Why is alcohol so deeply rooted in our society?
I’ve always struggled to understand the appeal for mind altering substances. Whenever I tried it, it just felt like a dream where I wasn’t fully in control of my thoughts, and I never liked it. Why do humans want to escape their mind and avoid reality? How is it an advantage?
Even when reality triggers negative feelings, it’s more efficient to be sober and think about a solution rather than choosing denial by getting drunk, so why do 99% of humans long for that state at least once in their life? Why haven’t we evolved out of this?
And it’s not just alcohol and drugs, people tell themselves all sort of things to stay in their denial to avoid facing their problems. I don’t believe this is just a random trait that stayed within us while having no advantages, so what could it be? Maybe if we weren’t driven to choose denial whenever something is too horrible, we would be totally insane and couldn’t deal with reality. Maybe we would be constantly having existential crisis, and discrediting things we intuitively care about. What do you think?
Even when reality triggers negative feelings, it’s more efficient to be sober and think about a solution rather than choosing denial by getting drunk, so why do 99% of humans long for that state at least once in their life? Why haven’t we evolved out of this?
And it’s not just alcohol and drugs, people tell themselves all sort of things to stay in their denial to avoid facing their problems. I don’t believe this is just a random trait that stayed within us while having no advantages, so what could it be? Maybe if we weren’t driven to choose denial whenever something is too horrible, we would be totally insane and couldn’t deal with reality. Maybe we would be constantly having existential crisis, and discrediting things we intuitively care about. What do you think?
Comments (81)
Humans seem to have always enjoyed altering their consciousness and augmenting their quotidian experiences through all manner of activities - sex, exercise, hiking, travelling, flying, sky diving, deep sea diving, exploring, rock climbing, art, dance, music, cinema, performance, costume, meditation, gambling, massage... these expressions of exhilaration are practically endless. Drugs are just another way of doing this. They can make life a bit more interesting and fun. Sure it's not everyone's cup of tea (or tequila) but not everyone enjoys sex either, so there is that. Nothing is compulsory. And not all things we do for kicks are equally safe. Sex and drugs can easily lead one into trouble.
You seem to hold a presupposition that substances use is a character flaw. This is hard wired into a lot of Protestant cultures. It is also the case that most people who use substances don't suffer issues of addiction. Addiction is a whole separate matter. Again - people can become addicted to sex, shopping, eating, booze and gambling, just to name a few.
Reality is not always pleasant. Sometimes it's so unpleasant that people are desperate to escape it, even for a short time. (If it gets any worse, they'll find a way to escape it permanently.)
But alcohol is not primarily about escape or alteration of mind. In moderation it's a lubricant to conviviality; a way to feel lighter, warmer, more open-minded and accepting than when our minds are cluttered with practical problems and frustrations. In more difficult situations, it's an analgesic of sorts: a means of numbing psychic pain.
If you never have such feelings, count yourself lucky. If you never have such cravings, count yourself exceptional. But never, never count yourself superior.
Alcohol is a link to Eros. It is a component of culture, spirituality, celebration, and general merrymaking. So though it could be used to deny reality, I suppose, it often serves to introduce happiness, fellowship, and beauty to it.
Saying that, I'm also guiltily aware that if one is properly 'tuned up' - that is, physical fit and mentally calm - then it is likely the need for such artificial aides to well-being will correspondingly be reduced.
That's the theory, anyway.
Who cares? Beer is good!
The idea that beer and wine were safer than the Nile, the Rhine, or the Thames is floated again and again. We know that that drinking water from the Danube, Tigris Euphrates, or Congo Rivers might be unsafe, but we have known that for less than 200 years. People certainly understood that some water tasted better than other water, but as for safety... not back then.
People drank beer in preference to river water because of those mind-altering features of alcohol.
It's entertaining. The religious rites of the Eleusinian Mystery cult at Eleusis (Ancient Greece) involved drugs, alcohol, and vision seeing. People did go there for the mysteries, but they also went there because it was interesting, festive, and fun.
I've always found a couple of beers a necessary, reliable, and effective social lubricant. .
Some things are just a bonus.
Quoting Wayfarer
Small point: monkeys are more than just said to enjoy alcohol. It's been observed in wild situations, i.e., not just those monkeys stealing cocktails on the beach.
I didn't know about elephants though. A drunk elephant could do a lot of damage.
Although it is true that some drink to avoid problems, others do so to face them and get more confidence. I don't know if some of you had to deal with alcoholics, but I had to. It doesn't cause any confidence when their only purpose is to waste their income or pension on a drink at the bar. This is the thing that bothers me the most. An alcohol-dependent acts legally. We cannot ban them from buying alcohol or going to a bar. It is stunning the number of people who destroy their life - or even die - because of this. But the state doesn't care because it hasn't forced you to 'consume'... Is this really true? I think it is literally the opposite. It is the environment which forces us to be drinkers or smokers, because they are acts of developed societies.
As already pointed out, alcohol consumption, among other common insidious parctices, is a breadead easy way to iron out stressful periods, but it's not the "objectively" correct solution. The alternative is too difficult i.e. being healthy (fitness, diet, sleep, socialising). If everyone on Earth were even slightly better, these cultural indulences would disappear, but everyone would appear robotic and liveless. There's a lot to unpack when it comes to conventions of such large scale. I mean, its not hard to imagine what you should be doing yourself, but there's no way of exactly realising it.
Quoting Skalidris
It simply wasn't for you then. Just not something you need or should be consuming.
Quoting Skalidris
Kind of asking two completely different albeit vaguely and circumstantially related questions here. Your experience is exactly, that. Your experience. Completely unique from 8 billion others. Sure many are like you, and if a thing is a hindrance, which it is to many, then cast it away.
