Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on January 09, 2009, 01:38:33 PM
-
For some reason a lot of survivors seem to become addicted to drugs after they get out. The pro program people claim it as proof that they needed help and confirm the program was necessary, albeit a failure. They say, if only the person had tried harder and given in, they would of ended up clean and sober. They think programs attract the worst kids, and so when looking at them as a group they are not surprised of the many suicides and drug addicts that come from former program attendees.
Another vein of thought suggests that the program itself is so destructive psychologically, that it causes PTSD and that is why people who went through programs use drugs and commit suicide in noticeable numbers compared to the regular population. I happen to agree with this one, because I think most kids sent to programs are normal. I don't agree with this theory that the kids in programs were the worst, and therefore expected to fail, use drugs or even kill themselves. I think programs can cause some damage. At the present moment doctors classify this state of mind as PTSD but I think it's complicated and not so easily packaged into a diagnosis as that, but basically it's true.
But whatever theory you subscribe to, most people can agree that people that went through programs have more problems than a group of people who didn't go through programs, for some reason.
So this got me thinking, why are people who went through programs prone to such a doomed existence.
It also made me think maybe one of the reasons why this happens, is because they are afraid to get help. Last time they were offered "help" they got treated like an animal, being experimented on. People aren't going to voluntarily return to that, so from then on they will be apprehensive to ask for any help at all. It's hard to get trust back, once it's shattered so thoroughly and completely.
If people are afraid to get help, and trust anyone else, then if they are dealing with PTSD or depression or worse, or get addicted to drugs, where will they go for help? We already established how it's clear many would view "help" as something to avoid. So they suffer in silence, all alone and unable to trust anyone to help them.
I think this is a reason why equating AA to programs is, in fact, quite dangerous. By claiming that a group that (you never know) might help someone get the help they desperately need, is just like a program, it might make them think twice. Do you see what I'm saying here? In a program you do not go voluntarily, you can not walk out whenever you want, you cannot have free conversations with others. In a meeting, it's nothing like a program. It's not like a cult either, it's just a group of people trying to help themselves.
So why we engage in intellectual debates from the ivory tower on fornits, judging people like this we may be in fact hurting them. If a survivor is addicted to drugs and having problems, they should ask for help, even if the only option is AA. I THINK ITS CRUEL to think that we know best, and tell they are about to get sucked into another program.
I think, by saying these things, it could actually cause real life consequences. So many survivors never ask for help, and then take drastic action all on their own based on flawed perceptions based on their experience. We should not support these paranoid views because it ends up hurting people.
So I hope we can refrain from this type of talk in the future. I think by blurring the lines between what is a program, and what isn't, it forces people back into the dark closet of suffering. This type of talk may even cost people lives, because a lot of survivors read fornits. We need to be more careful with what we say and how it impacts those reading it.
-
....So I hope we can refrain from this type of talk in the future. I think by blurring the lines between what is a program, and what isn't, it forces people back into the dark closet of suffering. This type of talk may even cost people lives, because a lot of survivors read fornits. We need to be more careful with what we say and how it impacts those reading it.
How about this suggestion: Take your own advice. YOU "can refrain from this type of talk in the future."
I just don't get where YOU think we are all part of some GROUP that has to agree on anything. In fact, reading posts like yours makes me want to take out an Ad on national television about AA's CULTY ways, AA's CULT origins, AA is a goddamn friggin' CULT, Bill Wilson is a hallucinating, womanizing, misogynistic prick and a besotted rum-drenched fruitcake with a potentially lethal messiah complex, etc.
Do ALL cults demonstrate the caliber of violence and destruction of Jim Jones' The People's Temple or Chuck E. D.'s Synanon? NO. Some cults are far more benign. I would categorize AA as more benign; although not necessarily very benign, as there is a fair range of coerciveness depending on the temperament of your local AA group aka CULT.
There are also some people who have more pronounced susceptibility to the kind of damage exacted by COERCIVE GROUPS. I personally have found fornits' discussion of AA the CULT and the airing of AA's dirty laundry to be quite informative and quite liberating, really....
