My Opinions

[Perrigaud]

I knew it was you. I've never seen you around till this thread.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-03-27 15:01:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Tim

I have a question for you.

Say that there is a statistic that "proves" that 30% of teenage dinking deaths are from drunk driving. It isnt a real statistic or anything but hypothetically lets say that. Now say teenagers are educated about this statistic. They understand it. Do you think that the statistic would stop a teenager from drinking and driving?

The reasoni ask is because you say they would avoid alot of stupid mistakes if they just understood the statistics. Now anyone who is or was a teenager knwo that it is a difficult stage. Not just the physical level but on the emotional level too. i know alot of teenagers are not very rational and dont really think things trough logically. thats not to say all of them, but you cant discount the fact that horomone levels make you crazy and irrational somethimes. I really dont think that just because they know a statistic exsists that they will choose not to do something. i knew in high school that doing drugs on school grounds would send me to jail. i did it anyway though. ive heard tons of statistics about many things. Take smoking. I smoke. i know the chances of me getting cancer are higher for me because of my family history. i know the percentages of people that die every yrear from smoking. i know the percentages of people who have health problems because of smoking. but i do it anyway. It is an addiction. An irrational thing. People dont generally think when they are at a bar drinking that they have a so and so percentage of getting into a drunk driving accident if they drove drunk. I think soem actually might, but I doubt that would stop them. Most people are afraid of the helath risks or going to jail or both. "

Look, *life* is a risk.  People knowingly take certain risks because they think the enjoyment they get from the activity is worth the risk.

That's normal, natural behavior because you *can't* avoid all risk.  Where ignorance of risk harms people is when they don't know the risks they're taking where that level of risk *would* make a difference to them, or where they wrongly believe the risks are a lot bigger than they are and so they avoid an activity---or needlessly worry about someone else who engages in that activity---because of their false belief in that inflated level of risk.

Knowledge of level of risk might not keep a teen from taking a drink, but there would be a whole lot more people doing their gambling in wagers with their friends and a whole lot fewer doing it with strangers or in casinos.  A wager between real friends is a fair game.  A wager between a gambler and the "house"---you might as well hand them how ever much money you were set on losing and save your time to go see a show.

Would understanding of risk keep people from gambling?  Of course not.  A bit of gambling is fun.  Would it change the *way* people gamble?  Certainly.  

People already make their decisions on the risks *and benefits* as they understand them.  Your analogy with the teenagers falls down because you ignored the benefits---fun.  The kid *is* making a risk/benefits analysis.

Would your imaginary teen take some yummy, imaginary, non-alcohol drink that would be delicious and make him feel absolutely *wonderful* for the next 3 hours if he knew there were the following chances that in the morning he would be:

10% chance of puking.  No?

30% chance of puking?

100% chance of puking?

You might.  What about:

10% chance that in the morning you would be dead?

30% chance of dead the next morning?

100% chance of dead the next morning?

Teens are *already* making risk benefit decisions.  Most of the adults who don't want the teens to make that decision are deciding they don't want that based on the risk to that *adult* of how he/she will feel if the teen gets hurt with *no* corresponding benefit weighed in----because the adult, not being the one drinking, doesn't get the  fun of having had a drink or three with friends.

(Some) adults *say* the teen is not taking into account the risks when they really are---the adult is just not weighing in the benefits---unless, of course, the *adult* is the one in the bar. :smile: :smile: :smile:

Which is why I wouldn't have picked teen drinking as an example---except for *particular* teens who based on their own genetics have an exceptionally high risk of alcoholism or other really bad health consequences.  If alcohol is a disproportionate risk *for you*, well, there are other ways to get your kicks.

There are other risk/benefit issues where people really would choose differently if they understood the risks and benefits.

One of those cases in point (to get back to where we started the discussion) being that people would probably choose different addiction treatment options--if they understood clearly enough how the numbers were obtained to actually *believe* them--if they understood how to tell from statistics what works and what doesn't.

