science showed has genetic (BIOLOGICAL!?) links, severely, severely, affects a person's ability to control and implement that will. And, just like sexuality, there appears to be a spectrum. So, if you smoke a pack of butts a day it might be tough to quit but you can probably do it if you want it badly enough.
But if you're shooting up heroin, you probably can't just say "eh, I think I'll pass." No amount of lost dignity, STDs, dead babies on the floor (um, Trainspotting, anyone?), being excommunicated by relatives, being on welfare, livinng in a dumpster is going to give you a sudden surge of willpower to say no.
...cause even though it makes perfect sense to stop shooting up when you look at the pros and cons...addicts like that aren't thinking rationally. B/c the addiction isn't rational.
Again - are we talking about the same thing but calling it different names, or what? B/c brain scans can't possibly be claiming that all a heroin junkie needs to do is say "no thanks". They'll grab that dirty needle and gladly give themselves AIDS if it means getting that high.
Gretchen at March 17, 2010 7:36 AM
Offtopic comedy video.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 7:37 AM
Sabrina,
Your comment made a lot of sense.
Another bit that's got me really ticked off from Amy's linked piece (even though the article is perfectly sensible in other parts!):
Furthermore, as Heyman says, much of the public, and a dismaying number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and neuroscientists, mistakenly believe that if a behavior is influenced by genes or mediated by the brain then the actor cannot choose his actions.
Look, I'm not remotely a blinkered AA/NA booster. BUT it's not just a pretty slogan, that whole "one day at a time" creed, is it?
I thought that was based on understanding that the addict - or "actor" -is somewhat fucked trying to make choices based on long term consequences. And, therefore, it's whistling in the wind to base a recovery program around reaching for future sobriety/happiness.
On the other hand, choosing NOT to drink/indulge just for "today" is a manageable action. As long as you stick to it every morning!
So I don't get all this claim about what the public believes! The continued existence of AA/NA - for all of the criticism - sort of contradicts that claim, surely?
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 7:40 AM
PS: All that said.
People aren't born addicts. Babies can be born *addicted* to drugs. But they, themselves, aren't *addicts*, per the distinction above explaining that being an addict requires action. Babies might have a physical dependency and it wreaks havoc on their bodies, but they cannot DO IT themselves.
Which leads me to: At some point, BEFORE the addiction sets in, there was a very controllable choice. Why some people desire to try things like coke or heroin are probably for another thread. But once they do those things, and addiction sets in, it seems like will is compromised. Thus, removing the person's ability to just refuse the thing as simply as they previously could.
Conclusion: Don't start, fools! The fact that people actually get into that entire scene removes some of my ability to feel sympathy, b/c it's so totally unnecessary, regardless of traumatic upbringing.
Gretchen at March 17, 2010 7:42 AM
Gretchen, if you haven't grown up being sexually, physically and psychologically abused like many addicts, then you have no clue what you're talking about saying "Don't start fools!" Do you really think abused children would choose such a path if they could just switch it all off and say to themselves "oh silly you, just get over it"? Get a clue sweetheart. You live in an ivory tower.
GMan at March 17, 2010 7:46 AM
Gman, here comes a slapback. Try to be strong, OK?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 7:54 AM
Besides, she's right. The importance of character in answering these challenges is precisely the topic.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 7:55 AM
I'll try to be strong Crid. In fact, I am. I'm not speaking for myself. I consider my life to have been incredibly privileged but because of the work I've done over the years I've seen the ruin of little lives and what abuse does to children's minds. You can't just pick yourself up and get on with it after something like that. Why the hell wouldn't you turn to things that give you pleasure, and that's what drugs and alcohol do... at first. Sorry but that whole "oh well if you can't pick yourself up you're just a big old failure" schtick is just so representative of the worst of Ann Coulter Republicanism.
GMan at March 17, 2010 8:05 AM
Sabrina, you made a lot of sense. Coming from an alcoholic family, I didn't drink. As a teen I was afraid to experiment with drugs because I feared being the person who tried something and had a heart attack or od'd. To this day, I rarely drink because I do not like that feeling of not being in control of myself. I know that much has to do with my backround, especially when I see what my brothers and my sisters husband are like. I made choices to stay away from drugs and alcohol from the beginning but I did enter into a very abusive relationship, so there was still a level of dysfunction for me. I'm out now and rebuilding my life but I do think that growing up in an alcoholic household and not being taught healthy choices and decisions did affect me.
I do always wonder why I stayed away and my brothers did not. I loved my kids enough to want them to see healthy relationships and healthy choices, but I can't honestly say that my love for my kids is superior or stronger than anyone else's. I don't have an answer for why I made different choices not to start something but it is what makes me very mixed on the choice vs disease argument.
Kristen at March 17, 2010 8:11 AM
This whole addiction thing boggles my mind. On the one hand, the crew of kids I hung out with in high school were all "addicted" to something or other, whether it was booze, pot, speed, beans (downers, like Quaaludes or Demoral), LSD, herion, crystal meth, cocaine, THC, or some combination thereof. I knew kids who OD'd on heroin, two brothers, both of whom I was friends with, come to mind. They died within 18 months of each other. Needles in arms, cases closed. Other kids I knew had a hell of a time just breaking their drinking habits. One kid killed himself while in jail (RIP, Dave. I still think of you now and again). Some of these people grew up, grew out of it, have families and are functioning members of society (yours truly included, not that I was a raving "addict". I was more of a weekend warrior when it came to that). That said, I think what Gretchen said about having the WILL to quit or not even start is valid, and is really the crux of the matter. Whether it's genetic or not, for most people, Sabrina, for exampe, who saw it in her family and made a concious decision NOT to succumb, it's a choice, at least at the onset. Once you become "addicted", though, the will power to do anything but your drug of choice often goes out the window until you hit bottom or are sober enough to make the decision to not spend the rest of your life a slave to whatever substance you're abusing. It's a painful road, and I don't think anyone deliberately choses to become "addicted". I think most people just want to try it and the high is so gratifying to them that they just "have" to continue.
Flynne at March 17, 2010 8:23 AM
Yeah, my ivory tower is pretty sweet. I have wifi, and sex slaves and can eat pizza all day and never get fat - jealous?
I didn't say it was easy to not venture down that path. Sue me if I am a smart ass and called people who use drugs "fools".
Obviousssslyyy most people don't just wake up and say, "Shit, I think I'll try heroin today!". I get it, and I'm honestly shocked you're so fucking dumb you missed the other 20 paragraphs I posted saying I think addiction is a wee bit harder to stop than just "wanting it". Either you need a reading comp class, or you need to stop reading so selectively just so you can pick fights. It gets tedious and it's why we have brian.
My major point was that it's ALWAYS A CHOICE to START.
Some people have a bad life and drugs provide an escape. Poor kids growing up with the only role models they have selling crack. Shitty schools. Dad in jail. When they have no hope it's not entirely surprising they'd do something that I, Ivory Tower Princess Bitch, wouldn't.
Do I think I'm better than them? Nah. But do I think they're entirely blameless for walking down a path they know to be bad? Another nah. No matter how much lack of hope there is, and no matter how bad of an example is set in someone's surroundings, people have a choice and people are not so isolated from "mainstream America" that they can come to an honest conclusion that drugs aren't bad or addictive, etc.
Anecdotes are relatively useless, though they're fun. But I'll spare you...I've come to all these conclusions from personal experiences which, while not too wretched, are not painless or free from horrendous examples. I've seen people I love struggle to escape these same circumstances. I respond with kindness, understanding and by setting a GOOD example, by showing that things can turn out just fine if they do a few things right. I realize that makes my little bro "lucky". But the choices he makes are still his and I disagree with some of them. If he ends up in a gutter, it'll be his doing.
Just for good measure Gman. You are one stupid piece of shite.
Gretchen at March 17, 2010 8:24 AM
Gretchen, you ROCK.
(Just for the record.)
Flynne at March 17, 2010 8:28 AM
Thanks, Flyne, xoxo! ...all this at work, too! Look at me multitask.
Gretchen at March 17, 2010 8:40 AM
"Can all you "freethinkers" make the connection between one PC Big Lie and another?
Posted by: Ben-David "
You are so fucking pathetic, Ben David. Can't you just be grateful the rest of us leave you alone to practice your deviancy in peace, see the parallels, and shut the fuck up?
Jim at March 17, 2010 8:42 AM
"I don't have an answer for why I made different choices not to start something but it is what makes me very mixed on the choice vs disease argument."
That is sorta where I stand. I know why I made my choice, but I can't ever understand why my sister made hers. To this day, she regrets it, but she still can't really explain how she made the choice to get involved in drugs knowing what she knew about our family history. I know she was in a great deal of pain due to our home life, but even if that helps to shed some light on why she was the way she was, it still can't really justify the "choice" of taking that first hit. I believe a person can only use thier circumstances and DNA as an excuse for so long before they have to start taking some accountability for themselves.
Regardless of my personal experiance, I can still see the validity in both arguments and I think both are right but I don't think either side is 100% correct. I think there are a number of factors that need to be considered and an induviduals personality has a lot to do with it too. Reason stands that a more sensitive, vunerable, insecure person who grew up in a bad home is probably going to be more likely to become addicted than a strong willed, confident, happy person who grew up in a loving home. However, there are also people who have grown up in wonderful loving homes with parents that have never had an addiction problem that develop an addiction. Those people make the choice to try the drug, and some decide they like it, and then they just lose control. Some have an entitlement issues that create this attitude of "I can do whatever I want" and some have a Superman complex and figure that they can "Stop whenever they want" but they never really can. Even though those people probably never had the traditional predisposition to the addiction, something made them want to try it right? How does science explain that?
Who REALLY knows why a person becomes addicted? I figure the only real way to assure that you never become addicted is a) don't try stupid shit like cocaine and heroin in the first place, 2)know your limits when it comes to alcohol; don't try to push the limits of your sobriety and 3) surround yourself with positive influences and honest people who will tell you when you have gone too far. Seems to work for me.
Sabrina at March 17, 2010 8:45 AM
The young person chooses, perhaps in reaction to a childhood filled with sexual, emotional, or physical abuse, to reach for a drink / cigarette / powder / pill / whatever to numb out the feelings that they're not equipped to deal with (odd that a parent that shoves his unit up your nine year old ass wouldn't take the time to equip you with the proper skills to develop into a fully-developed and self-realized successful adult, but hey, there it is), and then the brain chemistry just takes over. The receptors fill up with artificial versions of dopamine (and probably a half dozen others that I, as no brain surgeon, am unfamiliar with), and voila, we as a society can now spit on the addict as being gutless scum with no self-control.
Which really, really helps the situation.
If they're lucky somebody will remind them that a loving God is going to torture them in Hell forever for their errors. That helps too.
What's really cool is I get to look down my nose at them. I like that. It makes me feel ... taller, somehow.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 17, 2010 8:49 AM
And I really can spell people... I promise...
Amy, may I suggest a spell checker on the comment section, next to the preview button? I usually type it on something else, (outlook for instance), spell check it there, and the copy and paste, but that gets a little tedious...
Just a thought. (unless there is one somewhere and I am just too special to have noticed it)
Sorry folks...
Back on topic.
:p
Sabrina at March 17, 2010 8:51 AM
Thread jack alert!
"Sometimes those meetings create something worse than an addict.... they create born-again Christians."
Yeah, who can tolerate assholes like Albert Schweitzer, or even the really wonderful elderly Baptist couple next door to me, who help take in abused or abandoned women with children? Those people are simply unbearable.
Sarcasm aside, sure, I meet plenty of people who pray loudly in church on Sunday but are jerks the rest of the week. I also meet people who pray loudly on Sunday in church and then go on to shame me the rest of the week by their much better sense of decency and humanity, and they do it, they tell me, because their god commands them to.
"Religion makes for such ugly non-thinkers."
Off the top of my head: Augustine. Newton. Galileo. Aquinas. More. Lewis. Maimonides. Ugly non-thinkers?
Some sophisticated, brilliant thinkers and writers were devoutly religious. That does not mean their religions are spot on about things, but don't deny that very advanced thinking and religious faith are often found in the same person.