For the majority of responsible consumers of alcohol who can handle it, it's a welcome reprieve. For some a distraction, for others a way to focus. A "social lubricant" it is called by many. It puts the majority of, again responsible consumers who can process it correctly, in a "good mood" of sorts. Certainly there's an argument for your disposition as though it does seem to make problems disappear, responsible drinkers know this is an illusion and temporary state, and know they cannot simply avoid them or avoid work toward resolution of said problems. In short, it allows the majority of people to have a quick and cheap good time even in hard times.
It is easy to fall into complacence and avoid one's responsibilities however, yes. Abuse can be harrowing and indeed fatal. One can indeed lose everything. This happens quite often. For many, especially the less intellectually inclined, it is in fact best avoided. At least, habitually.
Quoting Skalidris
Just because you're sober or awake, as you think, doesn't mean you're any more coherent or in touch with the absolute nature of things than someone who is perhaps a bit less than sober. Not automatically, that is. Sure plenty of habitual consumers of alcohol ie. "drunks" are in fact dregs of society, but for many, this remains true whether sober or not.
Again, your experience is your own, and if that experience is fact for you, I would continue and have no argument whatsoever. As far as you and your individual, private choices that can be shared, if one asks.
Quoting Skalidris
Oh come now. I doubt you've even met 0.0001% of humans. These inane generalizations are textbook characteristics of exactly the kind of person who should not be drinking, save for a special occasion under supervision by fellow citizens (friends) and supervisors (bartenders) perhaps? :smile:
Quoting Skalidris
Why not ask why aren't we all the stereotypical, imagined grey alien, content with standing around with nary an emotion, whim, or desire for any amount of time? Because life is about change. You become aware. You can learn to walk, learn to run, learn to ride a bike. It goes on.
Understood, in your purported, limited experience it creates an uncontrollable state of mind. Understand this is not the norm. Not when reasonable care and moderation is taken.
But if the question boils down or becomes tangential to "why do people like to feel pleasure and ignore pain", well. It becomes quite moot and elementary at that point. Wouldn't you say?
Quoting Skalidris
You seem to be entranced by the word or concept of 'denial' so let me tell you a story based on the truths and falsehoods of what people commonly prescribe to be a case or "unchangeable situation" of such.
Two brothers became trapped in a cave once. A seemingly inescapable situation where the mouth of the cave collapsed thus sending their rappelling gear and ropes down and making the opening impossible to reach. The men quickly resorted to their primitive state, after consuming all their rations, eating bugs and each waking up early to gather the liberal stream of leaking water nearby. They fought once, nearly killing one another, but in the end decided if they were trapped without any hope of rescue, any one killing the other would do little but prolong the inevitable, and curse the lone survivor to perish under the burden of a needless murder that ultimately changed naught. So they explored what little they could. Their sources of illumination (flashlights, matches, a lighter) soon expired and became inoperable except for the emergency flashlight each one possessed. As they explored one noticed the other's flashlight was running low and such ascertained his might soon as well thus dooming them both so as they explored they would often do so without using either. The man who's flashlight was running low happened to have become injured in the dark and blamed the other for "setting him up" and so on their return from the darkness became immovable from the location of the cave where they had originally fallen to remain in the light of the crevice where he could keep watch on his immediate surroundings, leaving the other to explore by his lonesome. Several days passed, each mind becoming more ravenous, paranoid, and untrusting. The man with the fully charged flashlight would depart into the darkness, each journey becoming longer and - according to his accounts - more hopeful, returning with plenty of insects and moss which he would always split with his sole, now-immovable companion. His flashlight soon grew dim too, barely functional, hardly able to light up a few feet in front of him. However, the next day he, the traverser of the seemingly endless abyss that trapped them both returned, manic, unable to control himself. He informed the other he discovered a crevice about a mile or 20 minutes in from which he was able to spot a fisherman or person on the river and would signal to him with his flashlight that the man returned in response. "I need your flashlight, brother!" he exclaimed. The man who would not budge looked at his clearly manic, near-insane brother and instantly imagined another "perceived trap" or simple descent into madness. He grabbed him with what little strength he had left and threw him against a rock brandishing a sharp hunting knife he was unaware the other possessed and said "I tell you now, flee from me, or I promise you, this next trick will be your last" and cut him shallowly on his forearm, breaking his flashlight as he fell backward. His swears, promises, assurances were no good at this point. He realized that. So, he departed. That night, while the immovable man slept, the brother swiped his flashlight and swapped it with his own.
As it turned out, the explorer's word was true. He did in fact signal a young fisherman who brought his family out to the river and was able to signal to them "SOS" using his sleeping brother's flashlight. That night the nearby town organized a search and rescue party, bringing in equipment to the awake brother's position. As the entire town on riverboats and buggies broke through the crevice freeing the flashlight signaling man, now delirious with hunger and fever, as he cried "My brother, my brother is still trapped, you have to save him!" a loud noise was heard as the cave which had confined him collapsed behind. The flashlight signaling man was rescued and taken to the local pub for a meal and hard ale. The rescue team immediately sought out for the still trapped brother, going by the location given by the now rescued man.
[hide="Reveal"]They found him. Buried under a pile of rubble. Crushed to death. Still clutching a now-dead flashlight. Illuminated by the light of what was the original crevice he sought refuge under.
So. What's the moral of the story? That's for you to decide.[/hide]
Good point. :up:
The difference is, it's easy to see an advantage for all of these activities: it "makes sense" that we get pleasure from sex, or else we wouldn't reproduce, that we exercise be so healthy,... But what about alcohol? If alcohol and drugs didn't exist or triggered a negative reaction that would make us avoid it, what would we lose and what would we gain?
Quoting Tom Storm
But that's the thing, if you didn't consider something interesting sober, why would you want to alter your state to find it valuable? Who would you trust more to access the value of things, your sober self or your drunk self?
Quoting Vera Mont
It's a lubricant to conviviality because we escape from social norms or fears we had when we were sober... It slows our cognitive abilities, it is an alteration of mind.
