You are right, she does not; she rarely distinguishes between binge and moderate drinking in the rather long article, which makes it difficult for me to place much confidence in her conclusion. Of course, since that conclusion seems to be that reckless, anti-social often violent behavior when drunk is cultural rather than chemical I would have little confidence in it even if well supported. It would still be nice if she had well supported such a counterintuitive claim, however.

Consumption is consumption, and her statement about higher consumption in the Mediterranean was independent of the one about "integrated" vs. "ambivalent" drinking cultures. She merely implies, but does not demonstrate, a link between anthropological studies and drinking stats. Perfectly accurate drinking stats could be obtained from local AA groups, brewers or chambers of commerce, all of which would track per capita consumption but only one of which is likely to control for consumption per capita AND per unit time (though not very likely, IMHO; my frequent experience has been that AAs answer to "how much is too much?" goes to the opposite extreme.) We do not know where the author got the figures because she does not tell us, usually a red flag in scholarly articles.

It is at least as valid to conclude from the studies and stats that "integrated" drinking cultures drink less alcohol more often, thus getting less drunk less often, and are therefore less prone to irresponsible behavior while drinking. They drink more but get drunk less, so they less often make fools of themselves when drinking. Two of those "integrated" Mediterranean cultures esteem alcohol so highly they deified it two millennia ago--and provide, in the Maenads, one of the oldest and most horrific portraits of binge drinking. They did not and do not disparage drinking itself, but seem to feel excessive drinking SOMEWHAT increases violence and promiscuity.


The physical effects are the same, but physiology influences psychology; that, after all, is why people intentionally intoxicate themselves. People on acid believing they can fly because of impaired depth perception is a well documented physical effect, but the irrationality that convinces some to leap off buildings knowing they are dozens (or hundreds) of feet in the air is no less a psychological effect simply because its cause is in turn a physical effect. Impaired cognition and judgement, not to mention acuity, impair inhibition because, once again, the drugs (in this case, alcohol) physical effects reduce or eliminate awareness and/or concern about behavior. No one intends to make an ass of themselves while drunk, but many people do so anyway because they do not REALIZE they are doing it, or do not care until sober again. Impaired judgement and cognition can actually INCREASE inhibitions when people know they are impaired; unfortunately alcohol other common physiologically caused psychological effects conceal that knowledge behind impaired acuity, euphoria and/or false confidence (itself form of impaired judgement takes.)

Yes, the difference is in how the physical effects impact behavior, and that does not let anyone off the hook; apart from temporary insanity, few courts recognize "I have no judgement or self control" as a valid defence, drunk or sober. Absence of inhibition is not enough; the presence of desire is also necessary. However, the physical effects produce additional psychological effects that unleash that desire as irresponsible behavior. The person performing it is no less accountable for submitting to desire, but the physical effects of alcohol producing the psychological effect of encouraging that desire remain nonetheless.


That does not follow. That some people exhibit those behavioral effects psychosomatically when given non-toxic substances presented as alcoholic does not prove alcohol does NOT produce them. To rigorously test and demonstrate a placebo effect would require people given people alcoholic drinks presented as NON-toxic to exhibit no more irresponsible behavior than a control group. Do you think any studies have shown that, some kind of placebo effect where people consume massive amounts of alcohol yet still behave normally because "I'm NAH druuk! *erratically swings at person trying to take his keys*"?

The author later claims studies have shown just that--but she also states those studies INCENTIVIZED responsible behavior rather than RESTRAINING irresponible. Drunk people did not reject or restrain irresponsible desires, as such; they were simply presented an even greater desire that conflicted with the lesser irresponsible one. Offer the cheating drunks $10,000,000 to keep their pants on and they might do it, but not because they suddenly mastered self control. Further, I think her idea of "very drunk" and mine are radically different, else the "very drunk" people who "behaving as though they were totally sober" would have been in no condition to accept any incentive, or exhibit any behavior except vomiting or unconsciousness. And, of course, the ubiquitous phenomenon of drunk people who think themselves sober nonetheless behaving as they "expect" they would drunk remains inexplicable.

I credit the statement that "experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol," but, by itself, it only means people who think they are drunk act accordingly; it does NOT prove drunken people as responsible as sober ones.


That is a possibility, and one the studies support, but the twofold solution is the same: Moderate drinking to reduce both the belief and actuality one is drunk, and exercise greater self restraint when drinking because the belief can precede as well as succeed the actuality. That is a FAR better public health message than either "never drink or you could DIE111 " or "drink as much as you want; you'll be fine. "


Perhaps I should have said "eliminate the negative secondary effects of the placebo effect," but either way, no, I was not saying different expectations of behavior lead to different behavior (though the article does seem to contend that.) Drunk people are more prone to irresponsible behavior than sober people; the placebo effect simply means sober people who think they are drunk act like it, not that drunk people who think they are responsible act responsibly. That is what placebos do: Convince people they have been affected by a foreign substance when none is present. That does NOT mean such a substance cannot affect them, only that their belief it has is invalid. Again, to demonstrate the behavioral differences are SOLELY from any placebo effect we must see people unknowingly exposed to the candidate substance and unaffected by it. That is simply not the case with alcohol or any other recreational drug.


Physiology greatly affects psychology, which in turn determines behavior. I suspect the authors definition of "very drunk" differs from mine, particularly since she seems to be arguing there are no behavioral detriments to binge drinking. That is a great prescription for a frat party, but not so much for public safety.


I am saying that because alcohol definitely DOES impair judgement and reduce inhibitions people who are drunk (or believe they are) should redouble their concern for both, just as a drunk trying to walk home concentrates on walking far more than a sober person does in the same situation. He does not simply say, "who cares if I fall in the canal or wander into traffic; I'm DRUNK! " Actually, come to think of it, some people have been known to say things like that when drunk, despite the effects of alcohol being entirely physical. Drinking impairs judgement and inhibitions, so both merit greater effort to compensate for that impairment.

The more I think about this article and the authors unsupported claims, the more the thought some public health authority taking her seriously disturbs me, because she seems to argue binge drinking is, behaviorally, a non-issue. That is NOT the lesson of "integrated" drinking cultures, where binge drinking is not so much "cool" or "fun" as "stupid" and "dangerous." In her exhaustive and subjective analysis of her native countrys drinking culture she completely overlooked the primary effect distinguishing it from "integrated" drinking cultures. Maybe she "really [does not] see why anthropologists feel they have to travel to unpronounceable corners of the world in order to study strange tribal cultures with bizarre beliefs and mysterious customs" but objectivity is probably a greater factor than any "traditional intrepid[ity]." Not that there is a shortage of anthropologists, sociologists, doctors or law enforcement officers saying binge drinking strongly and negatively affects behavior, citing their own exhaustive studies as proof. There is such a thing as "the NON-traditional intrepid sort of anthropology," too, and this article seems a likely candidate.

If she wants to argue binge drinking is no threat (to anything but ones heart and liver, at least,) fine, but I pray no one else is listening, because that claim flies in the face of both common sense, experience and rather elementary chemistry. A cultural change definitely seems advisable, one analogous to that in places with an "integrated" drinking culture. Asserting drunk people remain responsible for acting on their desires, however much alcohol impairs their judgement and inhibtions, is one such, and there I agree with the author (to the extent she explicitly states that, which is not great since it is clearly not her priority.) However, rather than an endorsement of binge drinking as much or more condemned in those countries, it would also be far more advisable to replace frequent glorification of binge drinking with their disdain for it. There I disagree with the author because her article actively denies that position on scanty evidence and consequently only "inhibits" it.