Spartee at March 17, 2010 8:56 AM
Considering 85% of homosexuals who ask to be cured are indeed cured, I think Ben-David makes a valid point. You can't say that some genetic tendencies are a choice, and others cannot be changed. This is called PC and PC dominates this blog. When someone mentions gays, your brains shut down.
irlandes at March 17, 2010 8:59 AM
Diabetes is a disease, emphysema is a disease, cirrhosis of the liver is a disease... Addiction is a disease because it manifests itself in similar physiological symptoms as many diseases. All this talk about CHOICE and people are weak-willed and blah blah blah - it's easy to sit on your moral pedastal and condemn addicts, but the fact of the matter is that viewing addiction as a disease makes treatment more accessible and lowers a social stigma of addiction and helping them realize that they have a problem, and that there is help.
Some people are behaviorally more prone to it - "addictive personalities" if you will. Those who are narcissistic or thrill seekers are more likely to get hooked and stay hooked. There is more to life than just science, and while science governs much of our behavior, we need to take a look at the sociological aspect too.
Kate at March 17, 2010 8:59 AM
I'm an addict. My atehrs side of the family is riddles with alchoholics, on my mothers mothers side of the faimilly every man is either a drunk or in a program, on my mohter mothers side of the faimilly the only one who isnt a drunk is the great aunt who joined a convent.
I noticed addictive behavior patterns in my life fairly early, so I never drank. Ive always wondered what it would be like to be drunk or stoned or what different liquors might taste like.
But I knew what the consequences would most likely be. The problem with addiction is you never know if you prone to it. One guy could slam herion and walk away while the next guy wids up spending the next 30yrs chasing that high.
But I do understand why some people would choose it even over their kids. When I had part of my lung removed they put me ona morphine drip.
I can honestly say its the only time in my life I have ever been content. I dont think people realise what an allure that holds for damaged people. Its like pulling a plug on your brain. Its not a physical high being chased, its a moment of peace where you literally can not think of or feel anything and thats why addicts keep going back.
BEcause even when an addcit or a damaged person is happy there is still a part of them that isnt, coloring and tainting the experiance.
I can see how people canget sucked in. But in my case my need to remain in control of myself overides my need to escape.
lujlp at March 17, 2010 9:00 AM
"What does that even mean?"
Uhh, Crid, I'll be bold and step in here and say that Amy has seen, in a variety of presentations, graphic representations of what happens to brain activity under a variety of stimuli: touch, pain, drugs, electric shock, etc. - and the alteration in that activity over time when influenced by drugs or other chronic effects.
Have you forgotten her friends in high places, or are you just focused on creating some more personal drama?
It's not a big deal to recognize that external habits appear in internal brain activity. I suppose that even you can recognize that neurons have to fire to get you to do something.
Radwaste at March 17, 2010 9:00 AM
>>My major point was that it's ALWAYS A CHOICE to START.
Indeed it is, Gretchen.
And then - as some of us appear to agree - the picture gets very muddled.
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 9:02 AM
>>Considering 85% of homosexuals who ask to be cured are indeed cured...
You NEVER disappoint, irlandes!
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 9:05 AM
I know it's a long article, but there is a really good point further down that needs to be taken into account:
"Take, for example, the case of addicted physicians and pilots. When they are reported to their oversight boards they are monitored closely for several long years; if they don’t fly right, they have a lot to lose (jobs, income, status). It is no coincidence that their recovery rates are high. Via entities called drug courts, the criminal justice system applies swift and certain sanctions to drug offenders who fail drug tests—the threat of jail time if tests are repeatedly failed is the stick—while the carrot is that charges are expunged if the program is completed. Participants in drug courts tend to fare significantly better than their counterparts who have been adjudicated as usual. In so-called contingency management experiments, subjects addicted to cocaine or heroin are rewarded with vouchers redeemable for cash, household goods, or clothes. Those randomized to the voucher arm routinely enjoy better results than those receiving treatment as usual.
Contingencies are the key to voluntariness. No amount of reinforcement or punishment can alter the course of an entirely autonomous biological condition. Imagine bribing an Alzheimer’s patient to keep her dementia from worsening, or threatening to impose a penalty on her if it did."
Juliana at March 17, 2010 9:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702172">comment from irlandesThis is called PC and PC dominates this blog
In what universe? Earth 2, as Gregg would say?
Furthermore, it's bullshit about homosexuality being "cured" -- and the word is ugly.
Here's the reality:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/scandals-defections/
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 9:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702173">comment from Amy AlkonCheck out this video about Paulk getting caught in a gay bar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2O2N0k0liU&feature=player_embedded
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 9:14 AM
Haha, Jody, isn’t irlandes just awesome?!
I don’t know whether to admire the fact that he’s apparently 0% self conscious, or to feel sad for him because he really seems to believe all of his points are factual and valid, and has no qualms rambling on about them regardless of relevancy.
Also, wanted to bring up one rare instance of when addiction isn’t so much a choice. My cousin told me this story about a girl who was an A student, very much on the straight and narrow, never really stepped out of line. Well, she was in a bad car accident that almost disabled her, and was put on very strong pain medication, I forget which one and don’t know much about drugs, but it has similar properties to heroine… well, long story short, she became addicted to the pain meds, and when her prescription ran out and the pain was still there, she turned to the only thing she could get her hands on. Yes, I guess it’s still a choice, but not so much in the sense that she just decided one day to shoot up out of the blue.
I tend to believe that addiction is more about choice, which is probably why my cousin told me that story. Don’t know what to think of it, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t touch the stuff no matter how much pain I was in, but knock on wood, I’ve never been there, so I can’t really say.
Angie at March 17, 2010 9:41 AM
>>Yes, I guess it’s still a choice, but not so much in the sense that she just decided one day to shoot up out of the blue.
Angie,
I agree with your point - without reservation.
In fact, I think you've made a critical distinction - and it's all the more reason to despise - or at least, not think well of! - celebs who use "addiction to pain killers" as a feeble camouflage for a bog-standard marching-powder-up-the-nose problem.
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 9:50 AM
I am an alcoholic. The issue as I see it from my experience is that you have a choice whether to drink/do drugs, but once you start you cannot stop when you've had what a normal person would think is enough. It is possible to be an addict and not allow your addiction to take over, but once you start doing the drug of your choice it's very very hard to stop. I stopped drinking with the help of outpatient rehab, until I went to rehab I really felt as though I was in the grips of alcohol, but once I went to rehab and learned that I can live sober, the choice is mine whether I want to continue to live sober or not. I do agree to an extent that addiction does have physiological factors behind it, alcoholics do not have that off switch that tells non-alcoholics I've had enough now, but it's not a disease to me because I am responsible for my own actions, alcohol is not responsible for them. I can choose to drink or choose to not drink, alcohol cannot force me to drink. I can go to bars and hang out with friends that are drinking, it doesn't bother me and I don't feel the need to drink. I think that people use the it's a disease excuse to keep the responsibility off themselves, which really annoys me. I went to AA for a while and at first it was a great way to not drink, bc it gave me an environment where I went at night and was sober, but I stopped going bc a lot of the people do trade the alcohol addiction for AA adiction and there is a lot of it's not my fault I drink it's a disease which never sat right with me. I think AA works and is great for some people, just not me. Anyway, just my 2 cents on my experience with addiction. Lastly, how can anyone even try to compare addiction to homosexuality, I find that so insulting to men and women that are gay.
Nina at March 17, 2010 9:52 AM
In spite of your extremely childish insults, what you are saying is anyone who does not agree with the great and wonderful YOU is wrong and must change.
You can't change. Gays can't change. But conservatives are wrong and can and must change. Christians are wrong and can and must change. In fact anyone with any religion is wrong and can and must change. Republicans can and must change. Alcoholics can and must change. Drug addicts can and must change. I am wrong and must change. Etc.; etc.; etc.
The list is very long and all who do not agree with you can and must change.
It must be terrible living in a nation where a majority of people do not share your views.
irlandes at March 17, 2010 10:09 AM
Here's the reality
It may well be the reality, Amy, but anecdotes prove nothing.
kishke at March 17, 2010 10:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702188">comment from irlandesIn spite of your extremely childish insults, what you are saying is anyone who does not agree with the great and wonderful YOU is wrong and must change. You can't change. Gays can't change. But conservatives are wrong and can and must change. Christians are wrong and can and must change. In fact anyone with any religion is wrong and can and must change. Republicans can and must change
Oh, please.
I change all the time. I'm constantly checking whether what I think is fact-based and rational, and a number of people commenting here have changed my mind on issues...Patrick, Crid...others.
People are not gay at whim. Who would choose to be part of a group of people who are hated and discriminated against?
People who believe without evidence in things -- like in god -- are childish and gullible, and would think differently if only they employed reason.
People who are Republicans and Democrats should realize that both parties are filled with self-serving sleazebags, and that politicians are largely out for politicians.
Alcoholics need to recognize that a drink is not going to solve their problems, only create more of them, and quit drinking to excess. Note that I don't say "quit drinking." Some people cannot drink at all, but others just need to recognize that alcohol is not a problem-solver, but a problem-creator when used to excess.
It's not a surprise (if I'm remembering correctly) that you're a religious person, because you seem to lack a very good ability to reason. It's clear above in the way you mash together things that are not really alike.
Also, it seems that you resent my views on religion, and can't present a rational argument that I'm wrong, so you attack me instead.
Again, I'm always looking to change -- talked about that this weekend at Tucson Fest of Books. I look to people whose minds and judgment I respect to criticize me so I can be less stupid in how I think and behave, and be better at writing, thinking, and life.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 10:34 AM
85% of gays who asked to be cured are cured? I'm sorry but I actually laughed so hard that I spit coffee out of my nose. At least there are some people here always good for comic effect!
Kristen at March 17, 2010 10:35 AM
"It may well be the reality, Amy, but anecdotes prove nothing."
Actually, they kinda do in this case. That this "gay cure" thing is all a fucking sham. You can't cure gay. Telling a gay man not to be gay is like asking a tiger not to have stripes. It defies nature.
However, since this post isn't about homosexuality, I don't really see how any of it relevant to be honest, unless it is to prove to the ignorant ass posters that think "gay" is a choice, just like addiction (as is the opinion of some here), that they are wrong. Then in that case, yes, I can see the revelavance. But, there is no comparison between homosexuality and addiction. They are two completely different things and involve completely different circumstances.
Sabrina at March 17, 2010 10:41 AM
"People who believe without evidence in things -- like in god -- are childish and gullible, and would think differently if only they employed reason."
Amy, even thouth that statement was not directed at me directly, I gotta say that that one stung me just a bit.
Despite my potty mouth and not so PC views on things, I am Christian. I believe in God and Jesus Christ. (I like to consider myself more Christian 'lite' to be honest but that isn't really the point) Even though I have no proof of his existance, I still believe in him. That is what faith is about...Believing in things without actually seeing them. I don't think I am childish just because I believe in God. Regardless of my religious beliefs, I would like to think that I am a reasonable person. I also believe in justice and self accountability. I consider facts and use my life experiances, and the experiances of others to form my opinions. I have studied other religions because religion in general just fascinates me, and I believe that in the end, they really all say the same thing anyway which is "Just live a good life and be good to others". (except the Muslim religion but I don't think that is relevant right now). And honestly, does one need to be religious to understand that message? I don't think so. I think I have a healthy grasp on reality and understand that one cannot dismiss scientfic data because "Well that isn't what the BIBLE says..." I use my faith as my guide in how I live *my* life, and not to dictate how others should live theirs. I don't go around trying to convert everyone in my wake and I certainly don't expect everyone else to agree with me and my beliefs. I don't even mention that I am Christian to most people because it is usually met with some damn comment on how I can't be a Christian because I swear or how I am stupid for believing in because God because God doesn't exist. I will concede that there are lots of loud mouthed pubilicity hungry Christians who use their "faith" as a way of justifying their ignorant and close minded views, therefore making the rest of us look bad, but I would like to think I am not one of them. If I was, my best friend (who is Jewish for what it's worth) certainly wouldn't be my best friend. In fact, she might have beat the living shit out of me within ten minutes of meeting me if I was. She has no tolerance for that better than thou ignorant bullshit. And neither do I frankly.
I am still relatively new here but I have found this blog to be quite refreshing because it (usually) has some intelligent and coherent people on it (I will also use Crid and Patrick as examples because their posts, even if I don't always agree with them, make me think) and it gives me a chance to voice my opinion without having to worry about censorship. I get to discuss topics here that aren't really appropriate for "polite" conversation. I am also a big fan of yours and get a huge kick out of seeing you smack down some dumbass. I would like to think that I am not thought of as a moron because I also believe in Christ. That would be pretty judgemental and close minded on your part dontcha think?
