5 ms·

No. Allergic reactions are the immune system responding to a substance in a hypersensitive way[1]. There is however a genetic component to how people respond t

No. Allergic reactions are the immune system responding to a substance in a hypersensitive way[1]. There is however a genetic component to how people respond to alcohol. Some people after having 1 drink have a strong desire to continue drinking to blackout levels. Others are more likely to feel sick or sleepy after 2 drinks and have a desire to stop. It isn't an immune system reaction, but it is a reaction. The AA community generally considers this a disease that has no cure. Once an alcoholic you are permanently an alcoholic. So that is why you'll see people pushing the idea that it is similar to an allergy. They are correct that genetic differences exist, but in the real world, many people have substance abuse problems due to stress or anxiety or childhood trauma. Meaning the biological components are far less of an issue than the psychological and mental health component in most cases of substance abuse. A well documented point of evidence of this is heroin use in Vietnam [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/490667 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst...

giraffe_lady 5y ago
I can't speak for all of AA obviously but I've been heavily involved in it for decades now. This is definitely one of those "all models are wrong but some models are useful" situations with the allergy thing. Most individuals either find that model sufficiently useful that they don't need to expand it. Or, they're more or less fully aware of the gaps but still find that model useful. Or they don't find it useful and quietly use another model personally. All kinds of approaches in there. If we're talking about 'the real world' then "It is never safe for you to begin drinking again, in any context" is a highly conservative and risk-averse approach, but it has been valuable for so many, and the consequences of relapse can be so high. AA is full of people who "went back out there" after 2, 5, 10+ years of sobriety because they thought they could reintroduce it into their lives and were wrong. Also many stories of people who did and just straight died in the relapse. Often our support networks can't handle another round, plus kindling is a real thing. AA is where I first heard about van der Kolk's research, which demonstrates very convincingly that in some very real ways there's not a meaningful difference between "biological" and "psychological" components of trauma or addiction. The AA framework has some incredible faults don't get me wrong. But above all those people are intensely, almost pathologically sometimes focused on "the real world." You'll hear some weird shit coming out of there sometimes because of that, but it doesn't mean they're not aware of the contradictions, or unwilling to apply more "scientific" models. Just, they have a system that works for a lot of people so they keep it going.
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  Are you saying that AA promotes discredited scientific claims because of a belief among their members that such claims have utility in helping their members quit drinking and stay off alcohol? Why even have the quasi-scientific patina then? Just go back to purely religious-era thinking, things like 'You'll burn in hell for all eternity if you don't get off the booze right now". The problem with groups like AA is that they seem incapable of revising their dogmatic beliefs when presented with new evidence. What if opiate addiction and alcohol addiction are not 'lifelong diseases' at all, but simply treatable conditions? Would AA revise its claims if presented with such evidence?
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. And if the burn-in-hell model was demonstrably more effective than a medical model I would endorse it. Wouldn't you? What's the value in pushing a scientific model if it isn't actually more practically effective at helping the people who are asking for help? And look, I'm not saying the medical model isn't more effective. But "new evidence" isn't always easy to apply even when it is clear, and with addiction it very often is not. AA's method despite its serious serious flaws has worked for a lot of people over many decades, so yes there is some natural conservatism about updating it every decade to keep up with new research. You're on the right track though with the dogma thing. If you're familiar with the sociological study of religions, looking at it through that lens can be very valuable. It has a cultus of belief and ritual, it has a community of believers, and yes a dogma. It doesn't never change, but it is slow to. To understand this thing you need to try to understand what value it has to people. If you want them to switch to another approach you need to demonstrate the actual practical value of that approach to people. This is literally life and death shit, people aren't going to part with it just because some le atheist engineers don't like that they call it an allergy and ask god for help.
    - photochemsyn 5y ago
      What I object to is religious types trying to use bad science to back up their agenda. Science is not a matter of faith, and it's a complete perversion of the basic concept of scientific inquiry to promote false claims simply because of their claimed utility. That's a dishonest and manipulative strategy at best, and I doubt any good will come of it. Of course, science provides no ultimate answers of the type religious fundamentalists (a group which includes the dogmatic atheist IMO) seem to be seeking. For example, it's impossible to use science to test the 'simulation hypothesis', i.e. the notion that we're all living in a perfect VR sim.
bee_rider 5y ago
This is what I thought. Hypothetically I guess it could have been the case that... I dunno, an allergic reaction to alcohol could produce a different type of experience for the person who'd ingested it, which could have been subtly more enjoyable, which could have resulted in a tendency toward alcoholism. That would have been interesting, as tinkering with the immune system could have been a path toward preventing that skew. I think AA really works for some people. Not sure why they decided to stick with this confusing lingo, though.