You want to take away this aspect of my "healing," do you? You find it unseemly, do you? With all due respect and consideration for your feelings and all, where do YOU get off making those kinds of judgments for ME or for ANYONE, for that matter?
Stop trying to control the boards.
-
For some reason a lot of survivors seem to become addicted to drugs after they get out. The pro program people claim it as proof that they needed help and confirm the program was necessary, albeit a failure. They say, if only the person had tried harder and given in, they would of ended up clean and sober. They think programs attract the worst kids, and so when looking at them as a group they are not surprised of the many suicides and drug addicts that come from former program attendees.
Another vein of thought suggests that the program itself is so destructive psychologically, that it causes PTSD and that is why people who went through programs use drugs and commit suicide in noticeable numbers compared to the regular population. I happen to agree with this one, because I think most kids sent to programs are normal. I don't agree with this theory that the kids in programs were the worst, and therefore expected to fail, use drugs or even kill themselves. I think programs can cause some damage. At the present moment doctors classify this state of mind as PTSD but I think it's complicated and not so easily packaged into a diagnosis as that, but basically it's true.
But whatever theory you subscribe to, most people can agree that people that went through programs have more problems than a group of people who didn't go through programs, for some reason.
So this got me thinking, why are people who went through programs prone to such a doomed existence.
It also made me think maybe one of the reasons why this happens, is because they are afraid to get help. Last time they were offered "help" they got treated like an animal, being experimented on. People aren't going to voluntarily return to that, so from then on they will be apprehensive to ask for any help at all. It's hard to get trust back, once it's shattered so thoroughly and completely.
If people are afraid to get help, and trust anyone else, then if they are dealing with PTSD or depression or worse, or get addicted to drugs, where will they go for help? We already established how it's clear many would view "help" as something to avoid. So they suffer in silence, all alone and unable to trust anyone to help them.
I think this is a reason why equating AA to programs is, in fact, quite dangerous. By claiming that a group that (you never know) might help someone get the help they desperately need, is just like a program, it might make them think twice. Do you see what I'm saying here? In a program you do not go voluntarily, you can not walk out whenever you want, you cannot have free conversations with others. In a meeting, it's nothing like a program. It's not like a cult either, it's just a group of people trying to help themselves.
So why we engage in intellectual debates from the ivory tower on fornits, judging people like this we may be in fact hurting them. If a survivor is addicted to drugs and having problems, they should ask for help, even if the only option is AA. I THINK ITS CRUEL to think that we know best, and tell they are about to get sucked into another program.
I think, by saying these things, it could actually cause real life consequences. So many survivors never ask for help, and then take drastic action all on their own based on flawed perceptions based on their experience. We should not support these paranoid views because it ends up hurting people.
So I hope we can refrain from this type of talk in the future. I think by blurring the lines between what is a program, and what isn't, it forces people back into the dark closet of suffering. This type of talk may even cost people lives, because a lot of survivors read fornits. We need to be more careful with what we say and how it impacts those reading it.
^^^^^^^^
For you, the OP:
FUT FUT FUT
FUT FUT FUT
I AM STOOPID
Repeat until it sinks in. :beat:
-
You must already know you're a heartless beast, so I suppose there is little effect in pointing it out. It has become expected around here for your type of word vomit to be spewed. I beginning think this site does more damage than good, and hurts more people than it helps.
-
You must already know you're a heartless beast, so I suppose there is little effect in pointing it out. It has become expected around here for your type of word vomit to be spewed. I beginning think this site does more damage than good, and hurts more people than it helps.
Matter of opinion. You don't like Fornits anyway, it's obvious from the "ivory tower" reference, etc., etc. By the way, I think forcing someone into a cult like AA is the behavior of a "heartless beast". It's about choice, and if you're at all familiar with AA you would know that no program works unless the "addict" wants to quit and wants to quit for their own sake.
"I beginning to think (AA) does more damage than good, and hurts more people than it helps". There. That's better.