Sabrina at March 17, 2010 11:29 AM
Actually, they kinda do in this case. That this "gay cure" thing is all a fucking sham.
It may very well be a sham. But you can't prove it from anecdotes.
kishke at March 17, 2010 11:40 AM
Can you similarly "uncure" or "infect" or whatever heterosexuality? I mean, is sexual preference really just a programmable thing that can be wiped like a hard drive operating system?
If so, let me know. It is really important to me right now. See, I need to redecorate, and if I could "go gay" for a few days, but then revert back to heterosexuality, I will save a ton of money on hiring someone to color coordinate, without having to screw up my current heterosexual life in the long run.
Thanks! What a useful blog. Learning new things every day and I may even get fabulous new drapes out of it!
Spartee at March 17, 2010 11:51 AM
Spartee can you come to my house before you reprogram?! We just moved and even though I am a woman, so I SHOULD be able to decorate according to stereotypes, I don't have a clue! I need a gay man stat!
Sabrina at March 17, 2010 11:59 AM
I would like to think that I am not thought of as a moron because I also believe in Christ. That would be pretty judgemental and close minded on your part dontcha think?
I think atheists stumble when they discount religious faith as some kind of mental failure instead of treating it as the deep need that it is for a lot of people. Most people.
(For the record, I'm a wishy-washy agnostic. I wish I had the conviction to be an atheist or a believer.)
MonicaP at March 17, 2010 12:00 PM
Spartee - that was awesome :-) And likewise, could I PLEASSSEE turn myself butch for the next few months while I am getting into prep for a figure show? It might help?
When straight people think gay is a choice, I ask them if hooking up w/ a same sex person is appealing. They typical make gagging noises. I ask them, if people choose to be gay, do we choose to be straight? Or are gay people just going against their innermost desires for some unknown reason (like: they *really* actually like opposite sex, but do same sex folks, to like, I dunno, spite grandma).
If someone has a strong aversion to getting jiggy with someone who has the same genitals as them, it must be awfully difficult for gay people to somehow overcome a similar aversion to make some kind of social statement, eh?
In short: The "Gay is Choice" people are saying that we're all inherently straight and some people just decide to go against their *actual/straight* needs and pretend to like same sex sex. I'm still waiting for their explanation of why anyone would do that, how it benefits them, and how an inherently straight person would be able to hook up with someone they are appalled by.
Alternatively. A gay person I know said he "wanted to be this way". He is very sensitive so I didn't want to engage him on that. My theory: rather than "choosing" to reprogram his desirous tendencies, he is more likely somewhere in the middle of the orientation spectrum; he could bat for either team and be sexually satisfied. For whatever reason, he finds gays to be more fun. So he proposed to his bf and now we're both planning weddings. It's fun.
Gretchen at March 17, 2010 12:12 PM
Okay, which study or recognized expert are you citing for this authoritative pronouncement? I'd like to know where this definition comes from, because it looks suspiciously like you just made it up.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 12:18 PM
I think your addiction is outrage/drama. You seem to need to find something to be outraged about, even when the discussion doesn't call for it.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 12:22 PM
Bullshit.
Who said "genetic"? Not I. I said my homosexuality was likely influenced in utero. There is a difference. It makes it biological, but not genetic. Although I don't rule out the possibility of genetics playing a role.
As I explained above, one of the factors that determines the likelihood of a male child becoming homosexual is the number of older brothers. I'm the youngest of eleven children, and I have five older brothers. In addition, my mother had one stillborn male.
(With those kinds of odds, I never had a chance.)
Patrick at March 17, 2010 12:57 PM
> Amy has seen, in a variety of presentations,
> graphic representations of what happens to
> brain activity
Oh! Well, then. She –a lay person– has observed graphic representations. Why didn't you say so?
To imagine that some such display –seen with one's own eyes!– offers meaningful information about this topic is flatly preposterous. I'd be suspicious of her appraisal of such material even in it's own context; not because she's evil, but because she's an advice columnist.
Hey, Amy? Please describe:
• The axes of the graphic
• The quantities or qualities depicted
• The use of color, vector and magnitude to convey those values
• The tissues or fluids being sampled
• The vitality & context of those tissues (living? dead? in situ or microscope slide?)
• The topic and thesis of the researcher to whom the gear belonged (or for whom it was leased)
• Who paid for it
We're gonna need some specific discussion of the chemistry and biology here, m'kay? "Pretty yellow" and "darker orange" won't get the job done.
In her social life, Amy's affinity for scout-badge science is no doubt a charming source of conversation. On the blog it gets out of hand... As above, when we're told that her most personal "orientation" for taller men has the same biological roots as heterosexuality or homosexuality. She believes these things not because science offers any convincing evidence, but because she wants to. This is science misused, unremarkably. Her rejection of mystery in human character is her own, not that of the boys in the lab.
____________________________
> Some sophisticated, brilliant
> thinkers and writers were
> devoutly religious. That does
> not mean their religions are
> spot on about things, but don't
> deny that very advanced thinking
> and religious faith are often
> found in the same person.
Spartee's right.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 1:12 PM
Considering 85% of homosexuals who ask to be cured are indeed cured
Ah, no.
Here, irlandes, read this:
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/cure.htm
From the article: Attempts to change a person's sexual orientation in a non-neutral environment can be compared to two other possible "reparative" acts: for a black person to try to change the color of his skin to white and for a left-handed person to try to change into becoming right-handed. I rightly think that such attempts are considered induced by social attitudes and, hence, that one should be very reluctant to encourage them.
Flynne at March 17, 2010 1:17 PM
>>To imagine that some such display –seen with one's own eyes!– offers meaningful information about this topic is flatly preposterous. I'd be suspicious of her appraisal of such material even in it's own context; not because she's evil, but because she's an advice columnist.
I seem to agree with Crid on this one.
No one has ever called Amy easily fooled - and lived.
But it seems only fair to point out that the article being debated is in "The New Republic" [not a neuroscience journal] by one Sally Satel, who is a psychiatrist [not a neuroscientist) connected with the American Enterprise Institute, and that the article is a candidly opinionated review of a "provocative book" [Satel's own description] and not of a peer-reviewed neuroscience publication, and that said "provocative" book is by a behavioral psychologist [not a neuroscientist], which is in turn being commented upon by the Advice Goddess,
[who is not...etc].
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 1:48 PM
> No one has ever called Amy easily
> fooled - and lived.
I bequeath you my Zappa albums. Pass them to your sons. (My nephews have already taken a pass.)
> [not a neuroscientist], which is in
> turn being commented upon by the
> Advice Goddess,[who is not...etc]
Point taken. But isn't this exactly the sophistry Amy resists from religious goofballs, affirming the existence of God through their incestuous hand-jobbing? The fact that it's from from a sequence of non-specialists doesn't excuse it for being wrong.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 2:10 PM
Reviewing, magnitude is a component of a vector. Sorry about that. I was in a hurry to blow snot: These things happen.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 2:20 PM
>>But isn't this exactly the sophistry Amy resists from religious goofballs, affirming the existence of God through their incestuous hand-jobbing? The fact that it's from from a sequence of non-specialists doesn't excuse it for being wrong.
Quite possibly, Crid.
But I'm not entirely following your thoughts here!. My fault, this time.
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 2:34 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702239">comment from Jody Tresidderit seems only fair to point out that the article being debated is in "The New Republic" [not a neuroscience journal] by one Sally Satel, who is a psychiatrist [not a neuroscientist) connected with the American Enterprise Institute, and that the article is a candidly opinionated review of a "provocative book"
You don't have to accept every stitch of the article -- and when I post stuff here, it's not because I agree with every word. But, Stanton Peele, for decades, has published research-based work detailing why addiction is not a disease, but a choice. I believe he's right. Again, if you have MS, it's going to make your muscles behave in ways you cannot control. If you have a propensity to drink, you will drink because you voluntarily walk into a bar, order a glass of something, and then pick up your arm and pour it down your gullet.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 2:53 PM
Addiction is a disease. Drinking and using drugs is a behaviour. Recovering adddicts still have the addiction, they just don't do the behaviour any more.
Rug Pilot at March 17, 2010 3:08 PM
If one's understanding of something complicated comes from a series of easily-digested metaphors and simplifications (and this happens all the time in modern life, to all of us), then one has no authority to speak with specificity about the correctness of the complication being described, right?
Amy (or you or me or anyone) sees "glowing technicolor splotches of color" and is told these represent "activation". Properly attuned nostrils flare immediately, because people find "glowing technicolor splotches of color" impressive in any case... For example, children enjoy cartoons. So how much simplification have we suffered already? Would the "splotch" zones be said to be 'inactive' in their usual condition? Do the "splotches" represent 'electricity', as we're so often (glibly) told? How much electricity? At what point would this 'voltage' be called a thought, or a virtue, or a temptation? Wouldn't a suitably educated physiologist, or expert from each relevant field, have some questions to ask? "Neuronal alterations" are not subject to the same narrative, textual deconstruction as is an episode of Casper the Friendly Ghost.
The Formula One season started over the weekend in Bahrain. I know all about what it's like to drive an F1 car because I've read a bunch of articles about it and heard drivers talking about it in TV interviews. I have ideas about the line Lewis Hamilton should have taken over the bumpy turn six. Should he have listened to me?
We all like to think we understand the things science has to teach us on the basis of whatever study we've given it. But the condensations we receive from well-meaning specialists are often so accessible because they've been stripped of meaning. The part we don't understand is where they keep the honey.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 3:11 PM
Amy:
Ben-David, know any G-A-Y people?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Mameleh, while you were teething on scrapple somewhere in the midwest, I had a ringside New York seat at the first mirror-balled flowering of the Gay Liberation movement.
I also saw up close the compulsive, self-destructive behaviors that caused folks from my time and place to bury more gay neighbors, classmates, and acquaintances than you've probably met in your lifetime.
No lectures, please.
And for your own credibility quote something better than "truth wins out" to prove your point.
You can start with the website of a biochemist:
http://mygenes.co.nz
The article you blogged is about how a PC vibe of victimhood came to distort - and provide excuse/cover for - dysfunctional behavior.
Specifically by blunting the sense of personal responsibility - making moral clarity seem like cruelty.
This is the essence of PC discourse - it is how the PC left absolves those on the A list of sacred victim groups from responsibility for their actions.
It underlies everything from the "free Mumia" movement to the double standard regarding the Palestinians.
It is also the primary engine of the gay rights movement: the doubly specious "Born that Way" lie is used to sidestep clear evaluation of the compulsive promiscuity that STILL is the norm in the gay community.
"Born that way" is doubly specious because:
1) After 30 years of repetition, there is no evidence of any genetic or hormonal causation.
2) Even if there were - natural is not normal. There IS genetic linkage for everything from diabetes to depression. None of these have been declared normal.
Homosexual orientation forms a lot like the descriptions of drug addiction on this thread: a combination of narcissism, trauma needing numbing, and falling into bad experiences and behaviors that reinforce themselves.
Nobody is born a drug addict - or gay.
Reparative therapy DOES work - with the same outcomes as therapy for other compulsive/addictive behaviors: 30 percent are essentially freed of compulsion, 30 percent have improved function but are still addicted, and 30 percent drop out.
Roughly the same numbers for alcohol, drugs, eating disorders... and homosexual orientation.
The parallels are there... the gay lobby has used similar brain scans to "prove" that homosexuality is hard-wired - but as the article you posted demonstrates, the brain is plastic and responds to conditioned, chosen behavior.
The parallels are there.
Ben-David at March 17, 2010 3:13 PM
Here's Bahrain. Sorry.
(Note especially the "glowing technicolor splotches of color")
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 3:15 PM
"Hey, Amy? Please describe:..."
What, did somebody hit you with a bag of stupid?
Go look for yourself. The Web is packed with articles showing that areas of the brain have specific functions, and that it adapts to stimulus and damage.
But this isn't the end of it. You eat because you are hungry for food. You will do drugs if you develop a "taste" for drugs. An ordinary, they're-so-cute manatee will give up eating to be in hot water at the outlet of a power plant. Millions of people in America have given up "decent" food for McDonald's sugar rush and convenience.
Cue the debate about "free will" - and not the one engaged by the religious. You do things all the time because you have a need. The degree of need is the only difference between an addiction and a preference.
