|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 14:27:35 GMT -5
Post by Tammy B on May 9, 2006 14:27:35 GMT -5
I took the tests and answered the questions as if I was still drinking. The first test said I had a problem with alcohol and that my drinking was excessive. Although at the time I didn't believe my drinking to be excessive. I would drinking 3-4 times a week and have 3-5 drinks each time. I would drink to oblivion maybe every other month and have frequent blackouts. I was quite the light weight.
The second test said I didn't have a big problem but needed to cut back. This test also started out by saying "It is very hard to judge you own drinking patterns".
I decided to start a new thread and stop talking about drugs and alcohol on the music site.
I agreed with the statement in the second test. I think it is very hard for people to be 100% honest with tests like this. My results were not consistent.
When we look at another person drinking we call it "taking that persons inventory". Its always easier to look at someone else than ourselves. I personally cannot deem you alcoholic, only you can do that.
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 16:16:53 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on May 9, 2006 16:16:53 GMT -5
Tammy,
Glad you started a new thread. We should have done so 10 posts ago. Now, I am going to hijack it by contesting one of the philosophical statements you made:
"It's always easier to look at someone else than ourselves."
Descriptively, it is much harder to determine what motivates others. Getting clear on our own motivations is terribly difficult, but getting clear on someone else's...well, I'd say that is even more difficult, especially in cases where behavior is exceptional, out of character, in some sense. You have one less source of information, that of introspection, in all judgments about other people. The chief obstacle to introspection is selfishness of some kind, so the ideal is to make yourself as good as possible (trying to overcome your tendency to self-serving judgment), then trust your own opinions.
We often pretend that we understand other people because it allows us to tell a certain kind of story about ourselves (to ourselves). When I consider your quote, I think you mean something like that: It is easier to misjudge others (for our own purposes) than it is to judge ourselves accurately. If that is what you mean, then I agree entirely. I would only add that the proper measure of others is much more difficult to achieve than that of ourselves.
The upshot is that one’s own internal judgments, when they are sought in humility and personal honesty, are far more accurate than almost any external judgment. That’s why only the individual is able to classify herself as an alcoholic. It doesn’t matter if anyone else does, really. I had lots of experience with that trying to motivate the parents of abused children.
Still, the individual should pay attention to external judgments. This is part of what is meant by the humble pursuit of self-knowledge: All (respectable) sources of self-information are considered, though the judgments concerning them are finally personal.
What kinds of external sources are most important to consider? I’d say family and friends, those who view one’s behavior most closely.
Here is where I think you will disagree with me most strongly. The external opinions that I think are most suspect are those who have adopted a definite stance toward a problem they suspect you of having and those who have no experience at all of a problem they suspect you of having. In the present case, this means that people in AA—or the subjects of any counseling paradigm, really—will tend to be biased in rather predictable ways. Second, people with no experience of a particular problem, e.g., Christian teetotalers, will tend to be wrong more often than others.
Ultimately, one has to take a position on what is the healthy state in response to any behavior. My principle is that I want whatever principle I adopt to allow for the greatest experiential intensity that is compatible with a universal acceptance of the principle. Again, my goal is drinking in moderation most of the time. Getting sloshed every once in a while is a fine thing (even a religious one) so long as the circumstances don’t harm anyone else. From the oracles of ancient Greece to the whirling dervishes, controlled excesses are often sought for the new ideas and perspectives they sometimes supply. This is what Ryan was saying, and I wholeheartedly agree. Periodic drunkenness can be good for the soul.
What this means is that the opinions that I trust the most concerning my own use of mind-altering substances are those who seek a goal similar to mine, i.e., those who wish to alter their own minds from time to time but who wish to do so prudently and without harming others.
I mean no offense to anyone who has a different goal; however, so long as we have fundamental disagreements about what is healthy, then I am not as receptive to their opinions. Giving up alcohol altogether is not the right thing for me to do—or most people I suspect. For a few of us, it should be the goal, but not most.
Of course, you don’t get around the bias problem simply by consulting family and friends who share your views. In another sense, they are perhaps the most biased of all. But this is only to say that there is no getting around the problem of self-serving judgments, which, again, is just another way of saying that ultimately you should depend on your own humble and careful opinions.