I suspect that to the extent AA works over the short term it's because, like Deborah observed, it temporarily replaces the compulsive behavior of drinking with the compulsive behavior of going to meetings----the point being that the person is no better---they're still a compulsive.  You haven't gotten at the underlying problem.

The only upside to AA, which is why I don't normally jump up and down bashing it, is that as long as you manage to sustain the substitute compulsion, well, at least going to a meeting doesn't trash your liver.  *shrug*

Timoclea

[Perrigaud]

Hell yes teenagers would still drink. Teenagers are well aware of what happens and what can happen. Hell yes they would still do drugs if they knew the probability of death, getting sick, getting in trouble, etc etc. Dare threw out stats and they were dummy proof. By this I mean they'd say i.e. 1 in every 3 people die of ecstasy.
People know gambling is of luck and not many have that luck. Stats don't mean anything to most people.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-03-28 05:01:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:

"Ahhh...  The vigor of youth.  I remember back when I was in college when everything was new and shiny and every class I took became like a religion.



I can remember taking my first Social Sciences classes and being absolutely convinced that Democratic Socialism was, and must be, the future.  That Skinner, or Freud or Maslow (whoever I happened to be studying at the time) was really spot-on with their work.



Then something happened.  I began to develop the ability to think critically.  Once that happened I was able to distill my learning into valid opinions of my own that derived from source information, but did not DEPEND on it.



At some point in your collegiate career you will realize the futility of absolutism and will begin to understand things in a more well-rounded way based on more ecclectic knowledge.



Until then, you are going to exhibit truncated reasoning skills..."

Well, you guys are busy telling me to get over myself, well, get over *yourself*.

I suppose I *could* go back to college and be a professional student for life, but I'm much too busy actually living mine.

Probability and advanced math are tools for understanding the world.  When we combine them with data, we get the closest thing to fact it's possible for us to have.  We get it in percentages with confidence intervals, but it's a signicantly more accurate way of knowing more about the world than anyone *else* has.

I've never known *anyone* who understood the math--or more specifically, who had ever sat down and actually done the math, even if the ability to do so atrophied through disuse later on---who "didn't believe in" statistics.  And yeah, I've sat down and done substantial portions of the math, even though those skills have rusted away, a lot, from disuse.

Religion is a set of emotional hypotheses about the world and someone's place in it that are *designed* to be unprovable---so that they will also be unable to be disproved.  Religion is a mishmash of wishful thinking, hallucination, and financial con game.  The only "understanding" possible on religion is whether or not you've had the requisite hallucination, or convinced yourself you have, to become convinced you absolutely "know" something "in your heart."

It's not, actually, lack of a social skill to not suffer fools gladly.  I *could* do it, if I chose to.  It's a personality trait or decision that people I consider foolish don't like.  It's a decision that people who value diplomacy more than I do don't like.  Maybe it would be fair to call it arrogance.  I don't know.  All I know is that if I sit down and let a statement as manifestly stupid as "I don't believe in statistics" go by without saying something about it, I'd feel like a schmuck.

It's one thing to let a really foolish statement go by when it doesn't hurt anybody.  I do that a lot, and since "foolish" is frequently a matter of opinion, I would guess pretty much everybody lets a fair few statements they think are foolish go right by without commenting on them.

It's a whole 'nother thing when a particularly foolish statement is the kind of statement that tends to spread, and be taken up by others, and tends to be the kind of thing that hurts people.

I see "I don't believe in statistics" as that kind of foolish statement---the kind that if you let it go by without challenging it, other people are tempted to pick it up and repeat it because it's easy.

This has nothing to do with being bipolar---notice that it's been several days.

This has to do with just plain not caring if you feel offended on this subject, or if your friend feels offended, when I say "I don't believe in statistics" is a stupid statement.

It's not that I generally don't care about offending you or others.  It's that I don't care about offending you or others about this specific kind of statement, because I think it's the kind of idea that does a lot of long-term harm to people and I'm just not going to let it go by without saying something about it.