Radwaste at March 17, 2010 3:17 PM
Ben-David, how come the gay is such a frequent topic with you?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 3:19 PM
>>But, Stanton Peele, for decades, has published research-based work detailing why addiction is not a disease, but a choice. I believe he's right.
Fair comment, Amy.
And Peele appears to be no slouch.
But his model is also controversial - which I do not use as a code word for "cobblers", just that the nature of addictive behavior (and how best to inhibit/change it)is by no means settled.
Like others here, I am fuddled about the accuracy of the interpretation of the referenced imaging in the main article.
Again, Crid said this very well.
(Before I went into editing, I did grunt work proofing legit. science papers for peer review publication. The behavorial studies were often absorbing, but as for the hard neuroscience..!Half the time it wasn't just feeling dim about where they were hiding "the honey" - as Crid put it. I couldn't even spot the frigging beehive! And these were papers with "important" - that is, non trivial, findings that had likely Big Pharma applications!)
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 3:26 PM
> The Web is packed with articles showing
> that areas of the brain have specific functions
Never said it didn't. I said it's silly to look at flashing colors on a screen and belief you've been given insights about addiction and human will.
> The degree of need is ...
Why are you getting all shouty?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 17, 2010 3:30 PM
"Can you similarly "uncure" or "infect" or whatever heterosexuality?"
Spartee - I've had a few gay men try to "turn me", but their efforts failed in part because I was afraid they would actually "infect" me.
smurfy at March 17, 2010 3:33 PM
"Mameleh, while you were teething on scrapple somewhere in the midwest, I had a ringside New York seat at the first mirror-balled flowering of the Gay Liberation movement."
A pity that you haven't followed my link.
If you had, it would have shown you America's horrible secret: people in the USA, just like the rest of the world, are born with missing, outsized and inappropriate genitalia.
I found this originally when arguing about Constitutional rights. No, no one born a citizen of the USA is bound to relinquish their rights - not one - because of physical differences.
Now, a question for your professed authority: given the gross diversity exhibited in my link, can you support the idea that gender ID is BINARY?
I don't think you can. I've called out ignorance or duplicity on many who act the "normal" person, who routinely assert that they 1) are unique and 2) can't choose to "be gay". (Well, gee, doesn't that mean that others can't make the choice, either? Use your second favorite organ, the brain.)
Previously, I asserted that the degree of need is the only difference between an addiction and a preference. I suggest that the proper distinction is made at the point where a physical dependency cannot be overcome by choice. After all, we do not call someone "addicted" to breathing because there is no alternative.
Now it's time to recognize - and say out loud - that no two people have the same threshold for dependency on any behavior, learned or otherwise.
There are gay people, bisexual people, heterosexual people and even asexual people, because not everybody's on the fat part of the bell curve. Some are in denial because of outside pressures and a lack of opportunity to meet others like themselves. Others are in denial of anything other than a black/white choice for gender; they can imagine mechanical acts which repel them and know absolutely nothing of human variety. They don't wish to know, because what they are doing is "right" and what others are doing is automatically "wrong".
When you recognize this, you can calm down, understand both addiction and homosexuality and work out solutions for yourself and others - even if the solution involves swallowing... your convictions.
Radwaste at March 17, 2010 3:42 PM
"Why are you getting all shouty?"
Sorry if I deafened you - but degree is really, really important in understanding this.
Amy gets countless letters from people who made stupid choices based on feelings - easily the biggest enemy of reason there is. Are people who routinely make bad decisions really stupid or emotionally damaged? Yes to either or both, case by case.
What do drugs do? Affect feelings first. What does sex do? Release drugs, affecting feelings, and you know how profoundly they work.
But the degree of need is a fundamental property. It simply can't be left out of a sensible discussion about human behavior, addictive or otherwise.
Radwaste at March 17, 2010 3:51 PM
>>You can start with the website of a biochemist:
http://mygenes.co.nz
Ben-David,
How come your biochemist "gay gene expert" can only get his book on this topic published by a specialist Christian publisher?
(That would be Huntington House Publishing, FYI)
And why does he puff ecstatic reviews of his book on his website by people called "anon"?
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 3:51 PM
It always amuses me to listen (watch?) to the discussions of non-addicts discussing addiction.
It's like monkey's trying to fuck a football.
Addictions (alcoholism, workaholism, shopaholism)usually quite commonly occurr as a co- morbidity with other disorders (OCD, ADHD, PTSD and so on).
There are people who are able to manage those things, and people who cannot because they don't know any better. They just know they don't feel like a horrible rotten mess when they engage in the addiction. They were probably not given any of the life-skills growing up one would need for reasoning out sane decisions available to them about life's problems. A benefit many non-addicts have. Many addicts have absolute thinking, combined with OCD - you can see the prison your mind creates to limit the choices available to you when that is going on (wonder what that looks like on a brain scan?)
So, as someone above mentioned, they self medicate to feel normal - something that an addict will likely take too far. Once those neuropathways are set, it would be extremely hard to moderate this and not go back to old behaviors even once the addiction has stopped - that's why a recovering alcoholic can't just take one drink...it would be stupid and irresponsible. Sure, nothing may happen, nothing bad even...but what if.... (then people who like to shout this isn't a disease get to pile on, look down on and judge!) What fun!
I do believe that addiction is a disease, however, I don't believe it is the badge of honor that many people choose to treat it as. To treat it as a badge of honor would not provide the addict with the consequences necessary for changing their situation, much less their behaviors.
Yet, I think it is extremely narrow minded to say that addicts have a choice - especially if they are in denial. Once they KNOW, then yes, there is a choice about taking that next drink or drug (if you can get them to abstain for long enough to see this). Once they know, they can't not know. But part of the problem with addiction (I know this from experience) that the level of denial involved is nearly insurmountable until you get hit with enough pain and consequence that you are willing to change your behavior - and before you can do this - you need to clean up from the compulsion. It is a painful, wicked hell that no non-addict will ever be able to fully comprehend.
It was dysfunctional people shaming or telling me over and over how I "ought" to think, behave, feel etc that set me up for my addictions to begin with. I don't imagine that using this tool to "show" addicts their errors in judgement is a very wise thing to do - unless you want to feel better about yourselves - then by all means....
Show them consequences, put up boundaries, and tell them you'll offer them support if they wish to work on their behaviors (if your close to them that is). THEN the addict can actually SEE a choice. Before that, your pissing in the wind.
And for the record, I don't believe there is a human alive who doesn't have an addiction present - but for many, they don't go against societal norms and don't interfere with them being able to live normal enough lives, so there you go...
Feebie at March 17, 2010 4:57 PM
What, did somebody hit you with a bag of stupid?
Nobody here come up with an e-bitch slap like Radwaste
lujlp at March 17, 2010 5:02 PM
Being in recovery 16 years I like to start with this
This only is where most people coming into AA or any other recovery groups this ask you to look at yourself and at some point when people get to 4 and 5 they have a real problem.
How it work Honesty is brought up 3 times and getting down to 4 and 5 if your a real bastard your gonna take issue and may go back out
AA rate of recovery past 10 years is 1 to 2 percent and gets to be a excluive club past 15.
Some days are better than others and this past year trying the most with stress at work teenage kids I remember what I was like when I was drinking and I don`t think I have another recovery so my choice is not to drink
Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.
Our stories disclose in a general way what we used to be like, what happened, and what we are like now. If you have decided you want what we have and are willing to go to any length to get it - then you are ready to take certain steps.
At some of these we balked. We thought that we could find an easier, softer way. But we could not. With all the earnestness at our command, we beg of you to be fearless and thorough from the very start. Some of us have tried to hold on to our old ideas and the result was nil until we let go absolutely.
Remember that we deal with alcohol - cunning, baffling, powerful! Without help it is too much for us. But there is One who has all power - that One is God. May you find him now!
Half measures availed us nothing. We stood at the turning point. We asked His protection and care with complete abandon.
Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God
as we understood Him
.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
RexRedbone at March 17, 2010 6:50 PM
If homosexuality is a disease, I'm calling in queer tomorrow. And I'm applying for disability, too. Your tax dollars hard at work.
Snicker. "...demanded Pot indignantly of Kettle."
People read the scientific findings of experts and accept what they believe all the time. Are you suggesting that no lay person should ever read expert opinions and studies on anything, then decide what (to them) sounds most reasonable?
From where I sit, Amy isn't doing anything that the rest of us don't do. If you didn't do the same yourself, you wouldn't have opinions on anything outside your area of expertise (if you have one), and anyone who's seen you weigh in on the subject of gay marriage or gay parenting knows perfectly well you're not shy on that topic. For your to feign outrage over Amy's decision to accept the testimony of experts is...the word "hypocritical" in this case seems like an understatement.
One only has to look as far as your hysterical rants on gay parenting, insisting you know what a child needs, and the dishonest tactics you employed (such as twisting a clear statement that a child can still be successful and have a meaningful existence despite the lack of a mother into "a mother's love means NOTHING!") to realize that you're the last person on this blog to cry foul over opinions of lay persons.
This selective outrage over the opinions of non-experts is repugnant coming from you.
Uh, Jody? Let me remind that a psychiatrist is a medical doctor and is qualified to interpret that data. Any court in the country would recognize a psychiatrist's testimony on the subject as "expert testimony."
Do you have something from other experts that actually disputes this psychiatrist's opinion? Because the idea that one has to be a neuroscientist otherwise they can't possibly have any idea what they're talking about when it comes to a simple brain scan is preposterous. It's like suggesting that an MD isn't qualified to diagnose tinea pedis (athlete's foot), because he's not a podiatrist.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 6:53 PM
Sabrina-
Thank you for your great comments above. I have often had the same thoughts about the comments here. I think it might surprise many of these folks to know that you can be educated and rational and still believe in God. My husband and many of his friends have PhDs in the hard sciences and they believe in God. Trust me, he is a very rational person and well respected in his field. I am no slouch either. I hold a master's degree and also believe in God. For some reason, atheists think that by calling believers stupid that will some how make it true. As Spartee also pointed out, some of the world's greatest thinkers were also believers. I just wish it was okay to have a difference of opinion on this topic without all of the unnecessary personal attacks.
Sheepmommy at March 17, 2010 7:03 PM
Compared to the general population most addicts tend to have an external locus of control (LOC) which mostly just means they feel powerless in the face of circumstances and life-history to change their lives. The effective counselor will often use a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with some sort of drug therapy (e.g. antidepressants) and even if the drugs are of only marginally statistically effectiveness...since the client "believes" that the power over their lives and behaviors are largely external to themselves... then to the degree they are suggestible and subject to powerful placebo effects the drug therapy can contribute significantly to changes in behaviors effecting a recovery from addiction. (Much of CBT, I think, is about getting clients to shift the LOC from external to internal so that they will be more motivated and so better able to change their behaviors.) The point then is that to argue absolutes to a client, that it is all medical or all behavioral, can be counterproductive depending on the specific client beliefs about their own psychology. ...Just some random thoughts on a complex subject about the possible perspective of counselors by someone who has never been one.
Richard at March 17, 2010 7:24 PM
A "counselor" will not use drug therapy because it takes a medical doctor (such as a psychiatrist) to prescribe them. And psychiatrists are not counselors (probably because medical insurance is so high that they can't afford to spend a hour in therapy when they can visit with someone in ten minutes, find out how they're doing with their Paxil, adjust/change the prescription as necessary, push the patient out of the office and say "Next, please."
Patrick at March 17, 2010 7:39 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702294">comment from SheepmommyI think it might surprise many of these folks to know that you can be educated and rational and still believe in God. My husband and many of his friends have PhDs in the hard sciences and they believe in God. Trust me, he is a very rational person and well respected in his field. I am no slouch either. I hold a master's degree and also believe in God.
Would that be Zeus? Do respond. And do let us know when god came over and got your tree to talk to you or whatever to caused you believe in god -- whatever evidence of god's existence. Surely, you don't believe in god sans evidence. So, let's have it: that evidence of god's existence you based your belief on.
You can spend a lot of money on education and still not use your ability to reason. Kind of sad and icky that your husband and MANY of his friends have Ph.D.'s in the hard sciences and believe, sans evidence, in god.
And no, he's not a "very rational" person if he does.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 8:06 PM
Uh, Jody? Let me remind that a psychiatrist is a medical doctor and is qualified to interpret that data. Any court in the country would recognize a psychiatrist's testimony on the subject as "expert testimony...Because the idea that one has to be a neuroscientist otherwise they can't possibly have any idea what they're talking about when it comes to a simple brain scan is preposterous."