You sound like a wounded Scientologist. Sorry your cult's been maligned by our "word vomit".
-
I beginning think this site does more damage than good
FUT FUT FUT
FUT FUT FUT
I AM STOOPID
Heartless maybe. Correct about you obviously.
-
For some reason a lot of survivors seem to become addicted to drugs after they get out. The pro program people claim it as proof that they needed help and confirm the program was necessary, albeit a failure. They say, if only the person had tried harder and given in, they would of ended up clean and sober. They think programs attract the worst kids, and so when looking at them as a group they are not surprised of the many suicides and drug addicts that come from former program attendees.
Another vein of thought suggests that the program itself is so destructive psychologically, that it causes PTSD and that is why people who went through programs use drugs and commit suicide in noticeable numbers compared to the regular population. I happen to agree with this one, because I think most kids sent to programs are normal. I don't agree with this theory that the kids in programs were the worst, and therefore expected to fail, use drugs or even kill themselves. I think programs can cause some damage. At the present moment doctors classify this state of mind as PTSD but I think it's complicated and not so easily packaged into a diagnosis as that, but basically it's true.
But whatever theory you subscribe to, most people can agree that people that went through programs have more problems than a group of people who didn't go through programs, for some reason.
So this got me thinking, why are people who went through programs prone to such a doomed existence.
It also made me think maybe one of the reasons why this happens, is because they are afraid to get help. Last time they were offered "help" they got treated like an animal, being experimented on. People aren't going to voluntarily return to that, so from then on they will be apprehensive to ask for any help at all. It's hard to get trust back, once it's shattered so thoroughly and completely.
If people are afraid to get help, and trust anyone else, then if they are dealing with PTSD or depression or worse, or get addicted to drugs, where will they go for help? We already established how it's clear many would view "help" as something to avoid. So they suffer in silence, all alone and unable to trust anyone to help them.
I think this is a reason why equating AA to programs is, in fact, quite dangerous. By claiming that a group that (you never know) might help someone get the help they desperately need, is just like a program, it might make them think twice. Do you see what I'm saying here? In a program you do not go voluntarily, you can not walk out whenever you want, you cannot have free conversations with others. In a meeting, it's nothing like a program. It's not like a cult either, it's just a group of people trying to help themselves.
So why we engage in intellectual debates from the ivory tower on fornits, judging people like this we may be in fact hurting them. If a survivor is addicted to drugs and having problems, they should ask for help, even if the only option is AA. I THINK ITS CRUEL to think that we know best, and tell they are about to get sucked into another program.
I think, by saying these things, it could actually cause real life consequences. So many survivors never ask for help, and then take drastic action all on their own based on flawed perceptions based on their experience. We should not support these paranoid views because it ends up hurting people.
So I hope we can refrain from this type of talk in the future. I think by blurring the lines between what is a program, and what isn't, it forces people back into the dark closet of suffering. This type of talk may even cost people lives, because a lot of survivors read fornits. We need to be more careful with what we say and how it impacts those reading it.
I agree, but get the feeling you are a troll.
-
....So I hope we can refrain from this type of talk in the future. I think by blurring the lines between what is a program, and what isn't, it forces people back into the dark closet of suffering. This type of talk may even cost people lives, because a lot of survivors read fornits. We need to be more careful with what we say and how it impacts those reading it.
How about this suggestion: Take your own advice. YOU "can refrain from this type of talk in the future."
I just don't get where YOU think we are all part of some GROUP that has to agree on anything. In fact, reading posts like yours makes me want to take out an Ad on national television about AA's CULTY ways, AA's CULT origins, AA is a goddamn friggin' CULT, Bill Wilson is a hallucinating, womanizing, misogynistic prick and a besotted rum-drenched fruitcake with a potentially lethal messiah complex, etc.
Do ALL cults demonstrate the caliber of violence and destruction of Jim Jones' The People's Temple or Chuck E. D.'s Synanon? NO. Some cults are far more benign. I would categorize AA as more benign; although not necessarily very benign, as there is a fair range of coerciveness depending on the temperament of your local AA group aka CULT.
