Perception Vs. Reality

[Anonymous]

I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others.  I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions.  I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.

  I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede.  You claim you have studied cults...  let me test that if you challenge me.  I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head.  Let's see if you can name it.

I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..

Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize  your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, that take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. Upon study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that  A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.

Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page you quote for evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively  A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.

Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4
“As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”

And

“[RickRoss forum]is a "Cult Education Forum" for those interested in discussing groups called "cults," "cult-like" groups and the manipulative techniques they may employ.  AA doesn't fit within that spectrum.”

Meanwhile, he considers “teen boot camps” and related orgs like Straight, Desisto, Synanon, WWASP cultic organizations

Here is what he says to the internet guy, Agent Orange, and about L rangels, who, you quote or refer to as evidence of your position:
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=34

‘’Please understand vince that Margaret Singer would not agree with your application of her work concerning AA. Dr. Singer did not consider AA a "cult" and never opined otherwise, nor did she apply thought reform techniques to AA.

Robert Jay Lifton, the author of "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" likewise has not stated that AA uses thought reform, that I am aware of.

So you may offer your opinions, but they have no basis agreed upon by the authors you quote.
You offered a link to L. Allen Ragels paper "Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Cult?"
Ragels like others quoted by anti-AA critics on the Internet, is not a recognized cult expert and has no meaningful standing in that area of study.””

In the opinion of notable EVERY cultic expert I could find, A.A. does NOT practice thought reform, nor is it “cult-like” or a cult. Margeret Singer, author of the most concurrent, contemparary thought-reform study,who DESIGNED the parameters you say show A.A. is cult-like, holds that A.A. is NOT cult-like.

 I do not “follow” A.A. My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.

A.A's a group. You could fairly consider it religious-like, or philosophy-like (as opposed to scientific)  but not cult-like. I know some,not experts, say A.A. fails the “cult test” or has enough of  S’s aspects  to be a cult. If I wanted, I could make the v.a. guides apply to basically any group: republicans, Catholics... You need to use the paradigm in a reasonable way for it to be useful. A.O, L rangels, etc, and you don't do so.

[Anonymous]

I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others.  I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions.  I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.

  I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede.  You claim you have studied cults...  let me test that if you challenge me.  I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head.  Let's see if you can name it.

I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..

Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize  your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, who take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. After study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that  A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.

Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page that provides that evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively  A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.

Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4
“"""As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”"""""

And

"[RickRoss forum]is a "Cult Education Forum" for those interested in discussing groups called "cults," "cult-like" groups and the manipulative techniques they may employ.. AA doesn't fit within that [the cult or cult-like] spectrum."

Meanwhile, he considers “teen boot camps” and related orgs like Straight, Desisto, Synanon, WWASP cultic organizations

Here is what he says to the internet guy, Agent Orange, and about L rangels, who, you quote or refer to as evidence of your position:
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=34

’Please understand vince that Margaret Singer would not agree with your application of her work concerning AA. Dr. Singer did not consider AA a "cult" and never opined otherwise, nor did she apply thought reform techniques to AA.
Robert Jay Lifton, the author of "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" likewise has not stated that AA uses thought reform, that I am aware of.
So you may offer your opinions, but they have no basis agreed upon by the authors you quote.
You offered a link to L. Allen Ragels paper "Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Cult?"
Ragels like others quoted by anti-AA critics on the Internet, is not a recognized cult expert and has no meaningful standing in that area of study.

In the opinion of  EVERY notable cultic expert, A.A. does NOT practice thought reform, nor is it “cult-like” or a cult. Margeret Singer, author of the most current, accepted thought-reform study & criteria,who DESIGNED the criteria you say show A.A. is cult-like, holds A.A. is NOT cult-like.

 I do not “follow” A.A. My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.

A.A's a group. You could fairly consider it religious-like, or philosophy-like (as opposed to scientific)  but not cult-like. I know some,not experts, say A.A. fails the “cult test” or has enough of  S’s aspects  to be a cult. If I wanted, I could make the v.a. guides apply to basically any group: republicans, Catholics... You need to use the paradigm in a reasonable way for it to be useful. A.O, L rangels, etc, and you don't.

[Anonymous]

double post. oops. also, the first time, my words got changed around...so weird

[psy]

I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others.  I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions.  I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.

