STREETFIGHTSECRETS.COM

Holes in places that facts and reality should be occupying.

Quotes from her article:

“There are other societies (such as Latin and Mediterranean cultures in particular, but in fact the vast majority of cultures), where drinking is not associated with these undesirable behaviours – cultures where alcohol is just a morally neutral, normal, integral part of ordinary, everyday life – about on a par with, say, coffee or tea. These are known as “integrated” drinking cultures.

This variation cannot be attributed to different levels of consumption – most integrated drinking cultures have significantly higher per-capita alcohol consumption than the ambivalent drinking cultures.”

this is absolute nonsense, having lived in different parts of spain, portugal and greece I can say categorically that per capita of the significant social group not defined in this article (18 to 30 year olds… what? anyone worried 50 and 60 year olds are out boxing in the streets and getting each other pregnant?) that uk, oz and nz drink way, way, way more and it is cultural acceptable to “drink to get drunk” wheras in european cultures this is considered uncouth.

And this:

“In high doses, alcohol impairs our reaction times, muscle control, co-ordination, short-term memory, perceptual field, cognitive abilities and ability to speak clearly. But it does not cause us selectively to break specific social rules. It does not cause us to say, “Oi, what you lookin’ at?” and start punching each other. Nor does it cause us to say, “Hey babe, fancy a shag?” and start groping each other.”

Unfortunately, evidently, it DOES if not “cause” then it certainly “allows” us to engage in undesirable behaviours. Alcohol is a disinhibitor. Despite this womans efforts to right off the belief that alcohol is a disinhibitor as just a “belief”, she seems to have not considered that some “beliefs” are in fact based on empirical evidence.

“Alcohol gets you shitfaced? Oh thats just an old wives tale and media scare tactics” …. Wtf, madam?Seriously? wtf?

“Instead the variation is clearly related to different cultural beliefs about alcohol, different expectations about the effects of alcohol, and different social rules about drunken comportment.”

This is getting very close to saying that our reaction to alcohol is due to some kind of “social placebo” effect which is first grade poppy cock.

“This basic fact has been proved time and again, not just in qualitative cross-cultural research, but also in carefully controlled scientific experiments – double-blind, placebos and all. To put it very simply, the experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol. “

No citation given of this “basic fact” being “proved” “time and again”. Note the derisive and arrogant tone of the sentence. Note the shattering OMISSION and distortion.

This sentence should end like this: “they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol, when that alcohol comes in very small doses and when you are talking about only the very earliest phases of drunkeness when you are not sure if you are drunk or not yet. A common experience amongst drinkers. As in ‘this vodka didnt work… why am I naked?’”

And:

“they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol. ”

should actually read

“they behave according to their bodies involuntary physiological reaction to the effects of the powerful toxin called alcohol being poured into their system in large doses. “

Or shall we extend this and declare that peoples rection to morphine is just some silly belief?

“Stop being unconscious you big drama queen, its only a bit of morphine”

“I would like to see a complete change of focus, with all alcohol-education and awareness campaigns designed specifically to challenge these beliefs – to get across the message that a) alcohol does not cause disinhibition (aggressive, sexual or otherwise) and that b) even when you are drunk, you are in control of and have total responsibility for your actions and behaviour.”

Run this by any career doorman, barman or drinker or ANY HUMAN who has spent time around people who drink and watch the lulz.

Drunk people act like buffoons just because of belief? Oh give over!

This is priceless: “b) even when you are drunk, you are in control of and have total responsibility for your actions and behaviour” Someone should phone “teh legal system” and get them to change some of those law thingies.

“Diminished responsibility”? Nonsense! Throw em in Jail!

“Drink driving”? Totally responsible behaviour, give them back their license and the round in!

The social anthropologist has the answers, your honour.

“If I were given total power, I could very easily engineer a nation in which coffee would become a huge social problem – a nation in which young people would binge-drink coffee every Friday and Saturday night and then rampage around town centres being anti-social, getting into fights and having unprotected sex in random one-night stands. “

La la land. Drugs are popular not because they are “cool” or “illegal” but because they WORK. i.e. they do what they say on the tin.

Only a disconnected, middle class, ivory tower dweller could spout such total twaddle.

p.s. these people who fight and have unprotected sex in one night stands (divvies and sluts we call them)…Yeah those people? They do that when they are sober too. They do it when they are high. They do it when they are sad. They will do it on a train, or even a plane…

The real problem is that PEOPLE WANT TO GET DRUNK.

Why?

When you’ve watched, as I have a definite correlation between highly stressful working conditions and the drive to obliteration through alcohol I think the more intelligent question is : why and how are we so miserable and stressed that the intellectual black hole provided by regualr low dosage alcohol poisoning seems appealing?

A quick google scan and I can see experiments that alcohol placebo’s under experimental conditions can demonstrably impair peoples memory (“I think Im pissed so I now shall not think as clearly”), show low levels of being inebriated (“I think I might be slightly buzzed, but Im not sure… I’ll go with it”) and this little gem:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb01926.x/abstract

“AbstractSome data from three studies of the acute psychological effects of alcohol are presented. After blind administration subjects could often tell that they had consumed alcohol, presumably because of its physiological effects. About 50% of subjects who received placebo alcohol felt slightly drunk and guessed that they had received alcohol. But, subjects who had actually received alcohol rated themselves as more drunk and were much more likely to guess that they had received alcohol. Subjects could also approximately estimate how much alcohol they had drunk. These findings suggest that the effects of unblinding should be considered when alcohol is administered in placebo designs. True blind placebo administration may only be possible when achieved BAL is <40 mg/100 ml”

That awkward moment when you realise for all your ill educated squawking about “basic facts”, “being proved” (!!!), “time and again” that you’re theory is total nonsense and has been shredded in multiple double blind experiments. Sucks to be you.

This reminds me of the similarly wooly minded theory that steroids were “just a placebo” – destroyed in experiments numerous times.

Im not sure what a “social anthropologist” is; is it someone who pontificates and opines about human nature sans the inconvenience of basing these ponitification and opinions on say, oh I dont know, any empirical evidence whatsoever?