Not so fast, Patrick!
THE NEW YORK TIMES
October 18, 2005
Can Brain Scans See Depression?
By BENEDICT CAREY
They seem almost alive: snapshots of the living human brain.
Not long ago, scientists predicted that these images, produced by sophisticated brain-scanning techniques, would help cut through the mystery of mental illness, revealing clear brain abnormalities and allowing doctors to better diagnose and treat a wide variety of disorders. And nearly every week, it seems, imaging researchers announce another finding, a potential key to understanding depression, attention deficit disorder, anxiety.
Yet for a variety of reasons, the hopes and claims for brain imaging in psychiatry have far outpaced the science, experts say.
After almost 30 years, researchers have not developed any standardized tool for diagnosing or treating psychiatric disorders based on imaging studies...
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2010 8:21 PM
Bah-Amy and her "you-believe-in-god-you're-dumb" talk again. Personally, I'm chalking that up right there with her "I-talk-at-an-inner-city-school-so-I'm-a-good-person" spiel. Both have equal (lack of) hard evidence. (yes, I realize the fact that you talk is provable, but your "altruistic" reasons are not)
There are a lot of people with much higher IQ's than Amy, and much better ability to reason, that believe in God. She doens't. Life goes on. One truly certain of their position wouldn't feel such a desperate need to denigrate those who don't share it.
momof4 at March 17, 2010 8:32 PM
Jody, you're either being disingenuous or you don't know what I'm saying. You dismissed the testimony of a psychiatrist (a medical doctor) out of hand regarding a brain scan because he's not a neuroscientist.
Your post appears to be arguing for the legitimacy of brain scans in general.
You have not, however, proven that the brain scans in question aren't valid. Because brain scans don't show us everything we had hoped, that does not disprove the psychiatrist's claim about this particular set of scans.
It's tantamount to saying that we don't know a thing about cancer, because we can't cure it. There are things about cancer that we do understand, and the science regarding cancer is not dismissed out of hand because we don't know everything about cancer.
You cannot throw out everything we know about brain scans merely because all our hopes for it have not been fulfilled.
So, my question remains untouched. You erected a strawman. Nice try, but ultimately you forwarded a non-argument.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 8:39 PM
Some percentage of the population has problems with anger management. Certainly in Russia as well as the U.S.
There is an observation about Stalin, the despotic and absolute ruler of Russia in the 1940's. No one lost their temper at Stalin.
That experiment showed anger management is almost always controllable behavior, not a problem with wiring.
Andrew_M_Garland at March 17, 2010 8:50 PM
Ben-David must be on the ropes. He's still spouting the same faulty arguments. Perhaps he shouldn't discuss homosexuality since he can't argue his case.
Again...try to listen. "Born that way" does. not. mean. genetic.
Are you with me?
"Born that way" can be genetic, but doesn't have to me. Things can happen in utero that cause a person to be "born that way" without a genetic component, an example being the "older brother effect" I explained above. The more older brothers a male child has, the more likely he is to become gay. This is because (again) a woman's female body regards the male fetus as a foreign object and produces antibodies that feminize the fetus.
Hence homosexuality can have a biological basis without having a genetic basis. Hence someone is "born that way" without being "genetically determined to be that way."
Do you understand? "Born that way" does not mean "genetic." It can be genetic, but doesn't have to be.
Okay. Show me the diabetes gene. And show me the depression gene.
Even if you could show me these things, I should remind you that these things are not normal because they're impediments to health and happiness. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a life-threatening condition, unlike diabetes and depression.
It's obvious that you and irlandes are passionate about this issue, and I applaud that. But unfortunately, your determination to prove that this is something that should be regarded as abnormal and therefore something to be despised has caused you to suspend critical thinking on the issue.
Left-handedness isn't normal. Nor is ambidexterity for that matter. Having two different colored eyes is not normal. So, what's so wrong with abnormality? There are many conditions in the world that are not normal, but are not to be despised. Being six-foot-seven isn't normal. So, what?
Patrick at March 17, 2010 9:14 PM
Is that so different from the attitude of "you-follow-Islam-you're-an-evil-terrorist" discussion that infected this board not too long ago?
Patrick at March 17, 2010 9:17 PM
And no, he's not a "very rational" person if he does.
People are rarely irrational across the board. People of faith can be perfectly rational in some areas, while atheists can be completely irrational in some areas, too. It adds nothing to our understanding of people to conclude that someone is irrational as a whole simply because one of his or her beliefs is irrational.
MonicaP at March 17, 2010 9:35 PM
Is that so different from the attitude of "you-follow-Islam-you're-an-evil-terrorist" discussion that infected this board not too long ago?
No doubt you mean the "you-follow-Islam-you're-more-likely-to-be-an-evil-terrorist" discussion that enhanced this board not too long ago.
kishke at March 17, 2010 9:53 PM
Actually, I'm starting to think that it would be more appropriately named the "if-you-follow-Islam-I-think-you're-an-evil-terrorist-but-I'm-too-dishonest-to-come-out-and-say-it" thread.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 10:00 PM
Arguments against the existence vs. non-existence of God by some atheists can be as troubling to watch as someone who tries to choose the best tire to buy for their vehicle by conducting a taste test of the rubber compound.
Feebie at March 17, 2010 10:02 PM
Jody:
How come your biochemist "gay gene expert" can only get his book on this topic published by a specialist Christian publisher?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
How about addressing the content of the site, instead of its provenance?
Amazing amount of ad-hominem coming from people who claim THEY are victims.
This guy is cutting through the media pixie dust and looking at the real scientific papers.
Did he get the science wrong?
He probably won't get published by the NY Times either - since half its editorial board is gay.
We saw the same agenda-driven reporting in the global warming scam.
So?
What is the truth?
Claims are being made in the name of science - are they true?
Ben-David at March 17, 2010 10:50 PM
... and someone teach Patrick how to read:
Things can happen in utero that cause a person to be "born that way" without a genetic component, an example being the "older brother effect" I explained above.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Except that gays are only 2.5 percent of the population, so the overwhelming majority of sibling births do not exhibit the "older brother effect".
This is just the next pseudo-scientific fig leaf.
And I covered it in my original statement:
After 30 years of repetition, there is no evidence of any genetic or hormonal causation.
- - - - - - - - -
Because those of us who've really read the science know that the "older brother" theory is based on hormonal influence.
So when you write:
Hence someone is "born that way" without being "genetically determined to be that way."
- - - - - - - - - - -
1) Still hogwash with no scientific basis.
2) Still does not address the suspension of judgment that this claim is used to foster.
I notice you're avoiding discussing actual norms of behavior in the gay "community" - very wise of you if you want to maintain the illusion of normality....
Ben-David at March 17, 2010 10:57 PM
B.S. statistic (on top of an idiotic non-sequitir). You choose to believe the "low-balled" estimate of the Family Research Report. A 1993 Janus Report estimates 9% of men and 5% of women have more than the "occasional" homosexual experience. And even if your B.S. statistic were true, that's still nearly eight million gays. A sample pool plenty large enough to test a theory.
And you've obviously never viewed Ray Blanchard's work. Not only is fraternal birth order the most reliable indicator of sexual orientation in males, but subsequent work by Anthony Bogaert has found that phenomenon repeats itself even when the male sibling is not raised with their brothers. It does have a scientific basis, Ben-David and your screaming otherwise will not change that. I would suggest you acquaint yourself with experts in the field, such as psychologists or sociologists.
You understand nothing of the nature of sexual orientation, which is plain. You tend to see everyone as gay, straight or bisexual. In fact, sexual orientation is a spectrum. Everyone finds themselves somewhere in between. Although I myself would be at the extreme end of the spectrum.
Who's avoiding the discussion of "norms" in the gay community? You're the decidedly obsessed individual who introduced the subject into a discussion regarding addiction. Even the gay-fixated Crid found this to be extreme. I'm simply countering the misinformation your spreading.
I would wager this "no hormonal/no genetic" soi-disant claim comes from the same bogus 2.5% statistic. Actually, estimating the percentage of the gay population is extremely difficult. You have to assume that the participants are telling the truth, and I see enough people with wedding bands (or tan lines on the ring finger of the left hand) to realize that a lot of them are not being honest with themselves, or their spouses. I don't fault them too much, however. Bigots like you make it easy to see why forcing oneself to maintain an appearance of heterosexuality, despite inclinations to the contrary, might be preferable to simply living as you are. Liza Minelli's marriage to David Gest, whose wedding song might have been "I Love a Charade," is a case in point.
Patrick at March 18, 2010 2:19 AM
The Janus report?
Only 125 in-depth interviews and just over 2000 questionnaires. Privately conducted by a husband-wife team over nine years - basically they gave a questionnaire to each of their patients.
Here's a nice summary from the NY Times - note that the surveys mentioned used larger samples and more controlled survey techniques than what you're peddling:
Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay
By FELICITY BARRINGER
A new national study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough published since the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows that about 2 percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and that 1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
The figures on homosexuality in the study, released yesterday by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, are significantly lower than the 10 percent figure that was published in the Kinsey report in 1948 and that then became part of the conventional wisdom.
But the new findings are in line with a series of surveys of sexual practices done in each of the last four years by researchers at the University of Chicago, and with recently published reports from Britain, France and Denmark, said Tom W. Smith, who directs the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago.
- - - - - - - - -
... and this after the gay-rights crowd bombarded us for years with the 10-percent lie.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/15/us/sex-survey-of-american-men-finds-1-are-gay.html?scp=84&sq=percentage+of+population+gay&st=nyt&pagewanted=print
Ben-David at March 18, 2010 4:10 AM
"You can argue about how terrible born again Christians are, but I've never had to worry about being killed by a born again Christian behind the wheel of a car."
That depends entirely on what you're doing while they drive past you...
In the case of drugs or alcohol, there's certainly a physical dependency to the altered body chemistry that they provide. DTs and withdrawl symptoms are very real.
But ultimately, addicts (and we can open that up to the increasingly more ridiculous internet, videogame and sex addictions) are not addicted to the thing they're doing, they're addicted to the good feeling (or at least the promise or memory of that good feeling) that the thing provides. The rush of winning 50 bucks in the lottery is more fun than the fifty bucks, unless you know someone who really knows where to spend it.
Addiction comes in when you pass the tipping point of wanting to the the thing that gives you fun more than you want to do the things that put food on the table, or makes your family happy. Once you get there, you need to stop, or get help doing so.
Some people can stop these things on their own, some people never get top the point where they need to stop, and some people can't.
If someone needs help stopping, let them get it. But for the people who throw up their hands and plead "halpless, can't do a thing about it so I won't", I hold no pity for.
I'm glad I'm not an alcoholic because I don't think I could go through my life reminding myself every day that I'm inherently flawed and I can never ever touch another drop of liquor because it is so powerful and I am so weak. The total self-esteem crush that AA slaps on you is absolutely tragic. At least you can get over cancer; alcoholism has no cure, it's a life sentence, one day at a time, yadda yadda. Jesus, SMOKERS don't give themselves that much shit, and theyre SMOKERS, the new untouchable of modern times.
Vinnie Bartilucci at March 18, 2010 4:37 AM
>>How about addressing the content of the site, instead of its provenance?
Ben-David,
Because YOU touted the authority of that site thus:"You can start with the website of a biochemist:http://mygenes.co.nz"
YOUR touted expert appears to have NO peer-reviewed published papers in the field in which both you and he claim he is an expert - his training seems to be related to geothermal studies in NZ!
You further say: This guy is cutting through the media pixie dust and looking at the real scientific papers.
He can look at them all he likes. But since his non-expert book reaches readers courtesy only of a specialist Christian publishing house, it seems likely he has a non-scientific ax to grind.
Which makes him just another dude on the internet with a case of squirming heebie-jeebies about teh gay!
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 6:03 AM
>>Jody, you're either being disingenuous or you don't know what I'm saying...Your post appears to be arguing for the legitimacy of brain scans in general.
Patrick,
That's fair (but a bit snippy). It wasn't straw-manning, as you went on to say, my comment was just a work in progress.
I thought the NYTimes piece about the dubious & premature claims being made about brain imaging revelations was on topic. So I stuck it there (& went to finish watching a diabolical movie).
>>You dismissed the testimony of a psychiatrist (a medical doctor) out of hand regarding a brain scan because he's not a neuroscientist.
Actually, whether a psychiatrist IS qualified to interpret brain imaging most certainly does depend on the specifics of specialist training.