To me, drinking alcohol in social events is like admitting we are better equipped at facing this event in our drunker self. I don't understand why we want to change what feels good and what doesn't instead of changing the situation. If I only find a social event fun and interesting when drunk, why go there instead of going somewhere that is fun when sober?
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, then why do we tend to change our perception of reality rather than change our reality itself? I never understood this, if I find people uninteresting, I'm not going to get drunk to have fun with them, I'm going to find people with whom I can have fun when I'm sober...
Quoting Outlander
Do they really? It is so normalized to drink during social occasions. Why would you want to cause an illusionary state whenever you socialize, how does that make any sense?
Quoting Outlander
Okay, so let's imagine you have to choose between spending some fun time doing something you only like when you drink, or doing something you like when you're sober, would you consider them both as valuable in your life? Some people stare at lights when they're on LSD, would you consider staring at lights a valuable thing in your life? Some people have sex with people they don't even like or are attracted to when they're drunk, would you consider that a valuable experience in your life?
I've heard people who had life changing experiences with drugs, where they realised something so important and got their life together after that. I've met someone like that and when he told me his revelation, I couldn't help but think "what, but that's so obvious". And the truth is, denial is the reason why most people can't admit obvious things about themselves, and alcohol and drugs, most of the time, feed denial. It's like when we dream about a solution of our problems, in the dream it seems like we're such a genius and that's an amazing discovery, but most of the time, when we wake up, we realise that solution didn't make any sense. And when it does, it's never something complex that we couldn't have thought about when we were conscious.
Quoting Outlander
I didn't get the point of your story. Yes, in extreme situation that alter our physical state, our states of mind is also altered, so? And even if there aren't any physical damage to the health, if someone is keeping a person captive and giving them enough food and water, they'll start losing their mind too, so? I don't think "drugs are bad", without drugs, medicine would be hell for people receiving the treatments. But what I don't understand is why we normalize alcohol during social occasions, where there aren't supposed to be any suffering. And if we suffer from our life, how changing how we feel about it doesn't change anything and is only temporary, so what's the point?
That's the point mate, for a responsible drinker being less pissed off and more jovial is not an "illusionary" state. Now it can easily and arguably inevitably lead to such. But that's a complete reversal of the word responsible.
Quoting Skalidris
Sure. That's a far cry from your original premise to jump from having to specify a "fun time doing something [one] only enjoys when drink[ing]" but we can roll with that if you like. Naturally that's a personal choice and my random answer doesn't seem to touch on any philosophical or logical aspect but, if I may rephrase your question to what I believe is your intended or rather more widely beneficial "purpose" as: "Would I wish to enjoy something I only enjoy whilst drinking and never did before over something I previously enjoyed and no longer can (this is the main stipulation) unless sober?
I would consider results valuable. Yes if a person has a more enjoyable time, and they place enjoyment over productivity it would indeed be more valuable in my life. Perhaps I enjoy productivity more and am (like many) unable to be as productive whilst drinking. In such a case it would absolutely be the opposite. That's my point. Everybody is different. Having half a beer versus drinking half a bottle of hard liquor counts as "drinking" just the same, arguable. So yours is a loaded question with undefined variables as is.
Quoting Skalidris
And exactly why I told it. Different strokes for different folks.
To circle back to the primary question, if not cheaply, why are enjoyable experiences enjoyable? Because they are.
One thing about evolution is that it doesn't care about some sort of idealized end-goal -- insofar that the species manages to reproduce well enough that the next generation also reproduces well enough that the next iteration will do the same then the demands of evolution are met. And we see that alcohol consumption is very common among each generation so we shouldn't expect evolution to have an effect on this behavior.
Alcohol consumption is common throughout social organisms, so I'd suggest you've got it the wrong way about -- the interesting thing is that these rituals are actually quite common, and so you've got to ask "What is this doing for the social organism?" -- or is it doing anything at all, or is it just a free-rider that happens to come along because it's not a detriment?
One thing drinking rituals do is help stabilize social organisms in light of hierarchies that demand we act in certain ways that will become exhausting, or at least this is a function of these rituals in our culture. We work hard all day and find it hard to stop working hard when the job is finished, so a drink helps one to stop working hard for a moment. What you find unattractive, losing control of ones' thoughts, is the actual attraction.
Also, the practical reality of regulating alcohol makes it a messy business for social hierarchies to police even if it wants to -- all you need is sugar and water, and what's in the air will take care of the rest if you want to ferment some alcohol. So there's the other side where there are people who will easily make a profit off of the desire for alcohol even if you make it illegal and try to sanitize humanity towards sobriety given how easy it is to produce at home.
You'd be the life of any party.
Either missing the point spectacularly or you're not serious. People play dangerous sex games, they undertake high risk activities for the adrenalin rush, the change in consciousness, to experience exhilaration, excitement, elation. 'Healthy' has nothing to do with it. Many things we do, like bungee jumping, are not for our health and serve no practical use, they are for the thrill. To savour an experience. Human beings like to do things to argument their experience. This is not hard to understand.
Quoting Skalidris
This question reveals a big gap between yourself and the matter at hand. As if 'trust' or 'value' have anything to do with the use of alcohol. As someone who has had a great fondness for alcohol, I know how much better an evening can feel when using it. This is no more about trust or value than going to a museum and having a nice time looking at art. Alcohol can give everything a golden sheen, an additional energy and vivacity which you may treasure long after you are 'sober' - if you were indeed drunk, since total intoxication doesn't have to be the goal.
If someone is making the offer, please send them my way. I'd take the million in a heartbeat.
I guess you have to like drinking a lot. Which I do!
I've always struggled to understand people who are not at all interested in altering their consciousness.
