Consider these sentences from a journal article published in 1940:
Etiology of alcohol addiction.
It has been generally recognized for many years that alcoholics do not form a homogeneous population but are heterogeneous relative to etiology, reaction, and course of disease. Definite criteria and relevant classification are therefore essential for the discussion of the phenomenology of alcoholism and for the construction of hypotheses about it. In spite of this the necessary standards have been neglected more frequently than not in the exposition of theories relative to alcoholism. Only trivial generalizations can be made about heterogeneous populations. Essential generalizations cannot be valid unless they are related to a well delimited population. Much of the contradictory nature of the alcohol literature may be ascribed to insufficient stress on qualifying attributes. Any attempt at clarification of these points is to be welcomed.
I personally gain a lot from those sentences. And for me a few thoughts come to mind that I’ll share here.
- Alcoholism is a discreet nosological entity and yet is heterogeneous in a number of ways.
- Norm Hoffmann’s “Big 5 SUD Criteria” are a window into the kind of empirical work that can clarify the essence and also the differences within alcohol addiction.
- Generalizations weigh light compared to understanding the individual.
- Empiricism and experimental controls render validity over time.
- The qualifying attributes of alcohol addiction are key; the literature would benefit from discourse about the same topic, rather than contradictions seeming to arise because the topics being addressed actually differ.
Here’s the citation for those sentences:
Recovery Review 