But my original comment was infinitely more thoughtful. I made a particular point that the psychiatrist reviewing his "provocative" book ALSO had issues with the writer's academic bias BECAUSE, she said, the writer "is a behavioral psychologist, not a clinician".
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 6:19 AM
Who's peddling anything, Ben-David?
The gay community did not create the 10% estimate. That was done by Alfred Kinsey. Blame him for originating this idea. Don't blame those who chose to believe him, who are not all gays, by the way.
If you bothered to read my post, you would see that I pointed out that the actual percentage of gays is unknown and unknowable. I happen to think it's higher than your claim of 2.5%. Judging by the success of gay bars in my community, and the "bookstores," I would say that the percentage is likely higher.
By the way, even though you refused to address it, I would point out that your claim that the older brother effect isn't true because only (supposedly) 2.5% of the population is homosexual is a non-sequitir. It is a measurable phenomenon and it is the most reliable means of prediction we have for homosexuality in males. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Regarding the Janus Report, you may add "liar" to your list of other failings. They did not give questionaires to their patients. They did a cross section of the U.S. population. And "just over 2000" amounts to 2765, thanks so much. And did 125 interviews. Your claim of "just over 2000" is misleading, which of course, you intended to do.
And to put their survey in some kind of perspective, the Guttemacher institute did their survery with just over 3000 (to use your term for it), the actual number is 3321. (And did zero interviews.)
The point being that homosexuality is underreported. In fact, by checking with hospitals and clinics, researchers have found that women underreport abortion by as much as 50%. How much more underreported do you suppose homosexuality is, which carries an even greater stigma?
Ironic, isn't it? You claim to know so much about homosexuality, including the numbers, but you're the very reason those numbers can't be trusted.
Patrick at March 18, 2010 6:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702399">comment from Vinnie BartilucciAbout those fabulous born-again Christians:
http://www.gbcdecatur.org/sermons/DyingUnderTheInfluence.html
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 7:12 AM
Amy, believing in God doesn't require proof. It is all about faith. Is there REALLY a God? Who really knows? Can I touch him or see him? No. But, I believe anyway. That is what faith is. Faith is believing in something without needing proof. I absolutely believe that this is something bigger than me out there and that thing is God. I may not have fancy charts or data to prove it, but I believe anyway.
There is no "proof" of the Big Bang Theory. Although scientists have scientific data to support their "theory" (read: hypothesis), it isn't a provable and undeniable fact that the Universe actually formed that way. They are able to provide information about how the Universe has evolved since the (theorized) Big Bang, but they are not able to confirm the Big Bang actually happened. Yet, people accept it as fact because Georges Lemaître created a model based on his "hypothesis" in 1927. Other scientists, the Great Edwin Hubble for instance, were able to provide information to substantiate his model and added their own findings to the mix but they weren't able to provide "proof". However, at one point in time, around the 40's I think, there were two theory's about the evolution of the Universe floating around, both of them based on factual findings in space. The Big Bang became the popular and accepted theory based on observational evidence from radio source counts. Big Bang wasn't really confirmed as THE theory until the 60's and most of the real information about it hasn't been gathered until the 90's due to advances in scientific technology. That isn't really that long ago and with scientific discoveries made everyday, who knows what they will discover next? Yet, we have been teaching Big Bang in our schools as "fact" for decades, even without any actual way to "prove" it. (Although no one is able to figure out where those original particles that exploded derived from. Anytime I ask a scientist where those original particles and gases that caused the original "Big Bang" explosion came from, I am met with disdain and told "They were just there." Oh really? Prove it…) Most scientists today will admit that there is no real way to "prove it" but that the Big Bang theory is the best thing they can come up with based on what they can get from space. Judging from how far we have come today with science, I would accept most of those findings as sound but they still can't "prove" it. No one has been able to "prove" how human life began on Earth yet either. We teach our children that we evolved from apes and perhaps that it partially true. I do see how that conclusion was drawn and do find the evidence of it to be pretty damn reasonable. Yet, as much published data as there is to support that "theory", how do we really know for sure? And, if we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? Wouldn't the other apes have evolved too? We also have vestigial organs leftover from evolution. Why haven't our bodies yet evolved into vessels that no longer carry these theorized useless organs? If we don't need them, why are they still there? These organs also apparently provide evidence that we are related to lots of other species of animal yet there is still so much variety in species of animal, how do we know which one we are related too? Some animals have developed attributes that were needed to help them survive their environment over time but where did the original origin of the species derive from? Dinosaurs came from lizards? Makes sense but where did that first lizard come from?
Statistics are presented, journals are published, reports are shared all the time and we all accept them as fact because the scientists are able to show us colorful charts, complicated graphs, and a lot of paperwork with big numbers on them. They are able to write new Scientific law and use big words to explain their findings and show us models and pictures to provide "evidence". Well, if they published it, it must be "proof" right? And damn anyone who tries to disagree with it because well… we can't "prove" it. But, can we really "prove" anything about any of that? Let's also not forget that "facts" can be skewed. Scientists can and do falsify information all the time. I believe that it was just recently disclosed that the whole Global Warming scientific team was skewing information, or rather just plain making it up, to suit their political agenda. The whole world bought these studies as "fact" because scientists were able to provide "prove" that Antarctica was melting. Al Gore was given the Noble Peace Prize, policies were made, and expensive measures were taken because of this "proof". Yet, it was found later that their "proof" was all lies. But somehow, people still passionately believe that Global Warming is happening and everyone is going "green" because they are convinced that the world is coming to an end. Even though proof has provided that the data is wrong, it is still hard to convince anyone otherwise because it is hard to go back and unteach what has been taught. (More like shoved down our throats)
Look, I am not trying to "prove" that God exists, or disprove any of the scientific findings, or change your mind about it because frankly, I will never be able too. I believe that the scientific information provided is the best information that could be gathered with the resources our scientists have and that they are truly competent in their findings. I believe that these theories are reasonable and probable. But why can't I also believe that some of this just isn't possible without the involvement of something else? There are just too many still unanswered questions. There are still too many what if's and why's. Why is it so hard to swallow that I believe in both Science and God? Can the two beliefs not coexist in a "reasonable" world? Must it be one or the other? And because I believe in God, as well as Science, does that make me credible?
I will never be able to really explain what it is that makes me believe, I just do. It is in my heart. Maybe it was my upbringing. Maybe I needed to believe in God to survive my lousy childhood and it really just never left me. I can't explain it. I know that I will never be able to prove anything about God, but, please don't insult those of us that do believe in God just because you don't. We are not "icky". I respect that you don't believe in God and all I ask is that you respect that I do.
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 7:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702408">comment from SabrinaAmy, believing in God doesn't require proof. It is all about faith.
Exactly. You believe in god because you were told there's a god. You probably believe in the Christian god, not Zeus or the Great Spaghetti Monster, because you were told that god exists. This is, again, childish and gullible.
You write: "I respect that you don't believe in God and all I ask is that you respect that I do."
You earn my respect, you don't just ask for it and get it. Doesn't work that way. I don't respect people who conduct their lives via mushynonthink. I can respect some of your opinions, but I don't respect the evidence-free belief in god. In fact, I find it both pathetic and arrogant when people believe in god -- with their belief, they're telling me god exists, when they have no evidence for that. Unless they're crazy (and hearing voices/seeing things) this is unacceptable in a person living in 2010, unless the local doctor is the sort with a chain of chicken bones around his neck.
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 8:08 AM
Amy,
I can understand your feelings completely. I am not going to push it further.
I will just have to allow my future posts on this blog to prove that I am not an arrogant unreasonable mushynonthinker. Hopefully that will earn your respect and my Christianity will only be one facet of my character and not the only determining factor of my character in your mind.
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 8:34 AM
>>Yet, we have been teaching Big Bang in our schools as "fact" for decades, even without any actual way to "prove" it.
Sabrina,
There is no school textbook I have ever seen - and I've looked -that sticks words like "fact" or "prove" (or indeed "theory" )in inverted commas, as you have just done.
Okay - so you're using them for suggestive emphasis, or perhaps sarcasm, right?
Fine.
But science textbooks - the public school textbooks I've have scoured cover to cover - use unadorned words like "theory" and "fact" and "proof" and "evidence" with exquisite - even tiresome! -accuracy.
That a theory may be supplanted by another is not a weakness in science - or a lousy sleight of hand. It is what drives knowledge.
And a "theory" does NOT mean "the latest hunch from godless liberals". Look it up!
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 8:43 AM
"That a theory may be supplanted by another is not a weakness in science - or a lousy sleight of hand. It is what drives knowledge."
I understand that and never said it was. I also have that drive for knowledge. Which is why I do ask so many questions. About everything. Even my own faith. I question the quotes in the bible all the time.
"And a "theory" does NOT mean "the latest hunch from godless liberals". Look it up!"
Again, I never said it did and I never even insinuated that anyone who does believe these theories is a "Godless Liberal". I even stated in my post that these theories are solid and I believe in them as well. I still have questions, but I didn't say they were wrong. Yes I was using some sarcasm in my post but I was trying to prove a point. (And I am just sarcastic in general anyway) Christians are mocked endlessly because they can't prove there is a God. Well, we can't prove a lot of things in life so why do I have too? Why can't I believe what I believe and that be that? I am not trying to convert anyone. I am not spouting off ignorant holy religious propoganda, preaching to anyone, or dismissing scientific evidence because of my faith. I have common sense when it comes to my faith and know that God is a being in my heart but isn't the end all be all of everything. I understand science and respect facts. I dont think I post stupid shit about nonsence and I certainly don't think I have placed any judgement on anyone here. I just don't see why I should have to pick a side and am not going to keep trying to justify it.
Like I said before to Amy, I am not going to push it anymore. I know that to be taken seriously here, I have to work for it. And I welcome the challenge. Amy's challenge to me is part of why I actaully enjoy her writing so much. There's no bullshit and it's fucking funny. I hope that my posts going forward will show that I am not some bible thumping ignoramous and that my posted opinions here will not be viewed as invalid merely because of my religious beliefs.
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 9:27 AM
Interesting...Amy, my lovely goddess, I subscribed to someone on youtube.com recently that I think you'll find interesting. He's a atheist of about 26 years old, who shared his own thoughts about believing in God, which I think you'll find very interesting and very much in keeping with your opinions.
Here you go, darlin'. It's just under two minutes, but I think you'll be impressed.
For the record, I am a believer, but I've never had a problem with anyone else's faith or lack thereof.
Jody, very true about the word "theory." One of the things that amuses me about creationists is that they dismiss evolution as "just a theory." What they don't seem to realize is that the concept of creationism doesn't even qualify as a theory.
Check out his other videos, too. He's got five of them. The ones I think you'll like are "A Crayon Should Keep Us All Thinking" and "Why I Am A Non-Believer."
Patrick at March 18, 2010 9:33 AM
Nice threadjack Ben-David, congrats.
Pervinich at March 18, 2010 9:41 AM
>>Well, we can't prove a lot of things in life so why do I have too? Why can't I believe what I believe and that be that?
You can, Sabrina. But your statement (above) is a good example of how you seem to using "to prove" in a fairly loose fashion.
Because you also say: "I will never be able to really explain what it is that makes me believe, I just do. It is in my heart."
I understand. But it has nothing to do with science explanations in school textbooks.
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 9:41 AM
PATRICK!!
(Yes, I am shouting to get your attention..)
I am waiting for you to pick up on this open-to-attack comment I made a little earlier (in response to yours.)
I wrote: Actually, whether a psychiatrist IS qualified to interpret brain imaging most certainly does depend on the specifics of specialist training.
I now demand that you get on your high horse - because it's a lovely pose! - and accuse me of saying something without any cites! I want you to ask me WHERE I GOT MY INFORMATION from!
Go on - ask:)
Please...?
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 9:48 AM
Jody, you are correct. My beliefs have nothing to do with science. I am not dismissing science textbooks... although I can see how one could get that impression. Going back and re-reading my post, I can see where I come off sounding like a know it all God monger. I was trying to make a point but it seems that my point got lost in my passionate rambling and sarcasm. I was not as eloquant as I would like to have been so... Please take me at my word folks when I say that I am not dismissing the science behind the theories.
"One of the things that amuses me about creationists is that they dismiss evolution as "just a theory." What they don't seem to realize is that the concept of creationism doesn't even qualify as a theory."