As Tom Waits said, "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs." :wink:
Drugs have long been a bit of an obsession of mine. I haven't used anything other than alcohol in moderation (and weed once in a great while in Colorado, where it's legal) for quite some time. But I did a lot of experimentation when I was young, particularly with psychedelics. I had some of the most interesting/beautiful experiences of my life, and some pretty terrible ones too! In addition to a few bad trips, I even had a psychotic episode that lasted three days following an LSD trip, during which I thought I was God and was doing all sorts of weird things. That was quite an educational experience, let me tell you! I had previously never appreciated how tenuous our grip on "reality" actually is. I would never have imagined that I could lose it like I did! Drugs, including psychedelics, are not benign. But even that psychosis was quite educational for me. I learned a lot about psychology. I also developed more empathy for people struggling with mental health issues.
It is interesting to bend your consciousness a bit. Certain things are revealed when you do that. What doesn't vary is hard to notice. It can be hard to even realize that your baseline consciousness is always already "colored" in some sense, and might be different from that of others. When you experience a variety of states, you can compare them, at least to a degree (It is always hard to remember just what it is like to be in other states, more so with states more unlike the baseline state). It becomes possible to appreciate that your baseline state is just a small point in a vast space of possible ways of being/experiencing.
Drugs are certainly problematic. But they have some virtues. And drugs shouldn't be treated as one monolithic class. The reasons for using them can vary quite a lot depending on the sort of drug you are talking about. People generally don't use ayahuasca for the same reasons they will drink a beer or two at dinner. Alcohol and psychedelics do vastly different things.
Alcohol is a pretty shitty drug as far as drugs go. It doesn't really deliver on its promises, and usually makes you feel worse in the long run. Only a little is nice. Just a little too much and it tends to be pretty unpleasant, and it can be hard to stop at just the right point. And, unlike some substances, it doesn't really offer a lot of insight. Regardless, I enjoy a beer or two now and then. I tend to be pretty uptight. It loosens me up a bit and helps me to take the edge off of all the things that normally are constantly worrying me. But the nice effects of a light buzz only last a short while, and after that passes, I feel slightly worse than I did before the beer.
It's nice sometimes to imbibe a small dose of oblivion to bring a little levity. Life can be a bit much! And not all of the problems of life can be solved, even if we face up to them soberly. Sometimes, I need a little help to just care a little less, to feel a little good for a little while despite how irreparably fucked up things actually are. I sometimes wish there were actually a much better drug than alcohol, one with all the positives and less of the negatives. But that would probably be dangerous!
One place I've found alcohol to be extremely helpful is on a long, long international flight! Unbearable without it, especially during the pandemic, all masked up the whole time, stuck in a tight space packed with people, where you can barely move for twelve hours straight. Alcohol really, really helps me get through that claustrophobic hell!
Some drugs aren't about escaping or feeling good at all. Some bring you right into contact with what you normally avoid and this can be quite uncomfortable.
Why would a being that is characteristically good and strong do something weak and bad? Among the other animals, we have the ability to engage with the internal contradiction of strength and weakness in the 'will.' The reason why your question promotes such internal division is that it doesn't include the question, 'Is the good an act of virtue exclusive of will and the aim of an ideal life?'
As an example, consider yourself in a class of those who admire physical strength and agility. You might think it virtuous to train every day and become the strongest imaginable. If you realized that aim, both friends and enemies would have to follow your example and you would foster a society where everyone is strong. It is now harder to survive, and life seems to incur only pain. But that pain of losing out could also be a good, and maybe didn't even realize you had that to start with.
The true representation of the modern will is normally not thought of as something that instills the simple and universally categorical without thought. The modern will needs thought not only to define itself but in order to reach its real aims. I think Aristotle was one of the first to arrive at that conclusion.
You can't discount genetic factors when assessing your reaction to drugs and alcohol. Some find it very pleasurable and addicting and others not. I fall into the latter category. Alcohol does lower my inhibitions, but it isn't relaxing or pleasurable. It mostly makes me tired and gives me a headache. For others, they can't seem to control their intake because it's apparently so wonderful.
I have seen studies correlating ethnicity to alcoholism, where those ethnic groups with early historical exposure to alcohol have lower rates of alcoholism than those with more recent exposure. Native Americans have extremely high rates of alcoholism perhaps due to this recent evolutionary exposure, versus Ashkenazi Jews which have very low rates due to the first exposure being long ago.
This isn't to say your response to intoxicants might not also be personality driven, but I have no question with myself that my physiological response is very different from what is typical.
I suppose it's a good thing, but you won't find me at a party very late. Nothing is more boring than being the sober guy at 1:00 am.
What actually fascinates me even more is the evolutionary role of alcohol in human mating rituals where it is introduced in highly organized ways (in terms of where it is served, to whom it is served, how it is prepared, the time of day it is served, the environment (particularly with music) in which it is served, etc.). Since alcohol is correlated to mating, it has a profound impact on evolution I would think.
This is what I think about at 1:00 am when having to watch drunk people slobber over each other.
What society in particular are you referring to?
Alcohol is used in all the societies of the world. From primitive to most civilized.
People drink for various reasons. From simple pleasure to getting rid of persistent hurtful memories and to having mental problems (not illness, necessarily). And the amount and frequency of drinking also varies from occasionally to daily to heavy addiction (alcoholism).
As for "denial", it is certainly not the main reason --if it is a reason at all-- for drinking. People who deny reality are usually people with mental problems (not mentally ill), frail and emotional people, who are instable, they cannot control their mind and emotions, and who can easily change from joy to anger (not manic-depressive, this is a heavy condition). And these people usually drink very little. They have other means to get rid of unpleasant and negative thoughts that pull them down: mainly by suppressing them. Avoid to accept, denying what they know well it is real, mainly by covering them with other, positive thoughts. That's why these people are characterized by lying: they are modifying and negating reality, truth. And all that, on a constant basis. It's pathological.
Or philosophers. :razz:
:up: :grin:
I understand your struggle, since yours is an atypical reaction to alcohol.