There are also some people who have more pronounced susceptibility to the kind of damage exacted by COERCIVE GROUPS. I personally have found fornits' discussion of AA the CULT and the airing of AA's dirty laundry to be quite informative and quite liberating, really....
You want to take away this aspect of my "healing," do you? You find it unseemly, do you? With all due respect and consideration for your feelings and all, where do YOU get off making those kinds of judgments for ME or for ANYONE, for that matter?
Stop trying to control the boards.
You kinda come accross as insane, dumb and nasty . Were you in a program? It is a little suspect to bring up this topic just to say, no one should talk about it. Maybe this person is trying to generate your sort of...uh...passionate... response, so users here look nutty. Maybe that person and you are the same person. Oh, the moronic mystery of this website!
-
Oh, the moronic mystery of this website!
:rofl: :timeout: :twofinger: :rocker: :clown: :whip: :jamin: :moon: ::unhappy:: ::deadhorse:: :fuckoff: :poison: :roflmao: :roflmao: :ftard: ::evil:: :deal: :twofinger:
-
You kinda come accross as insane, dumb and nasty . Were you in a program? It is a little suspect to bring up this topic just to say, no one should talk about it. Maybe this person is trying to generate your sort of...uh...passionate... response, so users here look nutty. Maybe that person and you are the same person. Oh, the moronic mystery of this website!
Wow. You posted something that others disagree with, try to bludgeon people into accepting your opinion, then you whine like a little bitch and start in with the hamfisted "insane, dumb and nasty" remarks.
AA offers all or nothing: you work their program or you end up in jail, dead or in an institution. I've been in "those rooms", it's no different than a teen program except you (sometimes) heave the option of getting up and leaving. I did, never drank again and encouraged people to try every option BUT AA if they asked about how to quit drinking.
You get so angry defending AA, which almost all of us have had a big dose of either in programs or for other reasons. You're not going to change anyone's mind who's been to the AA well and found the water to taste of piss. There are other ways to stop drinking that don't require a lifetime of sitting in group swallowing huge doses of AA cliches and the quasi-religious dogshit they spoon feed the cultists.
You've stated your point, troll. You would do better with a group of readers who haven't experienced forced treatment and AA.
-
Must be big friendly Bob Pegler. He is peglerizing all of us.
-
You kinda come accross as insane, dumb and nasty . Were you in a program? It is a little suspect to bring up this topic just to say, no one should talk about it. Maybe this person is trying to generate your sort of...uh...passionate... response, so users here look nutty. Maybe that person and you are the same person. Oh, the moronic mystery of this website!
Wow. You posted something that others disagree with, try to bludgeon people into accepting your opinion, then you whine like a little bitch and start in with the hamfisted "insane, dumb and nasty" remarks.
AA offers all or nothing: you work their program or you end up in jail, dead or in an institution. I've been in "those rooms", it's no different than a teen program except you (sometimes) heave the option of getting up and leaving. I did, never drank again and encouraged people to try every option BUT AA if they asked about how to quit drinking.
You get so angry defending AA, which almost all of us have had a big dose of either in programs or for other reasons. You're not going to change anyone's mind who's been to the AA well and found the water to taste of piss. There are other ways to stop drinking that don't require a lifetime of sitting in group swallowing huge doses of AA cliches and the quasi-religious dogshit they spoon feed the cultists.
You've stated your point, troll. You would do better with a group of readers who haven't experienced forced treatment and AA.
I’m not the o.p. I think you’re the one who comes across as angry, which is what I said what I did. The o.p. was just thinking out-loud in a courteous fashion...the haterific insulting… seemed kinda unprovoked.
“I’ve been in those rooms” also. There’s no reason to make that sound so melodramatic.
I DIDN’T have the option to leave because I was forced to be there. (btw, A.A didn’t know I was forced.) Still, there was nothing approaching thought reform in there. Not liking something doesn’t make it a cult or cult-like.
