For those ATHG subscribers interested in the theory behind the choice to drink and what. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 21:04:07 -0400 Reply-to: Kettil Bruun Society <[log in to unmask]> From: Stanton Peele <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: type of alcoholic beverage and CHD abstract To: [log in to unmask] At Kettil Bruun, the Tuesday plenary is a panel on addiction, involving Louise Nadeau, Ole-Joergen Skog and myself. Ole will be presenting a similar "rational" addiction model. I actually believe that so-called rational models include vast unexamined adoptions from straightforward physiological addiction theories -- as in, you take a drug for certain purposes, then become addicted and all bets are off. I believe (Robin: avert your glance; radical construcivism to follow) that values influence every facet of the addiction process, including interpretations of withdrawal and craving. SP Laura Schmidt wrote: > Many of the issues you've raised are a hot topic right now among > sociologists and economists debating rational choice. You should both take > a look at Richard Herrnstein's book, The Matching Law: Papers in Psychology > and Economics (Harvard University Press, 1997). In it, he develops a > rational choice theory to explain addiction, arguing that humans generally > focus on immediate rewards, neglecting to take account of how current > activities affect future payoffs. I think addiction must be fascinating to > believers in rational choice because its epitomizes irrational behavior, > and yet it has this pre-programmed, repetitive, "stereotyped" side as well. > > Laura Schmidt > Alcohol Research Group, Berkeley > > At 11:05 PM 5/17/99 +0200, you wrote: > >Stanton -- > > Actually, I was always uneasy with the idea that I was supposed to > teach values to my children -- I tended toward the medieval view of them as > little adults. Watching my first wife at work as a primary school teacher, > I realized how much of what is defined as good teaching at that age is > really moral training, not very far removed from the McGuffey's Readers a > "reactionary" state school chief was trying to cram down our throats. > > > I'm actually as inured/addicted/committed to rational action as any > other child of the Enlightenment. But I also can stand at the side and see > what is going on, with people like me. As we go to school, we learn to be > able to give more and more reasons for our activities. Rationality becomes > a major part of our claim on society as intellectuals. > > But in reality (at least as I experience it), not everything can be > fitted into the model, no matter how hard we concentrate on believing in > it. And the idea of coaching people into rationality, which is basically > what CBT, motivational interviewing, etc. is about, is powerful within its > limits, but it has its limits. Robin > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Stanton Peele <[log in to unmask]> > >To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > >Date: den 17 maj 1999 23:46 > >Subject: Re: type of alcoholic beverage and CHD abstract > > > > > >>You seem to focus so largely on discrepancies with the values --> conduct > model, I wonder how you approach roles that are thought to rely on > communicating values to others. So, Robin, did you teach your children any > values? Did you feel you were unsuccessful largely in communicating these > values, or that your children learned them but did not successfully follow > or enact them? Or, alternately, did your children stay out of prison/not > devote their lives to drugs or crime? Maybe go to college. If so, did you > feel that what you comunicated as a parent played any role in these > outcomes? Overall, you reveal a fundamental skepticism about people's > ability to act in accordance with beliefs and values and the "value" of > knowing > >>about such things for understanding people's behavior. I see where this > would make you sympathetic to models of pharmacological determinism > (alcohol --> aggression), to various "irrational" defense against violent > and other crimes, and to clinical concepts like "denial." Obviously, I > have a different bias. But you may know that quite a bit of psychology > (e.g., social-cognitive learning theory, motivational interviewing) relies > on the possibility that people who seem to be more deficient than average > in acting in line with their values or beliefs (as indicated by > self-destructive behaviors or negative outcomes) can be encouraged to act > in their own best interests, express their values, act functionally. Do > you think people > >>differ in their degree of irrationality or acting in conflict with their > values? That is, some people seem so wholly self-defeating, it is notable. > Do they not differ from "normal" in this regard in your view? > >> > > >>Robin Room wrote: > >> > >>> Oh, the health beliefs model. Once or twice we took this seriously, > while I was in Berkeley, in modeling whether people came to treatment. > There's a long unpublished analysis by Ron Roizen in the light of this > model (Ron Roizen, Barriers to alcoholism treatment, Working paper F145, > Berkeley: Social Research Group, 1977). As I remember, the model didn't > work very well in this context. We (i.e., the literature) tend to assume a > particular logical connection between people's values, when they may fit > them together in quite another logic. Besides, in the hands of public > health, "health beliefs" tends to be interpreted in terms of rational > cognition (i.e., there are right beliefs and erroneous beliefs) rather than > values. > >>> (An example concerning the logical conenction between > beliefs/values: most north Americans say "drinking causes crime". But most > also say "people are as responsible for their actions drunk as sober". > This seems illogical to people around the women's shelters movement, who > are afraid that saying "drinking causes crime" will mean it functions