As to the advantage, while I can identify admittedly minor competitive advantages, it is my opinion and experience that the main advantage of alcohol consumption (especially when alcohol was invented) is personal, not competitive.
Of course they do. Although probably not to people who are more emotional than they are philosophical.
To illustrate this difference: I once had a brief exchange with a psychologist who wrote for Psychology Today about gratitude. I struggled to understand his points because he seemed to think that *feeling* grateful is all that matters, and that everything that has to do with *whom* one is grateful to and how one *expresses* one's gratitude are unimportant or tertiary at most. What is more, right away, he accused me of trolling and repeated this several times, in every reply to me.
I think it's absurd to talk about gratitude solely in the framework of how it makes one feel. But apparently for some people, this is entirely enough. How, is beyond me, other than to try to explain it with the difference between emotionalism and philosophy.
I, too, am one of those people who doesn't like alcohol. I don't like the way it goes into my head, I don't like the way it adversely affects my motor skills. It makes me drowsy, sleepy. I'm actually in awe of people who can drink and somehow feel better for doing so, who can "enjoy art" and such better when they are under the influence than sober. To me, alcohol just makes everything flat and makes me bored.
If a person requires to consume particular substances to display or practice certain mental, emotional, and behavioral skills or traits, this means that they are unable to practice those skills or traits *deliberately*. This is a weakness, a disadvantage.
Spot on. I don't believe anyone could disagree.
However one should differentiate "requires" from "prefers". I'd say I "require coffee" first thing in the morning to get moving. I strongly prefer it, and if I happened to run out I would likely go through considerable measures to obtain a cup. But if all coffee ceased to exist from the world, I would simply have to go through my morning routines regardless.
Per my example, sure, if you cannot not be pissed off without becoming intoxicated that indeed would be a problem. On the other hand I stand by the fact for most responsible drinkers, alcohol makes one "more jovial" as in, relative to one's preexisting state of joviality. To further agree with you, yes if one is unable to be jovial without becoming intoxicated that is in fact a negative trait one possesses.
Take something very tedious and boring no one enjoys. I don't know, sorting a 5-gallon bucket's worth of buttons that have become unsorted. For example. If, in this fictional example, you had to do it anyway and it's something you simply don't enjoy, you can't force yourself to enjoy it, that is to say you can't artificially elevate your "happiness" on cue or command absent of external stimuli. Can you? Sure you could look forward to the reward and bear that in mind or focus on it whilst doing so (say they're rare and worth a considerable amount once sorted) or be thankful of how good or satisfactory one's life is and what one has. Sure with discipline one simply does the job regardless. If one would not do the job because of a mental wall or some sort of personal refusal without being intoxicated (alcoholism) then yes that is a separate yet very common set of scenarios.
In short, sure with discipline or "skills or traits" you can be friendly and pleasant even when you're going through hell so to speak. But this is a facade.
I think we can delve into two different common "types" of people's personalities, which many are a mix of the two or others but for simplification we will distinguish two: "introverts" and "extroverts". I wouldn't say it's fair to condemn one over the other as being a "weakness" or "disadvantage". Some people just don't like crowds. Some people can't be by themselves for more than a few days without losing their mind or at least becoming irritated or depressed. It's different mental configurations be they biological, habitual, or a combination of both. So, while I agree with most everything you've said I think the assertion that someone who "requires to consume particular substances" to say have fun and feel at home in a crowded or unfamiliar environment is an automatic, cut-and-dried "weakness" and "disadvantage" needs some revisiting.
I don't know what point I was making there; seems like clumsy wording on my part which overstates the case. I was attempting to say that using alcohol in moderation, like most people, is unlikely to split a person into two competing spheres of values and trust. It's certainly not the first lens I would be using when examining alcohol use.
But perhaps the OP thinks all alcohol use leads to Bacchanalian frenzies and distorted thinking.
It does seem clear to me that people's views on alcohol are emotional and depend significantly upon lived experiences. Many of the anti-booze campaigners I've met were those who had ruined their lives through alcohol or had been abused by family members who drank to excess. This would be hard to factor out of one's thinking.
Coffee. Another thing that makes me drowsy. If I drink coffee in the morning, I'm likely going to be tired and drowsy the entire day, without getting much done.
Then, perhaps, my default state of joviality is more intense than that of most people. I'd describe myself as naturally optimistic, even to a fault
But why would one have to make oneself enjoy it? Whence this obsession with enjoying things?
If something needs to be done, it needs to be done. Enjoyment doesn't necessarily come into the equation.
And yes, I can usually find ways to make even work that is hard and perhaps tedious into something I appreciate. I do it by taking an interest in it.
Also, another psychological pair comes to mind: producers and consumers.
People who are producers require less external stimuli, have longer attention spans, they have a natural understanding that producing things takes time and effort, so they don't get bored easily.
Why would one be under the obligation "to have fun" or "to feel at home" just anywhere, with just anyone?
Where does it say that one needs to feel at home or have fun just anywhere??
This describes me as well, as does your description of how alcohol makes you feel. It's for that reason that I don't think this really is a philosophical difference as much as it is a physiological difference. Some people just don't have the genetic disposition to react to chemical substances as others, which also explains the alcoholic who seems compelled to drink. I haven't drunk any alcohol in probably months. It's not like I think about it any more than drinking a grape soda. It's just not of interest to me, which makes me probably really odd to someone who takes one day at a time (as the saying goes) trying to stay sober just one more day.
The only connection I can make with the people who speak of the wonders and impulse towards alcohol is perhaps sexual pleasure or something like that, where the impulse in me is there. I suspect that there are people who have no sexual drive at all and who would not think that going long streches of time without is any great challenge.
I don't think I can offer any great insight to someone who tells me he has amazing romantic relationships without sex nor would I suggest to that person that sex would enhance anything in his life if he were telling me that he simply lacked that ability to obtain that pleasure but he was otherwise content.