  I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede.  You claim you have studied cults...  let me test that if you challenge me.  I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head.  Let's see if you can name it.

I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..

Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize  your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, that take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. Upon study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that  A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.

First.  Margaret singer did NOT say that AA was not cult-like.  She said that it was not a cult.  I agree with her on that.  The reasons she cited on page 97 of Cults in our midst are "AA does not recruit deceptively, AA does not hide what membership wil eventually entail, and members can leave at any point.  AA focuses on helping people grow instead of tearing them down".  She did NOT say they do not practice thought reform and she did NOT say that the organization was not cult-like.  That being said, I think she was at least partially incorrect about the organization in a few ways.

IT's important to note that as I've cited earlier in this thread, AA does recruit deceptively and hide what membership will eventually entail.  In that regard, i'm sorry to say that, despite her knowledge and wisdom, Margaret Singer was incorrect in my opinion.  She was not god, after all.  It is also my opinion that if she had done more research into AA, her opinions might have turned out a little differently.

AA does recruit deceptively.  While you might disagree with Agent Orange's list of bait and switch in whole or in part, you're using ad-hominem.  You're attacking him rather than his arguments or research.  He's not the only person to argue that AA recruits deceptively.  Stanton Peele, Ph.D ESQ, Jeffrey Schaler, Ph.D, and many other have criticized AA for being either a cult or cult-like.   In addition to court coercion, AA teaches it's members explicitly to mislead newcomers as to what membership will eventually entail.

The word "sobriety", as i've stated earlier, is also redefined.  A person coming to AA wanting "sobriety" has no idea that In AA, sobriety means "A special state of Grace gained by working the Steps and maintaining absolute abstinence. It is characterized by feelings of Serenity and Gratitude. It is a state of living according to God's will, not one's own."  AA Also tells it's members to decieve newcomers about this: "There is no use arousing any prejudice he may have against certain theological terms and conceptions about which he may already be confused. Don't raise such issues, no matter what your own convictions are. The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Working With Others, page 93."  Newcomers are simply told that "more will be revealed" (implying the group has access to hidden wisdom, not necessarily knowlege explicitly).

In AA members can leave at any point. This is true beyond a doubt.  But AA also teaches that they are the "last house on the block", that their program of recvery is the "only way" and that those who leave will eventually return broken.  They teach people that they are powerless to the point where binging behavior increases five fold over no treatment at all*.  IN other words, they have no reason to restrict people leaving since they indoctrinate people into believing that AA is the only path to "sobriety".  Indeed, they even have the justice system referring people who get in trouble back to them.  In this instance, by influencing the government (see Hazelden's Little Red book), AA has been able to accomplish through government coercion what many cults and cult-like groups could only dream of.

*Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.

Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page you quote for evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively  A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.

Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4
“As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”

So Rick Ross attends a few open meetings and says a place is not a cult or cult like.  Well.  Good for him.  I know of AA chapters that are not cult-like AT ALL.  I have heard of AA meetings in which they smoke pot!  On the other hand, there are some very fundamentalist AA sects, one of which in DC was recently in the news.  Attending a few meetings does not make one an expert on the subject.

Also it should be noted that instead of hearing Agent Orange out, Rick Ross simply banned him from his forum and deleted many of his posts.  Maybe you want to hear his side of the story:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rross_aa01.html

Just because somebody is an "expert" does not mean they are always right.  NEVER forget that.  Read, research, and make up your own damn mind.

Stanton Peele, Ph.D advised Charles Bufe on his book, "AA, Cult or Cure".  In that book Bufe concluded that communal AA was cult-like and instutional AA can fit the criteria of a cult.

I do not “follow” A.A.

But you clipped off my question earlier.  Are your or are you not an AA member.  Do you or do you not attend AA.  See.  This is what's frustrating about critizing AA as an organization.  You never know when somebody is a member and has ulterior motives.  For all anybody knows, Rick Ross could be a member.  It would make sense considering he's made it verboten to discuss AA on his board... but you're anonymous here anyway.... no need to lie or be deceptive about your group affiliations.  I'd respect you more if you were honest about where you are coming from.

My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.