Jeff
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 17:08:33 GMT -5
Post by Betterout on May 9, 2006 17:08:33 GMT -5
I'm not so sure if you're on the right track there, Jeff. While I agree with just about everything you've said, it seems beside the point a little. I don't think Tammy's statement is really about the ultimate veracity or accuracy of one's perceptions of others, but just the observations themselves. In that case, I completely agree with her. I think it's often times much easier to spot behaviors, trends, or problems (for lack of a better word) in others before we would notice the same or similar things in ourselves. Jesus says as much, too, hence his splinter/plank remark. Moreover, even without access to the true motivations (and who are we kidding... I know that my conscious self is about as aware of its own underlying motivations as any of you guys are, perhaps less so), sometimes we can speculate and get pretty close. As Elvis Costello once sang, "sometimes people are just what they appear to be."
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 17:29:42 GMT -5
Post by jtmx1 on May 9, 2006 17:29:42 GMT -5
Here's the passage Matt 7:1-6 (NIV):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
As I interpret the rabbi, he’s telling us to concentrate our moral judgment on ourselves. And that is just what I am saying. The third passage is a recapitulation of my message exactly: Keep your pearls for those who can appreciate them. I would be a swine for Tammy’s words about EtOH, but I am a perfect audience for Ryan. The ultimate question is which way is the best way. I know where my money is.
I agree that we should share our observations about others with them. And when others share observations about us we should receive them respectfully. But there are no contextless observations, especially when we are talking about moral ones. Since the ultimately moral question is “How should one live?”, the answer to this question is relevant to any observation a moral critic may make about someone else’s life. My point is that where this answer diverges significantly from your own, the opinion of the moral critic should figure less in your own moral decision-making.
But these are very interesting questions. Imagine a community of cannibals. Their moral judgments would tend to reinforce one another, and the practice would likely continue. What we want is for someone to find a way out of the cave and go back to the community with a new moral perspective. My eggs are in the basket of spiritual humility and reality-centeredness. Again, I think these observations are directly relevant to the case in question.
I never said that Tammy or David’s opinion of me was wrong: I might be a raging alcoholic, though I doubt it seriously. What I am saying is that their position concerning this issue is so far removed from what I think is the right position, that I would have trouble taking their observations seriously.
(Again, I mean no offense, Tammy and David. I assume you would say the same sorts of things about my opinions on similar matters.)
Jeff
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 17:43:44 GMT -5
Post by Betterout on May 9, 2006 17:43:44 GMT -5
Well, again, Jeff, I agree with nearly everything you've said; I wasn't trying to dispute you. Where I diverge in this particular case is with this: "I never said that Tammy or David’s opinion of me was wrong: I might be a raging alcoholic, though I doubt it seriously. What I am saying is that their position concerning this issue is so far removed from what I think is the right position, that I would have trouble taking their observations seriously." This position seems to cut both ways. If their backgrounds make them less credible about this particular issue, then perhaps yours does, too. And, in fact, I think there may be evidence to support them in certain ways (alcoholics often fail to see the extent of their problem, and sometimes don't even admit there is a problem) where by analogy, we must trust your own assessment of yourself without such backing. Of course, this is really just hair splitting; I don't think anyone (least of all me) is saying that you're a raging alcoholic. BUT..... There are several degrees of raging...
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 17:54:32 GMT -5
Post by jtmx1 on May 9, 2006 17:54:32 GMT -5
My background should make my opinions about alcohol consumption less authoritative for David and Tammy. Agreed. It cuts both ways.
Further, I agree that individuals propogate their moral errors. I would go further and say that this is true of communities. That was the point of the example of cannibalism--an immoral activity whether the cannibals recognize it or not.
You do not have to trust my self-assessment. Neither must I trust yours. But we should each make our decisions based on what we personally think is correct. Again, I do not claim that my self-assessment is correct. But I would claim that for most people their self-assessment is more accurate than anyone else's assessment of them.
I agree that from time to time someone else may have a really good observation about you. As a humble reality-seeker you should make yourself as receptive to these as possible. However, if you take the number of these external assessments and stack them up against your accurate internal realizations, then I think there is no comparison.
But again, everything depends on being a humble reality-seeker. Take that away, and all bets are off.
What an interesting issue! And it has so many implications for other things that I am thinking about. Thank you Tammy!
Jeff
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 18:10:43 GMT -5
Post by Betterout on May 9, 2006 18:10:43 GMT -5
I agree that this is a very interesting issue. I really like it that a group with a long-standing tradition of coming together yearly at what began as a drinking party has such a wide range of opinions on drinking. And we come at them from so many different angles--social, religious, moral, philosophical, you name it.
As usual, I think we're really struggling with definitions and their applications. What exactly is alcoholism? Can it be recognized by anyone other than an alcoholic? If so, what good is it as a concept? What are alcoholic behaviors? Or more fundamentally, how does drinking alcohol actually relate to alcoholism? Is there a difference at all, and if not, why not? Can anyone drink responsibly? Was Jesus a drunk?