Think what you want to think of me.  I'm not saying, on this subject, "Oh, I'm bipolar, *excuse* me."  I'm saying that everybody has ideas that mean something to them, for various reasons, this is one of mine, and frankly, this particular idea means more to me than any level of concern I might have had over whether you or anyone else thinks I'm nice or not.

Everyone has ideas that matter to them.  This is one of mine.  Deal with it or not, just as you please.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

Oh, and for anyone who can't tell the difference between criticizing someone's argument, their lack of knowledge, and certain opinions they hold and a personal attack, that's their issue, not mine.

Also, I never used the word retarded, and I would appreciate not having words put in my mouth.

I am not going to refrain from criticizing things I disagree with forevermore, or even for a little while, just because of having put my foot way down my throat before and having apologized for it.

I'm too old to expect an apology to make things okay with the person apologized to, but I gave it and I meant it.

That doesn't mean I plan to do penance by not criticizing arguments and ideas I disagree with.  And if I think someone's statements reflect a lack of knowledge, I'll say so.

I expect other people will do the same with me.

Criticizing my social skills may or may not be accurate---when I'm at a social event or in a social situation, I socialize.  When I'm debating the merits of ideas, that's *not* a social situation.  It's a serious debate, and I don't and won't pull my punches in criticizing other people's arguments and I will not apply "social skills" to that kind of debate because they have no place in that kind of debate, in my opinion.

When discussing serious ideas, I give no quarter and expect none.

Personal attacks are criticizing one's ancestry, personal habits, character, and probable ultimate destination.  Some would argue criticizing social skills falls in the realm of personal attacks, but other than this one statement, I'm not going to bother.

If someone thinks I'm ignorant of a subject and says so, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.  But it's not a personal attack.  In case there was a question, I'm calling someone's *idea* wrong and stupid, not them personally, and calling their knowledge of a particular subject lacking to the point of ignorance.  There's a difference between having math explained, but not being able to do it, and *accepting the results* OR being able to do that math yourself versus having math explained that you can't do yourself and then shrugging it off.

Fine, don't agree with me, but that's my position on that issue, and I don't back down from positions on issue from mere social pressure.

If you mistook an apology for a prior screed of mine that did cross into personal attack for a lack of backbone on my part over statements that *don't*, well, you were mistaken.

This is not a party, this is not a chat with a neighbor, this is not a social chat room.  I use social skills in *social* environments.  I do not allow them to circumvent my backbone on serious debates of issues.  Although *usually* I choose debate partners who know the difference, enjoy debate and discussion for its own sake and don't take personal offense or even get their feelings hurt when they're losing an argument.

On Fornits, it's kind of impossible to arrange so that the only people you're debating are people who like that kind of thing.  Oh, well.  Can't be helped.  It means that discussing here I *will* run into people who don't know the difference.  Or will take a different position on where the line is and what makes the line a certain place.  Again, can't be helped.

But there *is* a difference, and I'm not going to let a past mistake where I *did* cross that line make me wimp out and apologize forever where I haven't.

Socially, I'm social.  This isn't social.

On the difference between aptitude and knowledge/skill, Mark Twain said: "A person who doesn't read good books has no advantage over a person who can't read them."  I'll take your word for it that you have math aptitude.  I'll take your word for it that your friend does, too.  That's not my point.

Religion isn't provable, what it substitutes for data isn't observable and replicable (except where it crosses out of religion and into psychology).  Math is provable, sound experiments to gather good data are replicable.  *Good* theories are constructed so that *if* they're false, an experiment could demonstrate that they're false.  Or, if they're perhaps partially right, data from a good experiment can support them.  That you can even put religion in the same class of things as science and math says something.

On the side of the guy wanting to imply I'm an undergraduate and immature, not ignorant, he's getting close to personal without going over.  You're just plain getting personal, but in my book you get one freebie on the house because I owed you one.  On the subject of what the criteria are for something that's knowledge and reason versus substituting emotion for same, I've had my say, I've made my point, I'm done.

And therefore I'm out of this thread.

Timoclea

[The Graduate]

Those who go to AA (not all of them) go because it helps them. They are not dependant on the meetings. They feel it's easier to talk to others who struggle with the same problem.