It's an organization that indisputably does not exploit it's membership.  I totally agree with that.  That' one of the reasons AA is not a cult.  On the other hand, AA, a religious organization as judged by the courts DOES try and use it's membership to witness to others and spread their faith USING THE STATE.  That i DO have a BIG problem with.  As I stated in my post herehere, I have a problem with coerced treatment of ANY kind.

[Antigen]

Who cares. If you don't like AA, then don't go. The only people "coerced" to go, are people that got DUI's, and they should consider themselves lucky they didn't get jail. Would you rather sit in the back of a few meetings, or rot in jail? I know which one I'd choose. This whole anti-AA agenda is much to do about nothing, makes you look crazy.

Yup, that's what most people assume. So when someone comes along who disagrees with what "everybody knows", well I guess we do seem a little nuts. However, the majority is dead wrong in this case. This is very gradually starting to come to light thanks to a few unreasonable, stubborn and unusually inquisitive journalists. Here's one example:

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=25502&p=311917&hilit=ruland#p311917

One of the biggest problems with Stepcraft is that the real die hard true believers honestly believe that everyone's an alcoholic. Even if you've never had a drink but you are critical of Stepcraft then you're a dry alcoholic. Therefore, they believe they're doing everyone a huge favor--saving the world--if they can force Stepcraft onto as much of the population as possible.

[Anonymous]

I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others.  I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions.  I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.

  I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede.  You claim you have studied cults...  let me test that if you challenge me.  I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head.  Let's see if you can name it.

I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..

Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize  your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, that take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. Upon study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that  A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.

First.  Margaret singer did NOT say that AA was not cult-like.  She said that it was not a cult.  I agree with her on that.  The reasons she cited on page 97 of Cults in our midst are "AA does not recruit deceptively, AA does not hide what membership wil eventually entail, and members can leave at any point.  AA focuses on helping people grow instead of tearing them down".  She did NOT say they do not practice thought reform and she did NOT say that the organization was not cult-like.  That being said, I think she was at least partially incorrect about the organization in a few ways.

IT's important to note that as I've cited earlier in this thread, AA does recruit deceptively and hide what membership will eventually entail.  In that regard, i'm sorry to say that, despite her knowledge and wisdom, Margaret Singer was incorrect in my opinion.  She was not god, after all.  It is also my opinion that if she had done more research into AA, her opinions might have turned out a little differently.

AA does recruit deceptively.  While you might disagree with Agent Orange's list of bait and switch in whole or in part, you're using ad-hominem.  You're attacking him rather than his arguments or research.  He's not the only person to argue that AA recruits deceptively.  Stanton Peele, Ph.D ESQ, Jeffrey Schaler, Ph.D, and many other have criticized AA for being either a cult or cult-like.   In addition to court coercion, AA teaches it's members explicitly to mislead newcomers as to what membership will eventually entail.

The word "sobriety", as i've stated earlier, is also redefined.  A person coming to AA wanting "sobriety" has no idea that In AA, sobriety means "A special state of Grace gained by working the Steps and maintaining absolute abstinence. It is characterized by feelings of Serenity and Gratitude. It is a state of living according to God's will, not one's own."  AA Also tells it's members to decieve newcomers about this: "There is no use arousing any prejudice he may have against certain theological terms and conceptions about which he may already be confused. Don't raise such issues, no matter what your own convictions are. The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Working With Others, page 93."  Newcomers are simply told that "more will be revealed" (implying the group has access to hidden wisdom, not necessarily knowlege explicitly).

In AA members can leave at any point. This is true beyond a doubt.  But AA also teaches that they are the "last house on the block", that their program of recvery is the "only way" and that those who leave will eventually return broken.  They teach people that they are powerless to the point where binging behavior increases five fold over no treatment at all*.  IN other words, they have no reason to restrict people leaving since they indoctrinate people into believing that AA is the only path to "sobriety".  Indeed, they even have the justice system referring people who get in trouble back to them.  In this instance, by influencing the government (see Hazelden's Little Red book), AA has been able to accomplish through government coercion what many cults and cult-like groups could only dream of.

*Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.

Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page you quote for evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively  A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.

Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4
“As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”

So Rick Ross attends a few open meetings and says a place is not a cult or cult like.  Well.  Good for him.  I know of AA chapters that are not cult-like AT ALL.  I have heard of AA meetings in which they smoke pot!  On the other hand, there are some very fundamentalist AA sects, one of which in DC was recently in the news.  Attending a few meetings does not make one an expert on the subject.