It's like I need to walk around with a glass of melting ice and a skinny little straw so that people can see I am one of them. Walking around a party without a drink is like walking around without a shirt on or something where everyone notices and wants to get you a blanket or something.
Yeah, it's interesting. I am not affected by alcohol the way a lot of people are, and I don't get the appeal myself. (Which is not to say I haven't had some great times while drinking socially.)
Perhaps for some people, who get more out of drinking, it is a matter of wanting to feel like others are on their "wavelength" or something like that? That is kind of the impression I've gotten, at least in some cases.
I think this goes both ways. Many non-drinkers I know are uncomfortable around drinkers. Do they feel threatened, at a loss, judgemental, bored?
I have been a non-drinker for 10 years. I find drinkers often become boring after the fourth drink. And some people who drink can become strident and repetitive - especially at functions or parties. No thanks.
Quoting wonderer1
Not for me. When I was a drinker I drank because it felt good. There's a sense of wellbeing and happiness that comes to many who drink. It tends to come on after the second drink but can depart if you have had too many drinks. The trick (as with so many things in life) is knowing your limits. If drinking alcohol doesn't make one 'feel better' however that looks to you, and if one's surroundings don't develop a bit of a 'golden sheen' with some alcohol consumption, why do it?
My parents dank 2-3 glasses of wine every day with dinner. That time was often their happiest. They were moderates, and I rarely saw them drink more than this. They used to consider the two hours around dinner to be the happiest of their day.
Yeah, it's the same psychology as vegetarians making meat eaters uncomfortable.
However, there's a difference between someone not consuming alcohol (or meat) and another person announcing they're a teetotaler (or a vegetarian).
It's not about the noncomsumption, it's about the conversation.
Where on earth is that??
Where I live, not drinking alcohol or not eating meat is met at least with disdain.
When I was a vegetarian, I wouldn't dare tell that to my doctor if asked. If I again go vegetarian, I still wouldn't dare say so.
It's not merely a feeling. We're supposedly living in a democracy, but not when it comes to alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, and meat. We're supposed to consume all those, or at least approve of such consumption, or regret that due to some objective reason we can't consume them. Otherwise, we get judged, severely even.
If one is rich, then one can afford some "quirks and whims", but not otherwise.
If someone comes to visit to my house and lights a cigarette, and I tell them not to, I will be considered rude and weird.
Like I posted, it's not about what one consumes or doesn't consume. It's the announcement. Of course in environments where herd mentality is strong (younger age groups, members of insular groups, etc) you're not going to see the outlier opinion causing such an effect.
The backlash against Prius drivers in the 2000s was the same thing. It's the perceived "I'm better (purer) than you".
This seems strange. It sounds more like a projection.
You never heard of the "Pious"? You obvious don't watch Fox News.
Ok, that's very unfamiliar to me. Sounds like our 1980's where you are. Virtually no one lets you smoke in their home in Australia and it would be considered vastly anti-social to to do so unless it was a smoking household. In fact, smoking is largely a taboo. You are not permitted to smoke in any cafes or restaurants. I live in a big city where veganism and vegetarianism are prevalent. In my office, around 30% of the workers are vegetarians. Alcohol is popular with many people but the non-drinker is not shunned these days. If I say no to alcohol (as I did at a party I went to yesterday) I am offered bubbly water. Coffee, on the other hand remains huge in my city and almost everyone thinks they are some kind of connoisseur of this substance.
When someone says something like "So you think you're better than me because you (drive a fancy car, have a lot of money, etc.)", I wouldn't simply take this at face value. Sometimes, this is an expression of contempt, sometimes it's envy, sometimes genuine low self-esteem.
And then, of course, some people also genuinely believe that they are better than others, and those others simply understand them as intended.
I seriously doubt that someone can be resistant to all kinds of drugs. It's not just about alcohol but about any mind altering drug. Some people just like to remain in control and most just prefer to lose it and forget. I believe alcohol reacts in a similar way on me as it does in everybody else, I just don't like it. Just like when watching a movie: people see and hear the same things but some will like it and some will hate it. It's doesn't necessarily mean that they don't see the same things or don't understand it.
I'm not suggesting immunity to intoxicants. I'm describing the pleasurable reactions varying among individuals, leaving some finding little pleasure and others more. Those who have more pleasure are subject to a greater likelihood of addiction.
What I've heard of alcoholics describe as a lifelong urge that has to be suppressed every waking moment not to drink that first drink or that will result in a complete lack of control is not a struggle I have.
It's unrealistic to think my resistance to that first drink is because I've got greater mind control and not acknowledge I just don't have that predisposition.
The desire one has for alcohol moves from very low to very high, with a thousand points between. It's not as if Native Americans, for example, who have extremely high rates of alcoholism, are just weak willed. It's part of their genetic response to the substance.
Some people with mental disorders can be considered as "weak willed", and some studies showed that some mental disorders have a higher risk of substance abuse. Mental disorders are the result of both genetics and the environment. But for the case of native Americans, it's not necessarily because of mental disorders but it could be because of their culture, their lack of information about the dangers of alcohol, or because what happened to them is pretty terrible...
My point is that the psychological state of an individual and their habits play a crucial role in their appreciation of alcohol. If you raise your kids telling them they should drink alcohol if they feel bad, or that alcohol is a holy beverage that brings them closer to God, there will be more prone to liking it. And we live in a society where alcohol is a must for socialisation so inherently, it's the norm and a lot of people enjoy it. Almost everyone who tries alcohol for the first time finds it disgusting, and the first time being drunk is also not necessarily pleasant. But social pressure makes you do it more and more, and allow it to become a pleasurable habit.
My thread was mostly about why we keep on feeding these habits as it promotes escapism and gives less importance to meaningful social interactions.