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 21:32:10 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on May 9, 2006 21:32:10 GMT -5
The initial question I had about alcohol wasn't weither you were a raging alcoholic. It was if your life, and the life of your family, would have been better had alcohol not been present in your lives during the past year. It's not about addiction, it's about cause/effect. Lots of times people are capable under the influence of doing things that they never would have done sober.
At least that's the question I was trying to ask, I think... maybe. Huh? Who am I? What are you doing here?! Where are my goddamn pants!?
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 21:37:44 GMT -5
Post by jtmx1 on May 9, 2006 21:37:44 GMT -5
I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but I am generally a lot more open and a little nicer when I drink. I certainly tell people that I love them more than I normally do. I don't hit people, and I don't drive. Etc... So, once again, if anything my alcohol consumption has only had a positive impact on my life and the lives of my family.
Jeff
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 9, 2006 23:30:10 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on May 9, 2006 23:30:10 GMT -5
Maybe we should all answer these questions. 1. What exactly is alcoholism? This from Wikipedia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism ): “Alcoholism is a powerful craving for alcohol which often results in the compulsive consumption of alcohol. The cause of this craving is heavily debated, but the most popular beliefs are that it is (1) a chemical or nutrional imbalance, (2) a genetic predisposition, (3) a neurological effect caused by runaway learning mechanisms, or (4) an inability to curb one's own desire for enjoyment.” I am inclined to see the primary cause as psychological. I think I would put it differently, though. I think the primary cause is volitional. I’d put it this way: an unwillingness to curb one’s own desire for alcohol. I will never believe it to be an inability. That’s preposterous, except in the later stages of alcoholism. I do not deny that alcoholism has some physiological basis. But the physiology doesn’t necessitate the psychology, except in the late stages of alcohol dependence. (And even then there may be some choice, thus the drama in the film Leaving Las Vegas.) We account for and deal with the early and middle stages of alcoholism mainly in psychological terms. (This is why 12-step programs are aimed at belief and behavior modification, not physio-chemical adjustments.) 2. Can it be recognized by anyone other than an alcoholic? No internal states can be definitely recognized by anyone other than those who have them. Now, we can be more or less accurate in our guesses concerning them. If you are in the desert and a person crawls up to you and grabs at your canteen, then you can reasonably conclude that he is thirsty. But it’s not a certainty. He may need something heavy to set a tent peg, or he may just be trying to steal a shiny object. You don’t know for sure. When you move away from such paradigm cases, things become much less certain. I would say this: Symptoms of alcoholism can be discerned, but like physical symptoms, they do not always indicate the presence of the condition. Still, the more characteristic behaviors of alcoholism we can discern in a person the greater the chance that she is an alcoholic. 3. If so, what good is it as a concept? What good is the concept of any psychological state? If I tell you I am in pain, yet that pain is closed off to you, does the communication have a purpose? Of course! There are countless uses of the concept, not the least of which is communicating the dangers of alcoholism. 4. What are alcoholic behaviors? The DSM IV tries to diagnosis through behavior: maladaptive alcohol use with clinically significant impairment as manifested by at least three of the following within any one-year period: tolerance; withdrawal; taken in greater amounts or over longer time course than intended; desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control use; great deal of time spent obtaining, using, or recovering from use; social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced; continued use despite knowledge of physical or psychological sequelae. Wiki also mentions the CAGE questionnaire: Two "yes" responses indicate that the respondent should be investigated further. The questionnaire asks the following questions: 1. Have you ever felt you needed to Cut down on your drinking? 2. Have people Annoyed you by criticizing your drinking? 3. Have you ever felt Guilty about drinking? 4. Have you ever felt you needed a drink first thing in the morning (Eye-opener) to steady your nerves or to get rid of a hangover? (BTW: I would answer only the first question with an affirmative response.) 