Thanks for replying Q....btw do you remember when you and the Q Continuum put the human race on trial and Capt Picard would ultimately be responsible for the fate of humanity? Everything came out ok and I think that Picard learned alot from the experience.

I know we should not over think TSM. And everyone has a different experience going through it, like sitting in a different seat, your point of view is different, but ultimately we will all arrive at the same place. Cured.

But in regards to Conditioned Responses...ie Povlov's dog.. I have been trying to find information regarding the length or strength of conditioning in relation to extintion of that that conditioning. I want to see if the theory, as Nick posted above, that a conditioned response is easier or harder to extinguish dependant upon the amount of time, or times that conditioned response has been reinforced. It does make sense to me that the less reinforcement on conditioning the easier it is to extinguish....(I think I just confused myself)

So in other words, does it really take longer for a long term heavy drinker of say 30 years + to become cured on TSM vs a person who only drank for a year? Guess we will all find out in time. Hopefully I can prove the theory.

I found this bit about Extinction Burst very interesting: (cut and paste from wikipedia)
" Extinction burst
While extinction, when implemented consistently over time, results in the eventual decrease of the undesired behavior, in the near-term the subject might exhibit what is called an extinction burst. An extinction burst will often occur when the extinction procedure has just begun. This consists of a sudden and temporary increase in the response's frequency, followed by the eventual decline and extinction of the behavior targeted for elimination.

Take, as an example, a pigeon that has been reinforced to peck an electronic button. During its training history, every time the pigeon pecked the button, it will have received a small amount of bird seed as a reinforcer. So, whenever the bird is hungry, it will peck the button to receive food. However, if the button were to be turned off, the hungry pigeon will first try pecking the button just as it has in the past. When no food is forthcoming, the bird will likely try again... and again, and again. After a period of frantic activity, in which their pecking behavior yields no result, the pigeon's pecking will decrease in frequency.

The evolutionary advantage of this extinction burst is clear. In a natural environment, an animal that persists in a learned behavior, despite not resulting in immediate reinforcement, might still have a chance of producing reinforcing consequences if they try again. This animal would be at an advantage over another animal that gives up too easily."

Ive read alot of posts where people seem to get a sudden increase in thier drinking then all of sudden bam the drop off....maybe the above explains that phenomenon? (or anomoly if we were watching Star Trek TNG)

(Im not trying to over think this, I just find it very interesting....and I like to go off on tangents sometimes)

No matter...one thing we do know is Nal + Drink = Cure right?

Actually "Extinction Burst" is a common theme when dealing with behavorial extintion.

Here is a pretty good analogy that Ill cut and paste:
"My favorite example is the elevator button. Let's say you ride the same elevator every day. You get in, you push the button for your floor, and you're rewarded by the doors closing and the elevator taking you to your destination. One day you get in and push the button, and nothing happens. Do you immediately say, "Oh, this must not work anymore, I'll just take the stairs to the 11th floor"? Or do you push the button again? And again? And harder? And faster? And in special sequences? That's the extinction burst."

Actually, if you have only been boozing hard for nine years there is every reason to think extinction will happen more rapidly than if you were a twenty-years plus boozer.

Think of it like Pavlov's dog. The bell is paired with food, say 40 times, before the dog salivates when hearing the bell only. The dog has been conditioned to salivate at the ring of the bell. Now, if you stop giving the dog food while continuing to ring the bell, after a while the bell alone will no longer make the dog salivate -- the bell alone that used to produce saliva -- has been extinguished. Now, let's assume the bell was paired with the food not 40 times, but 400 times, i.e., the conditioned response is much, much stronger because it is that much more ingrained in the dog's brain with 400 food/bell pairings as opposed to only 40. Now when you stop giving the dog food but continue to ring the bell, eventually the dog will no longer salivate to the bell only, but it will take WAY longer for the dog to stop salivating than if the dog had only had 40 bell pairings with the food, as opposed to 400. (I hope this makes sense -- I'm struggling to find the simplest words.)

I believe this same principle applies to drinking as well: the longer you have been drinking, the longer you have all of the positive associations between drinking and pleasure, i.e., the stronger your conditioned response. Conversely, the shorter time you have been drinking, the weaker the conditioned response, and the lesser time it will take to extinguish the association between drinking and pleasure, i.e., extinction.