You are also correct Patrick. Creation is a belief, not a theory. And I for one do not believe it is the only explanation for everything. It is why I called myself "Christian lite" a few posts earlier. I am not naive enough to believe that creation (hence God) is the only answer to everything. I realize there is more to it than that.
Anyway, back on topic... Addiction and all that.
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 9:54 AM
"You believe in god because you were told there's a god."
How do you know this? Did you ask? Do you ever?
"I find it both pathetic and arrogant when people believe in god"
This is the same argument style I hear coming from religious folk who are so completely twisted up in their own beliefs that they do not give others any room for an open, honest, discourse. Only insults.
So what if you disagree? Why is it so necessary for you to call people stupid - there are other perspectives on how to walk through things that have no tangible values - where evidence doesn't work in it's application. More of a personal philosophy if you will - that is as individual every person on earth. It doesn't need to be pigeonholed, because it just doesn't work that way.
This shit makes me grouchy - AND I DONT EVEN BELIEVE IN A CHRISTIAN GOD.
Amy, weren't you the one who got picked on in HS? I am pretty shocked for someone who experienced that you could be so mean spirited when it comes to people posting here. It's one thing entirely to disagree with someones opinion but still have the decency to respect them as a person on the level the situation warrants - something entirely different to have respect earned for other things, like if you wish to be their friend (higher standard, of course). So you can just disrespect those with whom you disagree with? Are people just targets to you? Perhaps a clarification is warranted here.
Jeezus! Not sure what makes me recoil worse, Amy saying she does not respect people who believe in God, or the responder who thinks she needs to "prove" her worth to someone who has zero manners with civil discourse on this subject.
And I like Amy very much, but this is the one subject she discusses that I wish to avoid reading. It reminds me of the religious assholes who say I am going to hell because I don't do things their way, it's Creepy.
Feebie at March 18, 2010 10:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702436">comment from FeebieI am pretty shocked for someone who experienced that you could be so mean spirited when it comes to people posting here. It's one thing entirely to disagree with someones opinion but still have the decency to respect them as a person on the level the situation warrants
I respect their humanity, and their right to exist as a person, but I don't respect the evidence-free belief in god, and if you trumpet such beliefs, I'm going to be critical of them.
On the other hand, I just had a wonderful coffee and chat with my friend Lawyer Tom, a wonderful guy who's a Christian and believes in god. He doesn't talk about how there's a god, so I don't get into it, either. But, if he tells me there's a god, I'm going to tell him there's no evidence for one, etc.
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 10:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/addiction_is_no.html#comment-1702439">comment from FeebieWhy is it so necessary for you to call people stupid
I'm criticizing their irrationality, and you'll note that I don't go after the astrology buffs, because whether you are silly enough to waste your time reading your horoscope in the paper will have little impact on my life. Religion (and the evidence-free belief in god that supports the business that is religion), however, impacts all of us in substantial ways.
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 10:12 AM
On the whole god debate I'm willing to let agnostics slide, een deists if I'm not on a rant at the moment as a deist is nothing more than an agnostic hedging their bets.
But theists dont get off that easy. I if you are going to claim that there is a specific god and that you now what he wants you better pony up the proof.
Just by reading a theists own religious texts you can disprove the existnce of their deity
lujlp at March 18, 2010 10:31 AM
Amy, thanks for clarifying.
Feebie at March 18, 2010 10:57 AM
Patrick:
The gay community did not create the 10% estimate. That was done by Alfred Kinsey. Blame him for originating this idea. Don't blame those who chose to believe him
- - - - - - - - - - -
I blame the gay "community" for repeating this statistic long after it was called into question by more scientific surveys.
Kinsey worked and published in the 50s and 60s - and we now know he got to 10 percent by choosing a cohort top-heavy with convicted sexual predators and deviants.
Numerous large-scale studies - and the obvious evidence of the size of the gay "community" - indicate that the number is actually much lower.
Regarding the brother effect: not all gay men are younger brothers, and the overwhelming majority of younger brothers are not gay.
Not every orrelation translates into causation - and the "born that way" claim is all about causation: "it's not my fault - I was born that way."
That has not been proven.
Ben-David at March 18, 2010 11:00 AM
Jody tries to make the ad-hominen stick:
YOUR touted expert appears to have NO peer-reviewed published papers in the field in which both you and he claim he is an expert - his training seems to be related to geothermal studies in NZ!
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sounds good to me - I'll take any scientifically trained person over progressive know-it-alls who couldn't read a research paper if their lives depended on it.
I, too, came to my knowledge of statistics through something other than Queer Studies - so?
... and what exactly are YOUR scientific qualifications?
Why don't you show us yer stuff - by actually critiquing the analyses on that website.
Instead of typical PC sneer-n-smear tactics.
Here it is again:
http://mygenes.co.nz
Ben-David at March 18, 2010 11:06 AM
Okay, Jody, I demand (huff, huff) to know where you got your information from!
Amy's allowed to not believe in God. And she's allowed to think I'm stupid for believing in God. I'm not the least bit bothered by her stance on the issue. Honestly, I feel profound gratitude that we live in a country where Amy is free to say she doesn't believe in God, and that she thinks those of us who do are mushy non-thinkers. Some countries would probably stone her for saying that.
I think reacting to Amy's (or anyone's stance) on the issue with vitriol (even if you consider Amy's stance vitriolic) is a sign of insecurity.
And I personally doubt Amy would call me a mushy non-thinker. And who cares if she does? I'll just console myself in the knowledge that I'm saved and when Amy dies, they're gonna bury her face down so she can see where she's going! Smug! Smug!
(I'm kidding, by the way. I don't truly believe that's what's going to happen when we die. A merciful and good God does not consign people to fire, brimstone and unspeakable agony for all eternity.)
Patrick at March 18, 2010 11:07 AM
Amy-
Sorry hon, but your response to what I wrote was rude and completely disproportionate to what I said. All I said was, why can't we all agree to disagree on this topic without the name calling. I have never preached any kind of gospel on this board. It isn't my way and no one here wants to hear it anyway. However, I have a problem when someone I have never met makes sweeping statements about my personality and abilities.
Actually, you have given me quite a laugh this morning. You really can't see the irony of having written a book on manners and the vicious attack you launched on me for no real reason. What is even actually funnier, is that you admit to knowing people who are believers who aren't "icky"
like your friend Tom. Wow! I'll bet it never crossed your mind to say to him what you've just written to me. What's the dif? He and I are the same. Is it b/c when you are face to face with someone it is hard to be that rude or are you just chicken shit? I mean these are your sacred beliefs and you attack anyone here who differs from them. So why not old Tom? Since you like challenges so well, why don't you show him what you wrote to me and let's see what he thinks of it.
As for proving the source of my belief to you... I don't have to. I am not the one trying to convert people. That is you. You are just like those holy rollers who show up at your front door and won't take no for answer. You just use foul language and argue like a 12 year old girl to support your argument instead of the Bible. Frankly, you sound really insecure. Maybe if you had finished your degree, you wouldn't have to randomly insult those who did.
sheepmommy at March 18, 2010 11:13 AM
>>Okay, Jody, I demand (huff, huff) to know where you got your information from!
Patrick you're a total sweetheart for playing..)
Ahem.
So, Patrick, I see you want to know where I got my information from?
Well, last night I went and had a word with the boffin who put together and addressed a top US boffins' workshop/course on - and I'll keep this brief - noninvasive brain imaging to identify drug targets and adaptive processes; neuroadaptative processes at the molecular and cellular level, neural networks and their modulation, the relevance of genotype to susceptibility and drug response; tolerance and adaptation at the cellular level and approaches to exploiting the daunting volume generated by neuroinformatics.
(This international workshop - held at the neuroscience center attached to a big teaching & research lab here in NY -was to discuss and develop "comprehensive models of neuroadaptative processes fundamental to addiction, withdrawal, craving, and relapse to drug use and to brain function, in general".)
And, Patrick, I asked him if "all psychiatrists were qualified to interpret brain imaging, or does having that skill, in fact, depend on the specifics of specialist training?"
And he said: "Jody, my sweet.(Yup, he did say the "my sweet" bit!) Of course psychiatrists need specialist training in neuroscience - otherwise they don't know what they are talking about. That lack of sustained specialist training presents a very common problem in interpretation. But I thought you already knew that?"
Your call?
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 11:23 AM
As for proving the source of my belief to you... I don't have to. - sheepmommy.
You do if you vote on laws which require the public to behave in ways you think your god might want people to act
lujlp at March 18, 2010 11:33 AM
>>Why don't you show us yer stuff - by actually critiquing the analyses on that website.
Ben-David,
I've told you why I won't read him. Because his credentials seem extremely iffy.
I don't have any scientific credentials. So I need to make sure the stuff I DO try to understand is by people who appear to know their own field.
And I do NOT have the time or desire to download free books by random internet dudes with a beef about the "Queer" population, as you put it.
He is all yours.
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 11:37 AM
> you'll note that I don't go after the
> astrology buffs, because whether you
> are silly enough to waste your time
> reading your horoscope in the paper
> will have little impact on my life.
Never forget Nancy Reagan's fascination with the mystic named Joan (something).
Crid at March 18, 2010 11:49 AM
FWIW, I am not untterly insulted by Amy either. I am a big girl. I can take it. I will admit her comments stung a little at first, and I felt a need to jusitify myself, but in retrospect, I have to say I agree with Patrick and his entire last post.
I will not be able to change her mind, (and that isn't really what I want to do anyway) just as she won't be able to change mine, but I do have to say that I am glad that she at least has enough balls to say it to my (figurative) face. I would rather the blatant insult to my face than hypocracy and behind the back gossip. At least you know where you stand when someone tells you they think you're beliefs are stupid to your face... ya know...
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 11:49 AM
Damn I cannot spell for some reason...
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 11:58 AM
I'll continue to play, but I'm not going to sit on the high horse any more. High elevations make my nose bleed.
However, I should point out to you that he didn't say that it requires a neuroscientist. He said that a psychiatrist has to have training in neuroscience. There is a difference. I have training in psychology and sociology, but I'm neither a psychologist nor a sociologist.
It isn't sufficient to say a psychiatrist (any psychiatrist) isn't qualified to read the brain scans. Does this psychiatrist have the training he needs to read the brain scan? And if he doesn't, is he presenting his own opinion or has he availed himself of the services of someone who can read them? And most importantly, and most obviously, has his interpretation been countered by someone of equal or greater training?
Basically, it's insufficient to say he's unqualified, therefore wrong, because he's a psychiatrist. Does he have the training? I think the easiest thing to do is actually send his findings to one of your neuroscientist friends and see what he thinks of this psychiatrist views? There's always the possibility that the psychiatrist is right, you know.
And by the way, I totally agree with you regarding Ben-David's soi-disant "source." If this supposed expert wants to be taken seriously, he could start by referring to us as "homosexuals" (the clinically correct term) and not call us "queers."
And I'd like to see his bona fides, too. I have a licenses psychologist who has read and confirmed the existence of the "older brother effect."
Ben-David, you don't understand what you're talking about. No one ever said that every gay male has to have an older brother. What you do to test this hypothesis is that you survey self-identified gay men, and find out how many older brothers they have. What they find is that the more older brothers a male child has, the greater percentage of homosexuals exist in that particular group.
Zero older brothers = x% of the entire population is homosexual.
One older brother = 1.28 to 1.48(x%) of the entire population is homosexual.
Two older brothers = 2(1.28 to 1.48(x%)) of the entire population is homosexual.
And so on. No one ever said that every homosexual has an older brother. All males have a chance of becoming homosexual, regardless of the number of older brothers. That chance simply increases by 28% to 48% per older brother.
Patrick at March 18, 2010 12:00 PM
>>It isn't sufficient to say a psychiatrist (any psychiatrist) isn't qualified to read the brain scans.
Got me bang to rights there, Patrick.
Good point.
>>I think the easiest thing to do is actually send his findings to one of your neuroscientist friends and see what he thinks of this psychiatrist views?
Except in the original Amy-linked piece, it's a psychiatrist reviewing a book by a behaviorial psychologist. (And I think the reviewer sort of agreed there was a dash of provocative grandstanding by the psychologist, because he favored looking at all addictions ONLY in one way.)
>>If this supposed expert wants to be taken seriously, he could start by referring to us as "homosexuals" (the clinically correct term) and not call us "queers."
But - Patrick!