The idea that people who become substance dependent have 'weak wills' is old fashioned, Christian influenced thinking and was the traditional model for many years. This thinking did much harm and blamed people for their 'choices'. Around 2-10% of people will develop problematic use or behaviours, whether this be alcohol or gambling. Generally there's a complex mix of genetic, psychological and environmental factors involved.
Quoting Skalidris
Some people instantly find alcohol pleasurable, from the fist drink. Many people will tell you that on drinking, it was the first time they felt normal or had a sense of wellbeing.
Quoting Skalidris
I would not construct problematic alcohol use as promoting escapism - self-medication is probably a better term for it. Using substances may well be a path some people adopt to manage significant trauma or anxiety disorders.
It is the result of genetics. As the study notes, generally, 50% of the cases of alcoholism are inherited. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603686/
One can control for environmental influences because not all alcoholics reside with the alcoholic relative.
This is probably borderline off topic but, do you really feel like you're "in control of your thoughts" when you're not drunk?
What is your point exactly? That society and education are mostly helpless about alcohol consumption and that it's mostly genetic and there isn't much we can do about it?
Quoting flannel jesus
More than when I'm drunk, absolutely.
The OP asked why alcohol was imbedded in our society, especially in light of the fact that it can harmful. You even suggested it had no benefits.
My response was that some of the pull towards alcohol consumption is genetic as is some of the push away from it. I think a good number (how many I don't know) who fall into the problem drinker class, which is the class we're interested in here, have a genetic driver for their behavior and it's not just a matter of being weak willed.
I never offered a solution to alcoholism or said it shouldn't be addressed. From what little I know, I've heard 12 step programs and the like tend to be helpful.
No, I asked what the benefits could be:
Quoting Skalidris
Of course some of it is related to genetics, so? Almost everything about us is driven by both genetics and the environment. But the ratio can vary a lot. The way we're driven to be disgusted by certain smells is mostly genetics and there isn't much we can do about it. So my question to you is: do you think that it is the case for alcohol? That it is mostly genetics and there isn't much we can do about it.
I indicated that 12 step programs seem to be effective and I know that many people are able to deal with their alcoholism effectively.
That there might be a genetic predisposition to certain types of cancer, for example, doesn't mean there are no treatments for it.
https://www.tiktok.com/@bbcnews/video/7295729395971427616
I think this is an American thing, although made popular via 12 Step philosophy.
It has that American black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking in it. There is a culturally specific element in how people will interpret their urges.
Do you know of any actual large-scale longitudinal studies that offer evidence of this genetic predisposition?
Obviously, there is a lot of alcoholism (and other forms of drug abuse) among Native Americans. But when considering the circumstances in which they tend to live, substance abuse is no surprise. Many live in a nightmare of a situation, in reservations, like in leper colonies, cut off from the rest of the world, with systemic racism against them, poverty as a background, dependent on state support.
Anyone, regardless of one's genetic predisposition, when placed in such grim prospects would struggle, and be more vulnerable to substance abuse.
There is an explanation that nobody likes their first sip of alcohol, or coffee, or the first puff from a cigarette. These are acquired tastes. It takes deliberate effort to override one's body's natural negative response to them. And it's this deliberate effort to override one's body's natural negative response to a substance or activity that bonds the person to that substance or activity.
It seems the crucial element here is in deliberately overriding one's intuitive impulses. This is what becoming "civilized" or "cultured" comes down to, for better or for worse.
For example, when your first impulse is to tell someone "God, you're ugly in that dress!" and you stop yourself, that's an example of deliberately overriding your impulse, and in turn, you're going to be perceived as "cultured".
But it seems this pattern extends to other things as well, such as alcohol.
Quoting Tom Storm
But perhaps at that point they had already lost their "drug virginity" to something else.
For example, they have already abused other substances that induce a slight buzz, such as sugar or coffee. Or glue or paint thinner. The stuff many children have been fed in modern times is pretty much setting them up on the course of substance abuse; with all that sugary fizzy drinks and sugary or fatty foods, they are already in a state of buzz. Then they quickly move over to energy drinks with lots of sugar and caffeine. By the time they begin to consume alcohol, they are already seasoned substance abusers, so it's no wonder they like it. (And then easily move on to other drugs.)
But this is a maladaptive approach.
That’s one way of classifying it. On the other hand, substance use can make life more bearable and prevent suicide. Many former users have told me it was substance use that helped them to cope with unbearable pain. But in the end they also had to overcome substance use. Using helped them get by for a time.
Okay. But whether a genetic predisposition will express itself depends also on environmental and other factors.
I'm cautious of blaming "genetics" for anything, because blaming "genetics" tends to be a way to absolve the blamer for any responsibility for how they treat the blamed.
All in all, alcohol use and abuse is a very complex topic. So discussing it isn't merely about alcohol, but also about many preconceived notions with which people approach talking about alcohol and social and psychological topics in general.
It's about how we talk about it, isn't it?
If someone comes to the discussion with the conviction that "everyone is solely responsible for themselves", then such a person will favor such explanations of alcoholism that are in line with that (e.g. "some people just have weak wills"). While someone who believes in the overwhelming power of genetics will just shrug their shoulders and perhaps hope for some medication that can override the genetic defect.
And so on.
It's not black and white at all really in that they never claim you're recovered. It's just the basics of things like Alcoholics Anonymous. It's an ongoing program.Quoting baker
It's not an all or nothing proposition, but it's just obvious that people react differently to different chemicals. Pollen has no effect on me, but it does my wife, for example.
Genetics doesn't absolve the person of anything. Some use genetics to argue inferiority, for example.
But anyway, how people choose to weaponize information has no bearing on the question of what the facts are, and the facts are that some react in an addictive way to intoxicants and others don't.
To me, it is primarily a philosophical difference. To me, asking a drinker "How did you convince yourself that drinking alcohol was worth it?" makes perfect sense. It took me a while to learn not to actually ask such questions.
Because it's not at all just about the physiological differences, but about a person's willingness to override the intuitive reaction they have to something.