Margaret Singer studied A.A. and describes it as a benign group and uses it to teach the difference between a self-help group, a church and cult. Rick Ross has studied it extensively and definitively ranks it outside any cult-spectrum. The criteria that make something a cult do not apply to A.A.
Out of curiosity, if you weren’t forced to go to A.A. why were you there?
-
So why we engage in intellectual debates from the ivory tower on fornits, judging people like this we may be in fact hurting them. If a survivor is addicted to drugs and having problems, they should ask for help, even if the only option is AA. I THINK ITS CRUEL to think that we know best, and tell they are about to get sucked into another program.
Consider this, If a survivor were to have "become addicted to drugs" and was as you've stated "afraid to ask for help" don't you think the fact that they had already learned the doctrine of AA in the program be the factor that kept them in contempt of AA?... I really don't think anything that is said on Fornits would convince them, people are usually convinced by their personal experiences. Just the same, if there were a significant amount of people on Fornits who supported AA I really don't think that would have an effect on a person's choice to "get help" either.
I might also add one thing, not many meth addicts or alcoholics are partial to sit down and read through the archives of Fornits, that doesn't really sound like the good time that most addicts are looking for. lol
I think we are all entitled to speak about whatever we choose, especially on the subject of a widely accepted cult-like organization which is very much on point with the general topic of this forum in the first place. I don't think it is appropriate to try to censor those who choose to report their findings and opinions on any subject simply because you are afraid of a slim chance that someone may be influenced by our conversations and decide not to get help for their addictions. I tend to think that if an addict is ready to quit he will and if he is not, he wont. Fornits has NOTHING to do with peoples life choices. I think you are free to argue your points here, but I recommend that you refrain from passing judgment on the forum as a whole and requesting we stop expressing our opinions, because you will simply be wasting your breath.
-
I’m not the o.p. I think you’re the one who comes across as angry, which is what I said what I did. The o.p. was just thinking out-loud in a courteous fashion...the haterific insulting… seemed kinda unprovoked.
Well gosh. Everyone is named guest. I didn't post any haterific insulting.
“I’ve been in those rooms” also. There’s no reason to make that sound so melodramatic.
That's why I put it in quotes, AA uses "these rooms" like they're talking about a cathedral. If you think AA isn't chock full of melodrama, you're not paying attention. It's a soap opera.
Out of curiosity, if you weren’t forced to go to A.A. why were you there?
Too personal to share on here with a bunch of anonymous trolls shambling about. I was there because...what's the cute little cliche AA uses? Oh yeah, I got a "nudge from the judge". Then I tried it again of my own accord, so I know AA as a forced and voluntary participant.
Again, just sharing my experiences and opinions.
-
I think this is a reason why equating AA to programs is, in fact, quite dangerous. By claiming that a group that (you never know) might help someone get the help they desperately need, is just like a program, it might make them think twice. Do you see what I'm saying here?
You're basing that on the assumption that AA 'works'. It doesn't.
In a program you do not go voluntarily, you can not walk out whenever you want, you cannot have free conversations with others. In a meeting, it's nothing like a program. It's not like a cult either, it's just a group of people trying to help themselves.
Not true. People are forced and coerced into AA every day. Courts order them. Spouses threaten to leave if they don't attend. Family members threaten to 'stop enabling' them (i.e. throw them out) if they don't attend. Etc. etc. Then, once you get INTO the rooms, more coercion and groupthink.
So why we engage in intellectual debates from the ivory tower on fornits,
Huh, what??? Why??? Seriously? And the 'ivory tower' context says a lot.
judging people like this we may be in fact hurting them. If a survivor is addicted to drugs and having problems, they should ask for help, even if the only option is AA. I THINK ITS CRUEL to think that we know best, and tell they are about to get sucked into another program.
I think it's cruel to state that AA 'works' in any way, shape or form. I think it's cruel to encourage people to join into more groupthink. I think it's cruel to expose people who have experienced what we have to another cult-like mentality.
I think, by saying these things, it could actually cause real life consequences.