Also it should be noted that instead of hearing Agent Orange out, Rick Ross simply banned him from his forum and deleted many of his posts.  Maybe you want to hear his side of the story:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rross_aa01.html

Just because somebody is an "expert" does not mean they are always right.  NEVER forget that.  Read, research, and make up your own damn mind.

Stanton Peele, Ph.D advised Charles Bufe on his book, "AA, Cult or Cure".  In that book Bufe concluded that communal AA was cult-like and instutional AA can fit the criteria of a cult.

I do not “follow” A.A.

But you clipped off my question earlier.  Are your or are you not an AA member.  Do you or do you not attend AA.  See.  This is what's frustrating about critizing AA as an organization.  You never know when somebody is a member and has ulterior motives.  For all anybody knows, Rick Ross could be a member.  It would make sense considering he's made it verboten to discuss AA on his board... but you're anonymous here anyway.... no need to lie or be deceptive about your group affiliations.  I'd respect you more if you were honest about where you are coming from.

My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.

It's an organization that indisputably does not exploit it's membership.  I totally agree with that.  That' one of the reasons AA is not a cult.  On the other hand, AA, a religious organization as judged by the courts DOES try and use it's membership to witness to others and spread their faith USING THE STATE.  That i DO have a BIG problem with.  As I stated in my post herehere, I have a problem with coerced treatment of ANY kind.

I’m not going much further with you because it won’t go anywhere.

 But to reiterate:
1) Margaret Singer herself held A.A. is not cult-like or a cult and does NOT practice thought reform, according to R.R. I will find the exact quote and post it, time permitting.


 2) Rick Ross, of the Rick Ross Cultic Study Institute, who has extensive experience with A.A., has been professionally studying and dealing with cults since 1982, the first to successfully challenge Landmark Education, who qualifies Herbalife as a cult and so qualifies things that are not “obviously cultic” as cultic, says:
“A.A. is outside the spectrum of cult or cult-like organizations and their manipulations”

3) NO cultic expert, all of whom have familiarity with A.A. because of its position in the public consciousness since 1935, has opined that A.A. practices thought reform, is a cult, or “cult like.”



Stanton Peele and the others you have mentioned are not cultic experts. A.O is an anonymous internet person.

Cultic experts have no “agendas” re. A.A. because they’ve no special interest in alcoholism, politics, or theories other than the epistemology of though reform, unlike those you reference, perhaps. Unlike those you reference they are genuine experts on the subject.

We can go back and forth forever, but because EVERY cultic expert in the field qualifies A.A. as neither a cult, nor cult-like, nor a practitioner of thought reform after extensive familiarity with the association the matter is settled within reason.

[Anonymous]

I do not “follow” A.A.

But you clipped off my question earlier.  Are your or are you not an AA member.  Do you or do you not attend AA.  See.  This is what's frustrating about critizing AA as an organization.  You never know when somebody is a member and has ulterior motives.  For all anybody knows, Rick Ross could be a member.  It would make sense considering he's made it verboten to discuss AA on his board... but you're anonymous here anyway.... no need to lie or be deceptive about your group affiliations.  I'd respect you more if you were honest about where you are coming from.

.

I know you think A.A. is cult-like. But your opinion and the opinion of mostly internet people does not fall within the parameters of expert findings or credentialed scientific application, as WWASP opinion on treatment does not within the parameters of expert findings or credentialed scientific application. You are welcome to your position, but it is not the scientifically valid one.

I’ve said several times I’m not affiliated with A.A. I have never liked alchohol and never drank at all so have never had reasons to be a “follower,” as you would put it, thereby “loading the language.”
If I were to continually insinuate that you have an ”agenda" against A.A. because you failed the program you would tell me I am behaving in a cult-like manner, right? Don’t act in a “brainwashed” manner by continuing to imply that I am some kind of cult member. Please stop saying that people who don’t think A.A. is a cult or cult-like (like Rick Ross and M.S.) are uneducated or brainwashed.