Have you not seen the glowing reviews of that book beloved by Ben-David? They are sprinkled generously throughout the expert's website.
"Born that way" ... The book does a thorough and authoritative job of dispelling this myth...
Anonymous, Maryland Family Values Alliance 2000
http://www.mdfva.org/
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2010 12:20 PM
Snicker. I guess you're right, Jody. Clearly, there couldn't possibly be any bias on the part of a "Family Values" group. What was I thinking?
Pretty sad when people have a visceral distrust of a family values group. I'm totally ashamed of myself.
Patrick at March 18, 2010 12:47 PM
Evolution is a theory. But that doesn't mean it's simply a guess. According to the US National Academy of Sciences:
Conan the Grammarian at March 18, 2010 1:05 PM
Hey, Conan! Nice to see you. I was wondering when you'd show up.
That was actually my point. When the creationists I mention speak of evolution, they call it "just a theory," as if that were some crass dismissal, not realizing that creationism doesn't qualify for that distinction.
But thanks for posting that definition. That will prove very useful.
Patrick at March 18, 2010 1:59 PM
Partick, re Ben-David: "Ironic, isn't it? You claim to know so much about homosexuality, including the numbers, but you're the very reason those numbers can't be trusted."
All you have to know about Ben-David, on this thread, is that he has steadfastly ignored my post.
He has to. People who are neither 100% male or 100% female cannot be permitted to exist in his world.
But they do exist. And they have rights.
-----
Sabrina: one the biggest handicaps a religious person can have is to not know what has been discovered in the real world. Saint Augustine said that more than 1600 years ago. It's a lot of work.
In short, there are some things that render the Bible™ non-literal, by showing conclusively that conditions precluding assertions in the Bible exist today and existed in the past. You can find most right here. The things you find on that site can be discovered yourself - you, yourself, can go investigate. "Science" does not have a lock on it, or a secret password.
This is a big problem for those who think that the existence of God™ depends on the Bible™, rather than the other way around. A good way to illustrate this is to ask, "Can God™ have another begotten son?" If you say, "No", you've just put the book on the throne and shown everyone that's what you're really worshipping. I hope not.
The thread is wandering. Sorry.
Radwaste at March 18, 2010 3:37 PM
Not just a theory!
Radwaste at March 18, 2010 3:39 PM
Patrick wrote: In short, there are some things that render the Bible™ non-literal, by showing conclusively that conditions precluding assertions in the Bible exist today and existed in the past. You can find most right here. The things you find on that site can be discovered yourself - you, yourself, can go investigate. "Science" does not have a lock on it, or a secret password.
Patrick, thank you for that insight. Really. I am constantly seeking out the answers to questions, or asking new questions and am always am always looking for more information. That link you posted will be a very useful new tool.
Patrick wrote: This is a big problem for those who think that the existence of God™ depends on the Bible™, rather than the other way around. A good way to illustrate this is to ask, "Can God™ have another begotten son?" If you say, "No", you've just put the book on the throne and shown everyone that's what you're really worshipping. I hope not.
I see what you are saying here and I happen to be in agreement with you. I would like to think I am worshipping the right one for the right reasons. But I guess one can't really be an objective judge about themselves.
I have personally found this thread to be the most interesting yet, even if it has completely veered of topic.
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 5:09 PM
"I have never preached any kind of gospel on this board. It isn't my way and no one here wants to hear it anyway. "
Well I have, and quite successfully, I might add. But then, my faith is strong.
Incidentally, I'd like to thank all of you who sent me checks and particularly those who sent cash. I will continue to sell Tickets Out of Hell and the remaining Tickets Into Heaven (also known as Rapturepalooza, although they're going fast and the price has gone up substantially).
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 18, 2010 5:11 PM
Sabrina, one thing you need to learn here is to not take things personally. There are many topics that cause some strong opinions. Amy blogs often about single mothers and writes some pretty negative things on that subject. I happen to be a single mother. There are some regulars who I have sparred with on some subjects and some others that we've been in complete agreement. What I enjoy is the different perspectives and the open forum we have to discuss them. I don't agree with everything Amy says or thinks but I love her blog because she will address what you think or say and tell you why. I do try to always keep an open mind because there are valid reasons for why she and others believe things that I may not agree with and vice versa. I can lay out an argument with things that I feel make my case and ten others may see it differently. That's the beauty of it here. We all come from different experiences and perspectives. Its what makes the world go round. So don't take everything so personally. At the end of the day there's only one person you have to face in the mirror.
Kristen at March 18, 2010 7:23 PM
"Why is it so hard to swallow that I believe in both Science and God? Can the two beliefs not coexist in a "reasonable" world? Must it be one or the other?" Sabrina @ 7:51 AM.
Galileo said it best: "E pur si muove!" (And yet it moves!). That's what he muttered under his breath in 1633 after the Inquisition threatened him with torture & forced him to publicly deny that the Earth moves around the sun. God & science have coexisted in countless reasonable people, like Galileo & Einstein. But they always had to be clear about which was which, and when push came to shove, they had to put truth first (well, maybe after self-preservation).
Science is not a belief system. It's the search for the truth about nature. Scientific truth is true whether you believe in it or not. Einstein discovered that E = mc2 in 1905. But that equation was true ten billion years ago, and it will be true for eternity, everywhere in the universe. Einstein's beliefs had nothing to do with it.
Scientists dug up Piltdown Man in 1912. They didn't prove that it was a forgery until 1953. How could somebody who crudely stuck a human skull & an orangutan jaw together have fooled so many scientists for so long? Because Piltdown man perfectly confirmed their beliefs. They believed that our ancestors evolved big brains first, and that the rest of the human anatomy came after. And they refused to believe that the human race began in Africa, the home of the inferior Negro race. The first humans MUST have been Eurasians, like them! Some scientists saw right away that Piltdown Man was a fake, and that the hominid fossils that were being dug up all over Africa told the real truth about human evolution. But others kept denying the truth for decades, because it offended their beliefs, until they finally had no choice but to admit it.
Science & belief can only coexist when the truth comes first.
Martin at March 18, 2010 11:14 PM
"Why is it so hard to swallow that I believe in both Science and God? Can the two beliefs not coexist in a "reasonable" world? Must it be one or the other?" Sabrina @ 7:51 AM.
Not to harp on it but since Martin brought up Galileo, the catholic church did not admit that the earth revolved around the sun until the 1960s
That right there is a good example of why people find hard to swallow
lujlp at March 18, 2010 11:41 PM
>>Scientists dug up Piltdown Man in 1912. They didn't prove that it was a forgery until 1953. How could somebody who crudely stuck a human skull & an orangutan jaw together have fooled so many scientists for so long? Because Piltdown man perfectly confirmed their beliefs.
Martin,
I saw such a brilliant new play about this at the Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago, called "Fake".
Total spoiler - but it had great fun with a fantasy that the skull was planted as a deliberate con by Arthur "Sherlock Holmes" creator Conan Doyle. Doyle planned to later expose the stupidity of scientists he was having a feud with, who he hoped would temporarily fall for the con. The problem was - as you pointed out - because everyone wanted to believe in Piltdown man, Doyle's plan backfired!
It was a riveting two hours about, basically, the perils of unscientific faith in science!
Jody Tresidder at March 19, 2010 6:16 AM
To Patrick:
1 - What I said was not vitriolic.
2. I think your judgement on what things are considered "vicious" or "vitriolic" have been seriously compromised by your (repeated) bizarre proclivities for over-exaggerating just about anything being swept into your illusionary world.
3. I thought you weren't talking to me anymore? I must say, I rather enjoyed your obvious, albeit, unconscious attempts at recreating the dysfunctional childhood dynamics of your family when punishing me with the "silent treatment".
4. "And I personally doubt Amy would call me a mushy non-thinker." Do you believe in God? Maybe you are the exception to the rule - why don't you ask her then?
5. My beef with people who get snarky about people's belief systems (especially regarding a God) is that they take the most narrow approach imaginable by applying their own parameters and evidentiary litmus tests ("Do you believe in Zeus...it's because you were told so"...) to something that couldn't be farther in context from what God can be for some people.
Science isn't the only the "logical" and "reasoning" discipline out there. There is also something called philosophy and it can be very individual. If believing in a God keeps a person from engaging in an addiction where science and medicine has failed *for them personally* - I find it EXTREMELY reasonable and logical that a person would believe in a God to help give them the strength they need to live a normal and full life. In fact, it would be illogical NOT to see that.
It is a different perspective - something which sciency brains tend to have shortsightedness on (and me being a non-science brain, I have my own shortcomings too). As long as the religious folks aren't legislating things that impact me directly - I don't feel compelled to give them a hard time or call them STUPID with something that provides them with significant improvement to their lives. For me, to be compelled otherwise would be stupid. I mean, who the hell do I think I am?
The scientific arguments atheists use to "disprove" God's existence are only one small facet of a huge picture.
Different things work for different people. Just like how Amy needs to study and learn a specific way that may not make the least bit of sense to someone who was taught differently. How would she like it if someone came along and told her she could only do it one way, their way, because otherwise she would be stupid and childish - BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS so!!! Well, who the FUCK cares is my point...if it get's her to where she needs to be? Why would she care about science if her way works for her? Right?
That is what I am saying. Needing to prove the existence of God by material evidence is absolutely irrelevant and short-sided. And doing it by calling people names, especially "stupid", get's under my skin - especially when someone has never tried to see it from any other perspective than their own.
Feebie at March 19, 2010 4:59 PM
Feebie, you're simply using your own definitions now. I've seen that many times, most often among people who are not comfortable with the idea that they are dependent on natural laws which they cannot change. I hope that's not why you're doing it.
When a "philosophy" is not based on reason, observation and evidence, it is neither logical nor reasoning.
When your viewpoint is subjective, and it is not labeled as subjective, then it is not in any way scientific and in fact probably engages one or more fallacies.
Remember: a fallacy is a fatal flaw in logic.
If you maintain that a "philosophy" is a system of thought which serves the user well, then, you've just used another name for "belief system".
And here's how you build yours.
Billions of people have erroneous beliefs which are simply not tested by their environment. When they are, things get ugly right away.
Radwaste at March 19, 2010 5:38 PM
Rad - You've posted this link before, and I've found it fascinating. Thanks.
It's these natural laws I see as being unavoidable, omnipresent, and for me, God. I am quite comfortable having zero control over them and I accept that (it's when I thought I had control over these things that my life became twisted and unpleasant). Maybe some people don't appreciate the perfection in them like I do - I was brought up in an environment that taught me that I could control them, so I suffered - a lot.
It is not a scientific observation I am making; it is experiential. It is humanistic and practical, but I don't see that as being any less important.
If someone can show improvement by adopting a belief system that allows them to grow, be kind to others, and find their own individuality and freedoms (etc) while not impacting others in a negative way or encroaching on their rights - who is anyone to call them stupid? Sure, others out there may find a different approach but the meaning and richness of life cannot be quantified by science. In this particular case I find it to be of little use.
There are somethings that cannot be measured in scientific terms - like why someone likes strawberries and another person doesn't.
People should have the individual freedom to find their own way through life. Whether I agree with them or not. I also choose not to berate people who look towards an erroneous belief system if it is the only way they have found to be able to have a decent quality of life.
It's not so much that this philosophy serves ME well, it is in itself natural law because by practicing it I am not trespassing on others natural rights. Saying ones belief's are stupid is one thing - calling them stupid as a person is something else entirely. Dehumanizing people to me is icky.
Feebie at March 19, 2010 6:48 PM
"Thus no man can really change his sentiments, judgments, and inward affections, at the pleasure of another; nor can it tend to any good to *make* him profess what is contrary to his heart. The right of private judgment is therefore unalienable." Francis Hutcheson
Emphasis mine.
Feebie at March 19, 2010 7:23 PM
while not impacting others in a negative way or encroaching on their rights - Feebie
That right there is the catch, isnt it.
Its also the one caveat that most religious people cant be bothered to follow.
lujlp at March 19, 2010 10:09 PM
Luj, I'd have (and do have) the same words for religious folks that do just that. But ALL religious folks are not like that.
Two wrongs don't make a right, in any case. I do my best to remain consistent.
Feebie at March 19, 2010 10:26 PM
Someone please tell Feebie to get her head out of her ass. I have no idea what she's yammering about, but I did not reply to her, nor will I.
Patrick at March 20, 2010 3:08 PM
What are you, five?
Feebie at March 20, 2010 3:34 PM
Leave a comment