Yes, it certainly can.
So many survivors never ask for help, and then take drastic action all on their own based on flawed perceptions based on their experience. We should not support these paranoid views because it ends up hurting people.
I agree that we should not support these paranoid views of Bill Wilson that AA espouses. Because it ends up hurting people.
So I hope we can refrain from this type of talk in the future. I think by blurring the lines between what is a program, and what isn't, it forces people back into the dark closet of suffering. This type of talk may even cost people lives, because a lot of survivors read fornits. We need to be more careful with what we say and how it impacts those reading it.
No, we really don't. What we need is RAMPANT TALKING OUT IN GROUP!!!!!!!!!
-
Well, as someone who has both spent time in a program and in 12 step (some people never learn) I can say a few things that they do have in common.
1. They rely on personal anecdotes to convince others that their program works, and uses little, if no factual data or follow up. (The last time AA ever did numbers for attrition rate was in the 70s, and I believe it was 95%, which is probably why they stopped taking numbers after that.) The study that was done on synanon, the granddaddy of many programs in existence today, and also the grandaddy of NA, showed that their attrition rate was around 85% or so. Both of these numbers, btw, are a similar success rate (5-15%) to people who decided to quit drinking/using on their own without the aid of any program.
2. They use shame-based tactics to encourage people to stick with the program. ("Few have failed who have followed our simple program." with the exception of that 95% attrition rate, I suppose.)
3. They are both chock full of the dramallama.
4. You can be ordered to attend either by the state.
Here is how they are different.
1. In AA/NA, (outside of rehab) you don't live 24/7 in a cloistered environment with other 12 steppers, although many have come close. "This is my third meeting today!" (applause)
2. 12 step, believe it or not, actually has better coffee.
3. In 12 step, you have the best connections for drugs, ever, and you can usually score something relatively quickly.
4. You get chips. yaaay. chips. Congratulations on being a responsible adult like everyone else.
I'm waiting to see the powerless concept expand into other areas of antisocial behavior.
"Let's all congratulate Joe. Today he is celebrating one year of not beating his wife."
hooray, joe. I love you joe.
In all fairness, while they both use ridiculous methods to battle drug addiction (both real and imagined) they do it in different ways. The program does it through coercion, manipulation and a mixture of new age hippie drama spirituality or just conventional religion, and 12 step does it through... uh.. wait. Never mind.
Oh yeah, there's also this other bit about how many programs today actually use 12 step as part of their "therapy". That's not *too* relevant, but I thought I'd throw it out there. :beat:
keep coming back!
-
keep coming back!
it works if you work it!
-
keep coming back!
it works if you work it!
Let go and let God. This from AA, which claims to be secular. Anything can be your higher power, as long as your higher power has a son named Jesus and doesn't offend the Christian sensibilities of the rest of the group. "God, grant me the strength"...blah blah blah.
-
keep coming back!
it works if you work it!
So work it cause you're worth it.
heh. yeah, when I reached the fearless moral inventory step I said "ok, this sounds a bit too familiar.." and just went back to step 1 for the rest of my time in the fold.
Let go and let God. This from AA, which claims to be secular. Anything can be your higher power, as long as your higher power has a son named Jesus and doesn't offend the Christian sensibilities of the rest of the group. "God, grant me the strength"...blah blah blah.
Small price to pay for such awesome access to any drug you could possibly imagine.
-
Let go and let God. This from AA, which claims to be secular. Anything can be your higher power, as long as your higher power has a son named Jesus and doesn't offend the Christian sensibilities of the rest of the group. "God, grant me the strength"...blah blah blah.
Small price to pay for such awesome access to any drug you could possibly imagine.
Wow! I just had a Moment of Clarity after reading your post! I'm off to AA to look for Ibogaine and Yage! LOL. But I have no doubt you're right.
Have you heard of "13th stepping"? It's when an old timer in the program befriends or sponsors a neophyte teetotaler offering comfort and advice, then the sponsor fucks the neophyte. That's "13th stepping", it's one of the unwritten "traditions" of AA. How many oldtimers at AA are unrepentant practicing drunks using meetings to fuck the confused and vulnerable?