[psy]

Rick Ross has no more official qualifications than I do, or anybody else.  He's a self designated expert (though I agree with mos of what he says).  Do I purport to be an expert on anything?  Not really.  All my words are just my opinions, as they are with anybody else here.  I don't pretend to be an authority on anything and I believe people should generally make up their own minds rather than defaulting to what the "Experts" say.

I'd just like to note that your entire rebuttal to everything i've said rests on appeal to authority.  At least I've made arguments in addition to citing sources to support those argumetns.

Stanton Peele and Jeff Schaler, both Ph.Ds have both had experience studying cults.  Both hold that while AA is not itself a cult, it does have cult-like elements.  I would also argue (as I have argued in this thread, and the books about AA thread) that AA does practice a mild yet effective in the long term form of thought reform.

But all this "aa is a cult/cult-like", "no it's not" is really besides the point:

• AA is ineffective at best (same sucess rate as spontanious recovery, even in their own studies) and harmful at worst (I cited a study, hardly the only one in existance, that held that AA participants had a 5 times higher rate of binge drinking).
• AA, cult or not, does have an organizational structure that publishes it's dogma and through that, directives to it's members who hold such texts to be divinely inspired scripture.  Such directives include influencing the government to refer people to AA/NA.  In many cases people are not given a "or jail" option.  In many cases, those sent to jail are forced into AA and Synanon style TC groups.  Through the only authority many convicts know, they are told that AA/NA is the only way.  They are not told of or given alternatives.  A significant number of AA members are introduced to AA through this or a similarly coerced method (example: job tells somebody to go to AA or be fired instead of saying "you drink on the job again and you're fired")
• AA does have a significant influence on the language and philosophy of many programs.  It's a compatable belief system with Synanon's.  Many of the staff at many programs are ex-cons who were to introduced to AA through the criminal justice system.  They already believe that their sort of "treatment" is "the only way" and without that "treatment", the kids will end up deadinsaneinjail (which is an AA derived term, by the way).  If you look at a Straight based program like AARC... they use the 12 steps in their literature (albeit slightly distorted and fundamentalist, but still the 12 steps).  It is my belief that the doctrine of powerlessness in these programs is one factor in their horrible success rates.  Unlike communal AA where it is only suggested (albeit with a "or else you will DIE"), in institutional AA settings like AARC, this "first step" is coerced and used as a method to break kids down until they have no more self confidence or belief in their own abilities.  I am NOT equating programs with AA.  I am simply noting that many programs have genetic roots in AA.  Similarly, Teen Challenge has genetic roots in Christianity, but Christianity is not an organized entity, nor do they try and lobby the government to gain coerced members.  AA is in the unique position in which they have the government court ordering people into forced conversion to their religion.
  
  Do I hold AA responsible for programs?  In a sense, yes.  Since they do not claim to be a religion and advertise as treatment instead, they are held by most to be the only legitimate authority on alcoholism and addiction.  Do they say "oh this is horrible" about programs or court-ordered referrals?  No  they tolerate it because they get 60% of their membership from those sources (November 2002 issue of the AA Grapevine).  Like Charles Bufe, I see institutional AA and communal AA as two branches of the same tree, where institutional is the "re-education" portion of the group, and communal simply supports the belief system instilled during the re-education process.  All of this, including the drug war as a whole, as Antigen noted, is fueled by the commonly accepted (yet fallacious) AA dogma of powerlessness and a progressive disease.
  
  Addiction is not a disease  People make choices.  The only people who "can't" are those who have been taught that it's futile to try (AA powerlessness = learned helplessness).  The binge drinking study I cited supports that, and I can cite other studies, such as one indicating that people who credit AA the most for their recovery yet, paradoxically also do the worst in their recovery and have the highest rates of relapsing.[/*]

Not all AA meetings are cult-like at all.  I know of a series of AA meetings where the Big Book is truly only seen as a set of suggestions.  I know of meetings where marajuana management is acceptable and people smoke pot in the meetings.  I know of AA meetings where it is believed, contrary to official AA doctrine, that a lifelong membership in the group is neither desirable or necessary.  I know of meetings that are so liberal that they hold discussions on the woes of where "aa has gone" and how cult-like AA in general has become (yes they used that term and more).  I know of meetings where they will not accept court ordered people and whose members are 100% against any form or coerced treatment.  That being said, most of these meetings are secret partially because they would be held to be apostates by the rest of AA as they reject a significant portion of official AA doctrine (in some cases, even the powerlessness doctrine).  In these cases, these chapters of AA are more or less "splinter groups" and can hardly be considered part of the whole.