5. Or more fundamentally, how does drinking alcohol actually relate to alcoholism? This is where everyone on the board will disagree with me. Psychological problems can be divided into two groups: those that require organic treatments and those that do not. The former category is vastly smaller than the actual number of people receiving organic treatments. And those in the latter category are not served well by most counseling models. The root problem is that in most cases counseling amounts to stereotyping and forced identification to roles and categories that might have very little relevance to the cases in question. Let me take just one example: Elisabeth Kübler-Ross ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross ) proposed the familiar model of stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. But there is no real evidence that stages are present in coping with death. Kübler-Ross proposed the stages to account for the interviews that she got in her work, but she never followed up her interview process with the kind of study that would be required to substantiate her conclusions. And even if she had, there is no guarantee that the grief process she would’ve ended up with wasn’t severely tied to the circumstances of time and place in which her study was performed. In other words, many counseling models underestimate both the great variability and mutability of human psychology. For example, if we look at how the model is actually used by counselors, we find that it is used prescriptively much more than descriptively. That is, it is used to “help” people understand their experience instead of merely stating the common experiences of the grieving. But such normativity is illicit, seeking as it does psychological comfort through conformity. It’s a bad thing to let a controversial theory dictate one’s observations, but if one is a counselor it is perhaps a moral error to do so, to foist a poor explanation onto patients in the attempt to help them deal with their problems. Maybe there is no balm for a dying life, no comfort to be had. The stages of dying can become an easy and convenient way for patients to deal with their death, rather than doing what comes naturally to them, or having to seek out answers of their own. Perhaps unfortunately, though I think not, your best counselor is you, provided you approach experience with humility and thankfulness, two virtues best learned from love, art, and religion—though other sources exist. How does drinking alcohol relate to alcoholism? Christopher Moltisanti said it best: Alcohol is used as a physical solution to a spiritual problem. 6. Is there a difference at all, and if not, why not? Sure there is a difference. This spiritual problem of will doesn’t always lead to alcoholism or even addiction. But these are two of its manifestations. 7. Can anyone drink responsibly? Yes, for all those who are not in the late stages of alcoholism and experiencing real physical and neurochemical dependence. But for some the effort required to drink responsibly is far greater than that required to simply give up drinking altogether. 8. Was Jesus a drunk? I find no evidence of this, but it looks like he wasn’t a teetotaler either. Thanks for listening to my fruity views, Jeff
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 10, 2006 8:54:27 GMT -5
Post by Tammy B on May 10, 2006 8:54:27 GMT -5
Jeff, I don't think I ever considered you an alcoholic. "Selfish and self-centered in the extreme, resentful, and constitutionally incapable to be honest with himself." To just mention some characteristic defects I've learned about.
1. Alcoholism is hard to define. Just because of my experiences in AA and as a nurse and as an alcoholic "make me bias", but also make me more knowledgeable about the subject. I think this definition is an ok start at trying to make sense of the "drink problem".
2. "Can it be recognized by anyone other than an alcoholic?" Yes, judges, police officers, social workers, doctors, nurses, counselors, family members, friends.
3. I agree.
4. I agree more with the DSM IV's definition. 5. "Christopher Moltisanti said it best: Alcohol is used as a physical solution to a spiritual problem." This is a quote from the book, Alcoholics Anonymous, and I agree with it. Personally I did not believe in much of anything, I had a huge mistrust of all people, men and women. I didn't like to rely on anyone else besides myself.
6. "This spiritual problem of will doesn’t always lead to alcoholism or even addiction." I'm not sure what you mean by a spiritual problem of will. I think if a person has lack of a spiritual life they are more likely to seek fulfillment in people, places and things.
7. Yes I do think that people can drink responsibly but it does require effort and planning that I don't think most people put much thought in. I know I didn't.
8. I don't know much about Jesus so I can't comment.
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 10, 2006 10:09:05 GMT -5
Post by jtmx1 on May 10, 2006 10:09:05 GMT -5
Tammy wrote:
"I don't think I ever considered you an alcoholic."
Very true. I thought that the claim was part of the subtext of this conversation. I am happy to be mistaken! I apologize for making statements to that effect, Tammy.
Jeff
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 10, 2006 11:11:52 GMT -5
Post by chris on May 10, 2006 11:11:52 GMT -5
8. Was Jesus a drunk?
As a former Catholic, I can tell you his blood tastes like wine, so I'd say he had at least a 6% blood alcohol level at all times...
|
|
|
Alcohol
May 10, 2006 11:16:00 GMT -5
Post by chris on May 10, 2006 11:16:00 GMT -5
Some of this discussion (very interesting) has reminded me of a lot of the talk about George W. Bush back in 2000, about his alcoholism and some AA folks saying that he was *still*an alcoholic, even if he hadn't had a drink in many years. Once an alcoholic, the bug is always there, so the argument goes. Sounds kind of specious to me, but I'm certainly not a psychologist.
And *that* reminds me of my father, who quit smoking for almost 20 years (from when he was in his mid-20s until his mid-40s), and said, after he resumed, "there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't feel the urge." And so, eventually, he gave in. Not alcohol, but an addiction, so I thought I'd share.
|
|