as an > excuse. But most people put the logic together another way: since we all > have prior knowledge that intoxication causes crime, we are responsible > because we "chose" to drink or get intoxicated in the first place.) > > >>> Even if people do mostly act in accordance with their values, the > times when they don't could be responsible for much evil/trouble in the > world. I would bet that most sex crimes are committed by someone who is > acting outside the values s/he ordinarily lives by. "People often act > outside their values, but more often act in accordance with them" thus > means that values may not be a good predictor of whether bad events happen. > >>> Your Uncle Oscar is an example of the opposite phenomenon: that > values are also not a good predictor of whether "good" events happen. > After all, he spent 25 years acting against his values. Most American > smokers today agree (or at least verbalize) that smoking is bad for their > health and that, all in all, they would rather they didn't smoke. > >>> Oh, and thanks for the offer, but the world is bad enough off > without me as a therapist. Robin > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Stanton Peele <[log in to unmask]> > >>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > >>> Date: den 17 maj 1999 22:21 > >>> Subject: Re: type of alcoholic beverage and CHD abstract > >>> > >>> >People often act outside their values, and but more often act in > concordance with them. Having values antithetical to addiction (towards > health, sobriety, social > >>> >responsibility) retards possible addictions (what would it take for > you to become a drug addict or alcoholic, Robin?), and addicted people are > in good part > >>> >differentiated from others by such values (the high percentage of > addicted convicts is misinterpreted to mean that addiction leads to crime). > >>> > > >>> >People have many different values, some more central to others, and > act more or less consistently with their values (although, on average, more > consistently than > >>> >not). Having values antithetical to addiction does not always mean > that people will avoid addiction. Among other reasons, they may have > avoided, for whatever > > >>> >reason, confronting the discrepancy between their behavior and their > opposing values. BUT, this then becomes one of the great tools for > removing the addiction. > >>> > > >>> >Did I ever tell you about my uncle Oscar? Ozzie quit smoking in his > early 40s, after smoking three packs+ of unfiltered Pall Malls every day > for 25 years. Most > >>> >would say he was addicted. He said he was. One day, when they raised > the price of cigarettes from 30 to 35 cents, a coworker said, as Ozzie > placed the requisite > >>> >coins in a machine, "Look at Ozzie; he's a patsy for the tobacco > companies. They could raise the price of a pack to a dollar and he'd still > pay it." Oh, I forgot > >>> >to tell you something about Ozzie. He was a shop steward at a GE > television repair installation in Philly. He HATED GE and the whole damn > capitalist system. Every > >>> >day was a battle between him and the company and, in his mind, the > larger corporate culture. > >>> > > >>> >Okay, back to the bar where my Uncle was eating lunch with his mocking > co-worker (she reminds me of you, Robin -- you know, you might be a good > therapist). Ozzie > >>> >said to the woman, "You're right; I'm going to quit smoking." She > then asked Ozzie if she could have his pack of Pall Malls. Ozzie said, > "What, and waste $.35?" > >>> >He smoked that pack and has never smoked again. Ozzie is still alive > and, 35 years later, has never smoked another cigarette. > > >>> > > >>> >Why did Ozzie stop smoking that day? (Ozzie is a good family man, but > he had a teen age son and a small daughter, and polluting the air in the > car while riding with > >>> >them or being a bad role model had never concerned him enough to cause > him to quit.) Robin, by the power invested in me as a "Life Process > Program" therapist (of > >>> >course, I made the therapy up), I can declare you a therapist if you > get this answer right. > >>> > > >>> >Oh, the health values/beliefs model (this is from my social > psychologist days) explains differences in behavior in the face of health > messages (e.g., anti-smoking > >>> >ones) in terms of several intervening factors, including a belief that > the proposed behavior or behavioral change will result in a particular > outcome (e.g., better > >>> >health) and the value the individual attaches to this outcome. > >>> > > >>> >SP > >>> > > >>> >Robin Room wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> No -- tell me about it. > >>> >> By your lights, was Ira Glasser behaving rationally in his > conversation with you? What do you see as the relation between values and > rationality? > >>> >> Robin > >>> >> > >>> >> Stanton wrote, in part: > >>> >> >Are you familiar with the health values model (was that > Wolestin/sp?) which predicts behavior in terms of the values the individual > places on different choices? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > > ----- > >To join the KBS-LIST, send the command > > SUBSCRIBE KBS-LIST YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME > >To signoff the list, send the command > > SIGNOFF KBS-LIST to [log in to unmask] > >If you experience difficulties signing on or off, write to > >[log in to unmask] > > > > ----- > To join the KBS-LIST, send the command > SUBSCRIBE KBS-LIST YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME > To signoff the list, send the command > SIGNOFF KBS-LIST to [log in to unmask] > If you experience difficulties signing on or off, write to > [log in to unmask] ----- To join the KBS-LIST, send the command SUBSCRIBE KBS-LIST YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME To signoff the list, send the command SIGNOFF KBS-LIST to [log in to unmask] If you experience difficulties signing on or off, write to [log in to unmask]