So in a sense, AA can have some good chapters, but that being said, AA, as an organized institution does direct it's members to do some very cult-like things.  Whether that makes AA "cult-like" is a subjective designation anybody, not just those purporting themselves to be experts, has the right to make.  Whether you agree with me is totally up to you.

When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly perposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
— Dresden James

Your lunatic,
signing off...

[psy]

You are welcome to your position, but it is not the scientifically valid one.

The term "cult-like" is a statement of opinion.  It cannot be proven true or false, valid or invalid, by any objective standard.

I’ve said several times I’m not affiliated with A.A. I have never liked alchohol and never drank at all so have never had reasons to be a “follower,” as you would put it, thereby “loading the language.”
If I were to continually insinuate that you have an ”agenda" against A.A. because you failed the program you would tell me I am behaving in a cult-like manner, right? Don’t act in a “brainwashed” manner by continuing to imply that I am some kind of cult member.

no. I was just curious about where you were coming from is all.  I must have missed the bit where you stated that you were unaffiliated with AA.

Please stop saying that people who don’t think A.A. is a cult or cult-like (like Rick Ross and M.S.) are uneducated or brainwashed.

I never said that, or even implied it.  Al I said was that maybe they didn't look into it enough.

Look.  If you've never gone to AA and never drank, I suggest you start going.  Attend a few open meetings, and make up some story to gain access to the more secretive elements (the closed meetings).  Stick around for some time, get a sponsor, do the steps.  Do all that shtick.  Try expressing dissent or questioning their phiosophy and see what happens...  Then maybe you'll change your mind. Until then, it's you appealing to authority vs me making actual arguments and citing sources (not a single one of which you have shown to contain false statements).

When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly perposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
— Dresden James

[FemanonFatal2.0]

I don't understand how someone who has never been to an AA meeting, does not have an addiction problem and never personally experienced the topic of discussion would be so willing to argue a general misconception to the teeth with someone who clearly has done much more research on the subject and DOES have personal experience with AA.

This is what I'm hearing from our guest:

"Psy is expressing his opinion in a way that threatens me."
"If the "experts" haven't said EXACTLY what Psy is saying then he MUST be wrong."
and "I dont really know anything about AA besides that it is widely accepted so it couldn't be a cult."

Do you realize how ignorant these arguments are?...

I may or may not agree with Psy, but it seems to me that the way he has researched the topic and the manner of which he decided to express his findings is not only appropriate, but also impressive. Over all I am not educated enough on this subject to challenge his opinions, but even if I was the last thing I would do is make the irrelevant arguments you have. This to me sounds like a personal vendetta not an educational debate.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how someone who has never been to an AA meeting, does not have an addiction problem and never personally experienced the topic of discussion would be so willing to argue a general misconception to the teeth with someone who clearly has done much more research on the subject and DOES have personal experience with AA.

This is what I'm hearing from our guest:

"Psy is expressing his opinion in a way that threatens me."
"If the "experts" haven't said EXACTLY what Psy is saying then he MUST be wrong."
and "I dont really know anything about AA besides that it is widely accepted so it couldn't be a cult."

Do you realize how ignorant these arguments are?...

I may or may not agree with Psy, but it seems to me that the way he has researched the topic and the manner of which he decided to express his findings is not only appropriate, but also impressive. Over all I am not educated enough on this subject to challenge his opinions, but even if I was the last thing I would do is make the irrelevant arguments you have. This to me sounds like a personal vendetta not an educational debate.

Uh, he hasn't reseached the topic. He basically cherry-picks from the "reseach" supplied by an anonymous internet person "orange." Trust me, google "cult" and "A.A." and you can do all the "reseach" psy has in 30 seconds

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... us&spell=1

The fellow thinks that Yahoo disconnected from his email as part of a deliberate conspiracy to silence him for some pretty baseless reasons
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-censored.html

 He promotes a place called Rational Recovery, which is an anti-A.A. recovery group, whose owner openly calls A.A. a cult, is a booming financial operation, and is accused of being a cult itself.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:FRr ... cd=1&gl=us

The “sources” he cites “proving” A.A’s cult-like nature are “Orange” or "Rengels." They misapply criteria(mostly innarpropriate, out of date criteria) to create “false positives” of cultism. T

hey may not even be actual people, but internet creations of the guy behind Rational Recovery, for all you know.

