Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 17:30:26
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on November 25, 2005, at 7:57:49
> > Twin studies have shown that addictive behaviour HAS A HERITABLE COMPONANT. There is a difference.
> Not according to the way the word "heritable" is used in medical literature.
???
> This semantic aside, twin separation studies demonstrate that addiction can follow a pattern of genetic inheritence.
Right. CAN follow. (Or TEND TO follow). Not MUST follow. That was the only point I was trying to make with the heritable / heritable componant distinction.
>It is not, however, a simple single-gene trait that determines how the genotype will express as a phenotype.
Sure, I appreciate that.
>Not even eye color works this way.
Yup.
>Nor do genetics account for the evolution of addiction in every case.
Ah. So... What do you want to say about this? There are addicts who do not have the 'disease' of addiction???
>However, it would be sabotoge to discount the role that genetics does play.
Agreed. I'm not saying we should go to the other extreme... Just trying to say we should seek more of a middle ground.
AA / NA emphasise the 'disease' componant...
I would prefer them to seek more of a middle ground...
(That means backing off on the inevitability of jails, institutions, and death claim for starters)>As would the denial of the involvement of psychosocial factors in many cases of addiction, the denial of the involvement of the genetic factors leads to a an incomplete understanding or misunderstanding of the human condition.
Yes indeed.
> > My issue is that the main focus on differences between different ethnic / racial / cultural groups seems to be to focus on biological differences.
> Whose main focus?Well, what you had to say about it for starters...
And that is something that I have noticed.
Biology is praised as a 'proper science' (relative to) the social sciences.
(Interesting to note that Biology is not praised as a 'proper science' relative to Physics and Chemistry but any way...)
People...
The media...
Tend to lap up 'scientific findings'.
The more 'scientific' the better.
I'm just saying that a more balanced treatment is more likely to give us a more accurate picture, that is all.> Geneticists are not the only epidemiologists. I can guarantee you that the study of diabetes in native American peoples includes diet and eating behavior.
But you know about their 'genetic disposition'.
Do you know about their diet and eating?
How about other people out there?
In general...
Society focuses on the 'more scientific'
Becuase...
Well...
Maybe because people do have a tendancy to simplify...
And a lot of people out there still think that it is open for debate whether (anything you like) is determined by environment and genes.
But that has been settled.
Its not open for debate.
Both.
Both.
So why don't we hear a more balanced treatment?
I dunno...> So too, has the investigation of addiction in varied populations included the study of psychosocial and cultural factors. I have read several of these studies.
Sure. Do you learn about those in AA / NA the way you learn about the 'disease' and genetic stuff?
>The observation of disease does not require a need to explain it. It is what it is.
?
> Many diseases are the result of very complex interactions among multiple agents, both internal and external. This realization is not lost on the intelligence of those people who study them.
Most people thankfully.
This insight has been lost at various times in history though.
(Bell curve for example)
Not that that is on disease, but that is on nature vs nurture.In fact...
I think it is still around...We (in western culture) tend to blame individuals for things...
That other cultures would blame society for...Interesting...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:575263
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20051106/msgs/582171.html