This is almost verbatim from a conversation with a female acquaintance: "I hate high heels. My feet hurt in them. ... But what can one do. Women must wear high heels."
Clearly, she has such a philosophy of life that enables her to override the pain; whereas some women don't. While both groups of women experience wearing high heels as painful.
The enjoyment of wearing high heels at the expense of the pain of the high heels is not at all equivalent to the desire a heroin addict experiences for his drug. That should be obvious from the fact that the heroin addict will steal from his loved ones, break into homes, hold up stores, share infected needles, lie, cheat, and destroy every one of his relationships, and sleep in dark alleys with needles in his vein in order to get his fix.
The finest rehab facilities and the most oppressive of prisons have not eliminated drug abuse.
Anyway, watch this 50 second video:
https://www.tiktok.com/@bbcnews/video/7295729395971427616
I'm talking about overriding one's initial negative response to something that is socially desirable, and having a philosophy for doing so. Like my high-heel wearing acquaintance who would rather not wear high heels, but does so because she is convinced that a woman must wear high heels (and she is able to put this into words).
You have a negative initial response to alcohol. Yet unlike so many other people who also have a negative initial response to alcohol, you don't override this initial negative response and so you don't drink. In contrast, many people do drink, despite their negative initial response to alcohol. My assumption is that they do have a philosophy for doing so, although I haven't heard it stated directly (unlike my high-heel wearing acquaintance). It is also my assumption that people who don't override their initial negative response to something socially desirable also have a philosophy for this.
Do you know why you don't act in accordance with the social expectations around drinking alcohol?
Possibly because they are aiming to eliminate the wrong thing.
Being "in control" of one's substance use is the easier part; "being in control" of one's emotions and one's existential predicament is the hard part. Unless infinite health and wealth could be guaranteed, one's existential predicament is always going to loom large. Whole religions and other ideologies are built around trying to deal with the existential predicament. Not very successfully, apparently.
I've watched it the first time you posted it and I've been wanting to comment on it.
What Perry is saying here is a stance that I describe as "typically American". The other man, Hitchens, has a stance that I find to be more representative of the culture I am from. I've known heavy drinkers, but even they would never say a thing like "I'm in control only of my first drink. If I have the first drink, I can't stop." It's normal here for people to drink, and to stop at some point. They can be all wobbly already, but still say, "Alright, that's enough", and they stop. And this can be a regular pattern, lasting for years. Of course, adherents of 12-step philosophy will say that these people are then "not really alcoholics".
The way a person's substance use and abuse and their thinking about this use and abuse are shaped has possibly a lot to do with the culture they live in. American culture tends to be black-and-white, all-or-nothing, so it's no surprise that an American-cultured person says things like "I'm in control only of my first drink. If I have the first drink, I can't stop." It's not alcoholism that gives one tunnel vision; it's tunnel vision that gives one things like alcoholism.
The desire to look nice in high heels isn't as compelling as the desire the drug addict has for drugs. It's a matter of degree of such magnitude it's not really comparable. People are not dying of high heel wearing. Quoting baker
No it's not. Perry simply pointed out there is empirical evidence supportive of alcohol's measurable effect on people's personalities and Hitchens ignores the science in an effort to support his poliltical narrative. A typically American response is to do exactly as Hitchens has, which is to start with an opinion and end with that opinion no matter what if it challenges his worldview.
It's not much an issue for debate if you take science seriously. The question of whether addictive behavior is a product of physiology as opposed to sociology is easy enough to see by looking within certain family lines and gene pools. And then there are thousands of studies on mice that show exactly what I'm saying, which obviously controls for social pressures that might be faced by humans since mice don't feel those social pressures.
You can Google for these studies, or just click here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&q=addiction+studies+in+mice&btnG=
Quoting baker
They absolutely don't say that. They never dictate who is an alcoholic and who isn't. https://aa.org.au/new-to-aa/frequently-asked-questions/
For some, too late.
Quoting Tom Storm
Of course.
Perhaps there'll even come a day when official psychology/psychiatry acknowledge philosophy as a valid approach to dealing with existential problems!
I actually heard them say it.
Quoting Hanover
You've got to be kidding.
Click on the website. It responds to your question.
Quoting baker
No, there actually are studies on animals that show the addictive quality of chemical substances, which control for social pressures related to the addiction, since animals aren't subject to human social pressures.
I cancelled my subscription to rat psychology long ago.
(Tellingly, I couldn't even find a reference to "rat psychology" within five minutes of googling. "Rat psychology" is a derogatory term referring to an uncritical use of the findings in experiments on animals (often rats) to humans.)
Because the important thing is to be scientifically correct, even if this kills people, riiight.
It's better for a heavy drinker to think, "Once I've had the first drink I am powerless over my drinking and I will drink until I pass out". Because being scientifically correct is all that matters. Riight.
If that heavy drinker were to say to himself, "Who says that I have to keep drinking just because I've had a few drinks? I should at least try to stop" -- that would be an utter abomination in the eyes of science!!
You can't will away an adverse reaction.
But you can will to stop a bad habit.
For crying out loud, in that video with Matthew Perry, that other man was just giving him well-meaning common-sensical advice, not claiming to offer a scientific explanation.
When one sees another person in trouble, one doesn't tell them, "Oh yes, chances are you're doomed and science confirms it!"
Yet if you have cancer, that is what they tell you, unless you're a proponent of medical professionals lying to patients.
In any event, alcoholism isn't a death sentence. There are many success stories, but I don't think those were achieved by telling alcoholics that their genetic disposition is the same as nonalcoholics.
If your genetic predisposition was towards acquiring melanoma, it would be good to know so you could be careful avoiding too much sunlight. Should you get melanoma, it would be accurate to say it was due to your choices, but also due to your genetics. Your predisposition made it harder to avoid, but telling you it is all your fault is just inaccurate.