Damn, 95% attrition rate. Like any program, they quit using numbers that show failure.
-
Have you heard of "13th stepping"? It's when an old timer in the program befriends or sponsors a neophyte teetotaler offering comfort and advice, then the sponsor fucks the neophyte. That's "13th stepping", it's one of the unwritten "traditions" of AA. How many oldtimers at AA are unrepentant practicing drunks using meetings to fuck the confused and vulnerable?
Damn, 95% attrition rate. Like any program, they quit using numbers that show failure.
That's the other thing that's easy to score in 12 step... tail.
-
keep coming back!
it works if you work it!
Pretty much like a lucky rabbit's foot. Never did do the rabbit much good, though.
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do and the superior eye sight to tell them apart before they see me.
-
The thing with AA/NA is, you can't go sober otherwise it is dismally boring. Get really wasted before you go, and then tell everyone how wasted you are and how much programs suck. It's cool, because they'll listen. It's a lot less boring that way, and people will take you out for a meal afterwards and try to help you (pay for your meal).
It's not that bad, if it's voluntary. I collect chips, and sell them on ebay. Yep, people buy sober chips on ebay. Who'd a thunk it?
-
I have to say I can see where original poster is coming from. The no 1 issue with programs is that they incarcerate and institutionalize kids as well as take a punitive sinister mind controlling approach. It primarily is about loss of liberty. I can see the problems with court mandated AA as well, but aside from this people go to AA voluntarily. They either stay & are happy or don't like it and make the choice available to them as free citizens and leave. As 90% leave the place is not a cult. It is just a somewhat wacky approach to peoples demons. In this respect comparing it to the industry makes the industry seem much less bad than it is
-
It's not that bad, if it's voluntary. I collect chips, and sell them on ebay. Yep, people buy sober chips on ebay. Who'd a thunk it?
HA! That's what I did!! I sold several metal ones, including two 18 month chips. I got a little over a dollar for them.
How much did you get for yours?
-
Well, as someone who has both spent time in a program and in 12 step (some people never learn) I can say a few things that they do have in common.
1. They rely on personal anecdotes to convince others that their program works, and uses little, if no factual data or follow up. (The last time AA ever did numbers for attrition rate was in the 70s, and I believe it was 95%, which is probably why they stopped taking numbers after that.) The study that was done on synanon, the granddaddy of many programs in existence today, and also the grandaddy of NA, showed that their attrition rate was around 85% or so. Both of these numbers, btw, are a similar success rate (5-15%) to people who decided to quit drinking/using on their own without the aid of any program.
2. They use shame-based tactics to encourage people to stick with the program. ("Few have failed who have followed our simple program." with the exception of that 95% attrition rate, I suppose.)
3. They are both chock full of the dramallama.
4. You can be ordered to attend either by the state.
Here is how they are different.
1. In AA/NA, (outside of rehab) you don't live 24/7 in a cloistered environment with other 12 steppers, although many have come close. "This is my third meeting today!" (applause)
2. 12 step, believe it or not, actually has better coffee.
3. In 12 step, you have the best connections for drugs, ever, and you can usually score something relatively quickly.
4. You get chips. yaaay. chips. Congratulations on being a responsible adult like everyone else.
I'm waiting to see the powerless concept expand into other areas of antisocial behavior.
"Let's all congratulate Joe. Today he is celebrating one year of not beating his wife."
hooray, joe. I love you joe.
In all fairness, while they both use ridiculous methods to battle drug addiction (both real and imagined) they do it in different ways. The program does it through coercion, manipulation and a mixture of new age hippie drama spirituality or just conventional religion, and 12 step does it through... uh.. wait. Never mind.
Oh yeah, there's also this other bit about how many programs today actually use 12 step as part of their "therapy". That's not *too* relevant, but I thought I'd throw it out there. :beat:
keep coming back!
just for arguments sake, if 80% or whatever are gone by the end of the year, maybe they've gotten sober? There's also quite a bit of research providing evidence for it's effectiveness. i'm not pro-aa, but i think there's an overselling of its ineffectiveness here.
