Incidentally, I would be very curious to see comparisons between the average amount of alcohol consumed per day in the Mediterranean vs. the rest of Western Europe, because I suspect the higher per capita consumption in the former is due to drinking less alcohol more often. Doctors have been telling us for some time that a glass or two of wine per day is good for us, but obviously chugging three bottles once a week is not the same, even if it works out to the same amount per year. 
Obviously, the behavioral effect of moderate drinking without intoxication are very different than those of binge drinking, and arguing only abstinence prevents embarrassment and tragedy while other parts of the culture glorify excess is no more helpful with alcohol than with sex.
Obviously, the behavioral effect of moderate drinking without intoxication are very different than those of binge drinking, and arguing only abstinence prevents embarrassment and tragedy while other parts of the culture glorify excess is no more helpful with alcohol than with sex. I know she doesn't go into detail about the experiments and studies, but I'd imagine timeframe vs amount of alcohol drunk would be a pretty obvious and easy factor to control for. Plus you can probably still see the cultural differences after a couple of drinks - she doesn't specify binge drinking with that bit.
I agree with her primary contention BECAUSE I disagree with her primary supporting argument that alcohol is not a disinhibitor.
In high doses, alcohol impairs our reaction times, muscle control, co-ordination, short-term memory, perceptual field, cognitive abilities and ability to speak clearly.
The highlighted factors all add up to impaired judgement and reduced inhibition. I would argue that those add up to impaired ability to perform mentally and physically and while that could lead to impaired judgement I don't think it actually spells out reduced inhibition. Even if it does, the differences surely are in what these changes produce in behavioural terms. The physical effects will be broadly the same (although I suppose with different effects for people of different origins but let's not get into that) but what that results in is dependent on culture and expectations of what will happen.
That does not mean anyone does anything they were not already inclined to do, but simply that drunkeness reduces or destroys their rational coherent self-restraint. In other words, alcohol
does not cause us selectively to break specific social rules
but DOES indirectly encourage selectively breaking general social rules. It weakens or eliminates our psychological barriers against violating rules in ways we desire but recognize as unhealthy. Many people routinely and enthusiastically do things while drunk that they would never consider, despite temptation, while sober, because they forget, dispute or simply no longer care about the consequences that would deter them if sober.I think this is kind of what the article is about. If a similar response can be obtained when using a placebo, it's not because of the alcohol, it's because the expectation of the effect it will have on us.
Of course, as I have also long contended, that does not make alcohol an excuse for appalling behavior; it clearly demonstrates that when a person acts disgracefully while drunk the PERSON, not the alcohol, is the actor. Part of the embarrassment in such behavior is the general perception the person was always inclined toward it, but that inclination remained hidden until the alcohol revealed it; that perception seems largely accurate. If your best friend and boyfriend get drunk and sleep together, the alcohol merely opened the door to what both already wanted to do anyway, even if neither would ever do it sober.
Or the expectation of what kind of behaviour occurs and can be excused by being under the influence of alcohol removed the inhibitions and produced those results.
The idea alcohol somehow excuses such behavior is thus very dubious. Knowing alcohol fosters submission to irresponsible temptation, we should be vigilant against temptation while drunk rather than indulging it and simply blaming alcohol later. That would also alleviate the placebo effect of people behaving deplorably while drunk because they expect to do so; people would know (as most eventually learn) that, drunk or not, their behavior remains THEIRS, not the alcohols.
Well, yes, I thought this was what the article was saying in the cultural differences - different expectations of what behaviour occurs leads to different behaviour. It wouldn't alleviate the placebo effect as a placebo would still result in the same behaviour as alcohol.
Again, the author makes a number of good and valid points, but the following sentence best illustrates how I think she exaggerates their effect:
These experiments show that even when people are very drunk, if they are given an incentive (either financial reward or even just social approval) they are perfectly capable of remaining in complete control of their behaviour - of behaving as though they were totally sober.
I would very much like to see a study showing "even when people are very drunk... they are perfectly capable of... behaving as though they were totally sober." I imagine most law enforcement would find that study interesting, too, but I have difficulty believing drunken black outs are psychosomatic, or that people fall over and puke on their shoes solely because they expect they will. 
The authors own earlier statements refute that notion.
The authors own earlier statements refute that notion.You're describing physical symptoms, not behaviour.
The fact is, we know alcohol reduces our inhibitions by ever greater amounts, but we remain responsible for our actions because the absence of restraint motivates nothing. We can and should acknowledge and publicize both aspects of that, discouraging drunkneness because it impairs judgement but also encouraging people to heighten rather than relax their vigilance when alcohol impairs judgement. Alcohol makes it more difficult to walk a straight line and speak clearly, but concentration and will nonethless allow people to do both long after alcohol has begun impairing the ability. Moderation should be encouraged at all times; no amount of will enables walking and talking when blood alcohol content reaches acutely toxic levels and, while an unconscious person may not be responsible for choking on their own vomit, that unaccountability benefits them little.
You seem to be saying opposite things one after another. I'm confused. It is kinda early.
TOES 
*MySmiley*
*MySmiley*
Alcohol
- 12/10/2011 10:05:34 AM
703 Views
It is an interesting article.
- 12/10/2011 12:22:11 PM
483 Views
I strongly believe that (in the US) the high drinking age causes more harm than good
- 12/10/2011 03:00:45 PM
422 Views
The distinction between drinking and drunkenness is an important one, but she seems to minimize it.
- 12/10/2011 03:03:58 PM
526 Views
She makes a number of good points, but I think she may go too far with them.
- 12/10/2011 02:49:55 PM
540 Views
I think you may have missed the point a little
- 13/10/2011 10:41:50 AM
399 Views
- 13/10/2011 10:41:50 AM
399 Views
This article is just a pile of shit for so many reasons I can't begin to count them.
- 15/10/2011 07:39:12 PM
398 Views