giraffe_lady 5y ago

I can't speak for all of AA obviously but I've been heavily involved in it for decades now. This is definitely one of those "all models are wrong but some models are useful" situations with the allergy thing. Most individuals either find that model sufficiently useful that they don't need to expand it. Or, they're more or less fully aware of the gaps but still find that model useful. Or they don't find it useful and quietly use another model personally. All kinds of approaches in there. If we're talking about 'the real world' then "It is never safe for you to begin drinking again, in any context" is a highly conservative and risk-averse approach, but it has been valuable for so many, and the consequences of relapse can be so high. AA is full of people who "went back out there" after 2, 5, 10+ years of sobriety because they thought they could reintroduce it into their lives and were wrong. Also many stories of people who did and just straight died in the relapse. Often our support networks can't handle another round, plus kindling is a real thing. AA is where I first heard about van der Kolk's research, which demonstrates very convincingly that in some very real ways there's not a meaningful difference between "biological" and "psychological" components of trauma or addiction. The AA framework has some incredible faults don't get me wrong. But above all those people are intensely, almost pathologically sometimes focused on "the real world." You'll hear some weird shit coming out of there sometimes because of that, but it doesn't mean they're not aware of the contradictions, or unwilling to apply more "scientific" models. Just, they have a system that works for a lot of people so they keep it going.

photochemsyn 5y ago
Are you saying that AA promotes discredited scientific claims because of a belief among their members that such claims have utility in helping their members quit drinking and stay off alcohol? Why even have the quasi-scientific patina then? Just go back to purely religious-era thinking, things like 'You'll burn in hell for all eternity if you don't get off the booze right now". The problem with groups like AA is that they seem incapable of revising their dogmatic beliefs when presented with new evidence. What if opiate addiction and alcohol addiction are not 'lifelong diseases' at all, but simply treatable conditions? Would AA revise its claims if presented with such evidence?
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. And if the burn-in-hell model was demonstrably more effective than a medical model I would endorse it. Wouldn't you? What's the value in pushing a scientific model if it isn't actually more practically effective at helping the people who are asking for help? And look, I'm not saying the medical model isn't more effective. But "new evidence" isn't always easy to apply even when it is clear, and with addiction it very often is not. AA's method despite its serious serious flaws has worked for a lot of people over many decades, so yes there is some natural conservatism about updating it every decade to keep up with new research. You're on the right track though with the dogma thing. If you're familiar with the sociological study of religions, looking at it through that lens can be very valuable. It has a cultus of belief and ritual, it has a community of believers, and yes a dogma. It doesn't never change, but it is slow to. To understand this thing you need to try to understand what value it has to people. If you want them to switch to another approach you need to demonstrate the actual practical value of that approach to people. This is literally life and death shit, people aren't going to part with it just because some le atheist engineers don't like that they call it an allergy and ask god for help.
  - photochemsyn 5y ago
    What I object to is religious types trying to use bad science to back up their agenda. Science is not a matter of faith, and it's a complete perversion of the basic concept of scientific inquiry to promote false claims simply because of their claimed utility. That's a dishonest and manipulative strategy at best, and I doubt any good will come of it. Of course, science provides no ultimate answers of the type religious fundamentalists (a group which includes the dogmatic atheist IMO) seem to be seeking. For example, it's impossible to use science to test the 'simulation hypothesis', i.e. the notion that we're all living in a perfect VR sim.

bee_rider 5y ago

This is what I thought. Hypothetically I guess it could have been the case that... I dunno, an allergic reaction to alcohol could produce a different type of experience for the person who'd ingested it, which could have been subtly more enjoyable, which could have resulted in a tendency toward alcoholism. That would have been interesting, as tinkering with the immune system could have been a path toward preventing that skew. I think AA really works for some people. Not sure why they decided to stick with this confusing lingo, though.