Speaking of have I been to A.A.,  psy, and you to a lesser extent, are creating a catch-22. People who have been to A.A. and think it's ok or helpful are brainwashed, and people who have not and think it's ok or helpful don't know what they are talking about.   I have extensive experience with  AA clones, the X.A.s.
I was forced to attend. If anyone was going to be ripe for brainwashing and abuse it was me. Nothing ANYTHING like brainwashing was present, let alone systematice cultic derivitive brainwashing.

 I am offended when I hear  X.A described as  cult-like, or a thought-reform center, because having been in a GENUINE thought-reform center and a GENUINE cult I don't like having that very specific, special term confused and misused.  People don't understand cults and thought- reform. Trivializing the seriousness of thought reform, confusing the term further, robbing me of my language,  the only words I have to describe what was done to me is HORRIBLE.


The views of the cultic experts are very relevant because they have studied first hand, authenticated sources extensively, understand systematology, and bring a reliable, unbiased, deeply penetrative viewpoint to the subject. Credentials and competence matter. We don’t decide the reality of Global Warming by polling  everyone with a website. Whether something is a cult or not is NOT just an opinion. There are criteria which when applied by competent people will have consistent objective results, which is why NO expert has come to the conclusion A.A. is cultic. This is why EVERY EXPERT who studies the matter comes to the conclusion that CEDU, STRAIGHT, DESISTO, TEEN CHALLENGE are in the cult-spectrum and DO practise thought reform.

To actually, responsibly research something  you don't just google and give a link. You observe firsthand over a period of time, authenticate your prescence; you'd study A.A's articles of incorperation and bylaws and systemology, you'd actually understand the criteria of cultishness, and i have seen psy misaply them so deeply, i don't think he does. I have reseached this to a certain extent and if you read my post you'd notice that. But I obviously have not researched this in a way thatrises to a reliable fashion.

Who has done that? Margeret Singer, Rick Ross. They have already done that extensively and refering to their findings, one of whom wrote an ENTIRE book about how A.A. does not fall into the cult-spectrum is a fine way of combatting absurdity. Otherwise, we are just two internet people counter googling. I am going to post M.S's exact quotes about A.A when I have the time.--(I waste too much time here)

[psy]

I don't understand how someone who has never been to an AA meeting, does not have an addiction problem and never personally experienced the topic of discussion would be so willing to argue a general misconception to the teeth with someone who clearly has done much more research on the subject and DOES have personal experience with AA.

This is what I'm hearing from our guest:

"Psy is expressing his opinion in a way that threatens me."
"If the "experts" haven't said EXACTLY what Psy is saying then he MUST be wrong."
and "I dont really know anything about AA besides that it is widely accepted so it couldn't be a cult."

Do you realize how ignorant these arguments are?...

I may or may not agree with Psy, but it seems to me that the way he has researched the topic and the manner of which he decided to express his findings is not only appropriate, but also impressive. Over all I am not educated enough on this subject to challenge his opinions, but even if I was the last thing I would do is make the irrelevant arguments you have. This to me sounds like a personal vendetta not an educational debate.

LOL.  Well said.

And contrary to what the guest thinks (who continues to state "I have researched and he is wrong" (yet cites no research), appeals to authority, attacks sources I cite with ad-hominem, can do nothing but appeal to authority, and claims I have cited only one source....

I have cited many sources:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322008

And those are just the books that are online about the topic.

In addition, in this thread I cited sources directly from AA literature, from double blind studies done on AA members compared to alcoholics with no treatment, from AA's own studies, form personal experience, from Charles Bufe, Jeffery Schaler Ph.D and Stanton Peele Ph.D.

Again, our infinately honest guest LIES to personally attack Agent Orange (rather than his arguments) claiming that he promotes rational recovery and that Rational Recovery is a cult.