Now who is assuming?

[Perrigaud]

Timoclea,
 Wow that was very contradicting. But ok. I have made my decision. U judge when you say an idea is made because lack of knowledge. What's that you weren't attacking someone's intelligence? Bullshit. That is total crap. Need me to quote you again? I will.
Basically I'm dissappointed with what you said initially; "Anyone who doesn't believe in stats doesn't understand them" What? That still blows my mind. Had you said, "I think that anyone who doesn't believe in stats don't understand them" you wounld have started the debate off with owning your stance. In saying it the way you did you came off as it was factual when in fact it is purely opinion. Hmmm. Dysfunction Junction was right in his paragraph. We didn't say get over yourself did we. Who's feeding words into others mouths now? You are. Hypocritical. And yes you made the referance about social skills. I merely went off on what you said. Mind what you say. Bye, we were just merely going off of what you said. [ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-03-30 01:05 ]

[chi3]

So sorry to miss all this prolific and profound  discussion in real time, but would like to play catch up. I want to go back to the beginning of this thread, I really have no interest in the discussion of AA pro or con, alcoholism, etc. I just wanted to post some of my insights. Since I have a child who was very recently in a program, I would like to say, yes, in some ways it has been beneficial to her. Shocked? Well, probably not helpful in the way you are thinking. Did it cause her to change her ways? No. Did it make her have a fear that she better not go too far or that could once again the alternative? Yes. Would she really ever be sent back? Hell No. But, she does know that we are truly commited to do whatever it takes to point her on the right path? Yes. Maybe you say this fear is not a good thing. I would have agreed with you in the past. Nothing else we ever did got her attention. We got her attention. She believes! I can also say that where she was that she was not treated well. However, she wasn't treated nearly as horrid as some children in these places are. Am I a good mom? Don't know. Will She turn out o.k.? Don't know. Will my son who has never given me a minutes cause? Don't know. Why? How can I? All I can do, is keep trying, and trying, and trying.
Perri, I don't like the programs. However, I have no problem accepting you and many others feel it helped/saved them. If you haven't been where she was, guys, you just can't say. You don't know her, you don't know her life story. I don't always agree with your opinions, but will stand firm in your right to have them. Get off her back. She is not over here trying to recruit you, don't try to recruit her. Congrats on the little one. You will do just fine.

[Anonymous]

Well of course the imaginary teen would! What better risk taking fun could you have than drin ksomething that woudl make you 100% dead in the morning! Teenagers are irrational and thrill seeking. I mean look at jackass. Funny but retarded if you look at how likely they are to be killed or permanently damaged. And they arent even adolecents anymore for gods sake! Now to address the gambling thing. Everyone I know who gambles does it for fun. They know the probability of them winning is slim to none, but its fun for them. I dont gamble because it hink its stupid to waste your money like that. When your poor like me any amount of money is alot so Im not frivolous wiht it. But soem people know the risks and still do it. Look at inhalants. There is a chance that you could die from your first time trying them. But kids do it alot anyway. I mean everyone I know who does or has done drugs or smokes or anything dangerous knows there is a chance they will die from it or get a disease or what not. Hell any one who has sex and isnt intending to get pregnant knows that no matter how much protection you use there is a chance of getting pregnant still. But people do it anyway. I think it is unfair to say an adult is only concerned wiht how it will effect them. I am a mother and I love my child with a love that is deeper than I ever imagined I could feel. I would do anyhting to keep her from harm, even in an dangerous situation kill or be killed. The love for a child is different. Ask any parent. We just want our kids to be safe and happy. That dosnt mean protecting them from all harm. YOu would have to keep them in a closet their whole life. Kids need to make mistakes to survive and learn but soem kids get out of control with dangerous substances. I mean its alot differetn when it is your child lying on a hospital bed in a coma from an overdose of heroin. It si different when it is your child dead form a drunk driving accident. Its easy to judge when youve never had a child permanantly harmed from drugs or alcohol and say they are wrong for their helping their teen.
That being said I think you are right. If the only reason you go to treatment is to stop drinking or drugging (AA too) than you are going to relapse. AA and treatment programs do not look at drugs and drinking as your main problem. they look at self esteem as a huge problem. Drinking and drugging is only a way to cope with a feeling when used in a n addictive manner. It isnt the main issue. The fact that trough these programs I have worked on myself physically, mentally, and spiritually I think is the reason why I am ok. I know that I turn to substances when i am not being honest in my life, when I am feeling worthless, when i am feeling bored, lonely, a miltitude of things. Therefore it is those things I work on not my drug problem. Alot of people may go to AA just to not drink, but those I know it works for work the steps and work on their "character defects". I know you cant deny we all have them. When we start to live in dishonesty and are not true to ourselves and are miserable and unhappy with who we are is when we turn to substances to make us have a sense of feeling like we arent those things. I think that makes alot of sense. I dont know many AAers who only go for the metings. they are constantly working on themselves and working to improve their lives. They just use the principles and take in a meeting when it is necessary. Meetings are not he only thing AA is about. They are a great tool, but they are not the reason it works. It works because you not only have a place to go to surround yourslef wiht people who understand oyu and who want the same thing as you, but you also work on the things that are making you unhappy. It is a much more indepth program than just going to meetings.