LOL.  First of all, if you bothred to click on the guest's own link claiming Agent Organge promotes Rational Recovery, you'll find that Rational Recovery is NUMBER FOURTEEN on his suggested reading list.  Also on that reading list is just about every single alternative AA and book on aa imaginable.  LOL.  And this guest who has "done his research" (lol) accuses Rational Recovery of being a cult when they don't' even have meetings. LOLOL

And our guest writes:

Speaking of have I been to A.A., psy, and you to a lesser extent, are creating a catch-22. People who have been to A.A. and think it's ok or helpful are brainwashed, and people who have not and think it's ok or helpful don't know what they are talking about.

No, guest.  I didn't attack anybody's personal experiences at all nor did I say that AA didn't work at all.  What i DID do was cite several double blind studies.  You're the only one here usign anecdotal evidence and a whole slew of logical fallacies.

LOL.  and now our guest has been to AA. What changed?  LOL.  I stop a conversation when the person I'm arguing with starts to blatantly lie and generally swuirm agound.  I'm done here.

[psy]

Uh, he hasn't reseached the topic. He basically cherry-picks from the "reseach" supplied by an anonymous internet person "orange." Trust me, google "cult" and "A.A." and you can do all the "reseach" psy has in 30 seconds

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... us&spell=1

LOL.  Only you didn'g googloe "cult" and "AA"  You googled "agent orange" and "AA".  LOL.  Trying to make it seem like he's the sole sources who has called AA a cult or cult-like. HERE is a google of "cult" and "AA"

And re-read the thread, guest.  I already quoted singer.  The quotation you're looking for is on page 97 of Cults in our Midst

[Anonymous]

I'm going to have to agree with Guest on this one. They make some good points and seem very knowledgeable on this subject. On the other hand, psy seems to get annoyed with the very idea anyone would dare challenge his anti-AA agenda. I think a lot of this has to do with psy wanting to prove to antigen that his views are in line with hers. I can't know for sure, but it seems like he goes out of his way to defend the conspiracy theories that dominate the thinking of fornits leadership. they think george bush and the cia put them in a program, and that 9.11 was done by the military, that AA is a cult like program. This is called persecution complex. Its not surprising that people subjected to programs would develop such a disorder. think about it, psy and antigen agree on pretty much everything, like psy is her protege or something its pretty funny.

I think people forget that the fornits leadership are also active libertarians, and endorsed ron paul on this website before the election. Under libertarian philosophy there would zero regulation of programs, and parents could do whatever they wanted to their kids. This is working in the opposite direction of shutting down programs. Even lon woodbury, and sue scheff want more regulation, control and justice for programs than does psy.

Fornits is a refuge for people who have no one left willing to listen to them. They can rant on for hours about topics nobody cares about like whether AA should be allowed to operate, or if scientology is a cult, or if the government is responsible for 9.11. This naturally attracts other like minded people , and then they fight with each other over these topics. The more deluded people argue with passion, somehow thinking their opinion is going to impact the topic they discuss. this requires an immense amount of arrogance, something that does not run short on this website.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. this fact applies in the case of this forum. By assuming you could organize and prove programs wrong, the opposite is actually happening. this site will continue to lure people in for these reasons, and some will actually adopt their hard core fornits views and make it a large part of their life like psy. I can't help but feel sorry for these people though. Its not really their fault, and it probably helps their self esteem to be able to give themselves a "role" to play. it gives them a reason to feel they are needed.

For the non deluded you know this thread is a big waste of effort and time. No minds are changed about AA , which will continue to grow and thrive because people go to it. a few people might read through this thread, but they are people who will never meet each other, and who's assumptions about each other are probably way off base. if you get pissed off or concerned about what some person on the internet says you need to take a look at yourself. so if you are feeling a need to respond to this post, take a deep breath and think about what you are doing to yourself. dont get caught in the trap. and if you are caught, its time to release yourself. you might have some regret, but thats the small price to pay for freedom. See what i mean about this site being meaningless to most people, i got you to waste a few minutes reading something i wont even remember or care about in an hour. sucker. he,he,he.

[Anonymous]

It is useless, for you are affected by nothing, having erected an impenetrable armor around yourself. You feel nothing. Unable to understand your situation, you react through thought, which is your ideas and mentations. Reaction is thought. I have a place in my mind where I go time to time. Whatever needs to be maintained through force is doomed. It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society. A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on and i'm tired of being tormented to hell, that's what i'm tired of.