[Anonymous]

Dear Chi3- Thank you so much for saying what needed to be said. If you dont know what soemone has been through dont judge the situation. I hope that was interpreted right. We are all just doing the best we can with what we have. The program helped me. Others it didnt. But who has the right to say it is good or bad? Everyones experience there is different. It is so hard to say. But at least Chi3 has the tolerance and the integrity to stand up for what they know is true for themselves and not knock the people the program did help. Very well rounded post I think.

[Antigen]

I think we all have, not only the right, but the obligation as adult citizens to judge whether these programs are harmful.

I'm glad you got something out of it. I got something out of my program too. I don't think I would have been able to make it all alone in the world, living it the slums, working shit jobs to pay the rent if I hadn't been toughened up by the Program. But then again, I probably wouldn't have had to, either.

Once again, people often (relatively often) turn adversity to advantage. But that doesn't make it a good idea to throw someone under a bus hoping for such a catharsis.

"Narcotics have been systematically scapegoated and demonized. The idea that anyone can use drugs and escape a horrible fate is an anathema to these idiots. I predict that in the near future right-wingers will use drug hysteria as a pretext to set up an international police apparatus."

--William S. Burroughs

[Antigen]

On 2005-03-31 12:23:00, Anonymous wrote:

AA and treatment programs do not look at drugs and drinking as your main problem. they look at self esteem as a huge problem.

...and seek through well known coercive persuasion techniques to eliminate it.

I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired.  I'm certainly not!  But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!  
-- Monty Python

[Perrigaud]

CHI3,
 I wasn't attacking Timoclea. I will not stand and let her make an attack on personal lifestyles. I'm all for debating and discussing topics. I will not let someone say somthing judging someones intelligence. I don't know what she's been through. You're right. I don't judge her.

We are all entitled to opinions. However, it's when people get personal that they cross the line.

I don't do that. However, if i have and don't realize it I apologize.

[Anonymous]

So are you trying to say that AA tries to eliminate self esteem? I am a little confused about that. I know it is hard for someone who is so intent on hating any program for drug and alcohol abuse that it isnt about brainwashing you to be a normal old citizen. Where do you get that it destroys self esteem to work on yourself? I always considered that to be a good thing. I am very confused. Please explain.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-03-31 16:27:00, Perrigaud wrote:

"CHI3,

 I wasn't attacking Timoclea. I will not stand and let her make an attack on personal lifestyles. I'm all for debating and discussing topics. I will not let someone say somthing judging someones intelligence. I don't know what she's been through. You're right. I don't judge her.



We are all entitled to opinions. However, it's when people get personal that they cross the line.



I don't do that. However, if i have and don't realize it I apologize.

 "

Let?   :roll:

T.