Here’s an abstract about how AA works better then cognitive behavioral therapy (50% sobriety rate vs 37%:)
http://www.jointogether.org/news/resear ... by-30.html (http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2007/aa-boosts-sobriety-by-30.html)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118520076/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)
Here’s a study showing that “Individuals who obtain help for a drinking problem,[aa or other] especially relatively quickly, do somewhat better on drinking outcomes over 8 years than those who do not receive help, but there is little difference between types of help on long-term drinking outcomes.” http://recoveryissexy.com/12-step-treat ... lternative (http://recoveryissexy.com/12-step-treatment-more-effective-than-alternative).
Here’s another study evidencing AA’s effectiveness. “Compared with individuals who remained untreated, individuals who obtained 27 weeks or more of treatment in the first year after seeking help had better 16-year alcohol-related outcomes” http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 5/abstract (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112481055/abstract),
This study also holds A.A. as helpful
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa49.htm (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa49.htm) and this one too
I don't get "shame based" from a.a. The spiritual element even though they say "higher power as you define it" is a little unweildly.
I think its helpful because of the "support" and "sponser" element. aa was revolutionary because it actually alleviated the alchohlic from shame and gave the alchoholic hope. At the time AA arose the medical thought was that alchoholism was incurable, and popular thinking was that alchoholics were just weak-willed losers. In Your Opinion, do you really feel that going to meetings was like being in CEDU? my friend defined CEDU as the place he learned "the meaning of terror and suffering." I know you don't intend it, but i actually feel pain at the comparison because it minimizes my friend's suffering. Maybe you were there in an easy year? Maybe you made freinds with a helpful staff/peer leader?
-
I have to say I can see where original poster is coming from. The no 1 issue with programs is that they incarcerate and institutionalize kids as well as take a punitive sinister mind controlling approach. It primarily is about loss of liberty. I can see the problems with court mandated AA as well, but aside from this people go to AA voluntarily. They either stay & are happy or don't like it and make the choice available to them as free citizens and leave. As 90% leave the place is not a cult. It is just a somewhat wacky approach to peoples demons. In this respect comparing it to the industry makes the industry seem much less bad than it is
Even when you’re court mandated, you are just ordered to attend. You can't be ordered to "succeed" according to "group." If that was true, then I'd get upset. As it is you can just sit their in silence grimacing the whole time. It’s like being court ordered to anger management class.
-
I have to say I can see where original poster is coming from. The no 1 issue with programs is that they incarcerate and institutionalize kids as well as take a punitive sinister mind controlling approach. It primarily is about loss of liberty. I can see the problems with court mandated AA as well, but aside from this people go to AA voluntarily. They either stay & are happy or don't like it and make the choice available to them as free citizens and leave. As 90% leave the place is not a cult. It is just a somewhat wacky approach to peoples demons. In this respect comparing it to the industry makes the industry seem much less bad than it is
Not really because AA and it's approach is sort of the basis for many of the 'treatment centers'. And even without a court order, it very often IS extremely coercive. Either thru family members believing in the tough love part of it or societal pressures because AA is pretty much unquestioned as "the way". Not to mention the deadinsaneorinjail aspect. AA tells it's members that they are "surely signing their own death warrant" if they leave. Sounds pretty program like to me.
-
Fuck you castle..
I thought you meant potato chips..
ASSHOLE!
-
Even when you’re court mandated, you are just ordered to attend. You can't be ordered to "succeed" according to "group." If that was true, then I'd get upset. As it is you can just sit their in silence grimacing the whole time. It’s like being court ordered to anger management class.
The constitution is supposed to keep government from forcing anyone to join a religious group or even attend a religious meeting.
-
Explain that one to Teen Challenge will you?
-
just for arguments sake, if 80% or whatever are gone by the end of the year, maybe they've gotten sober?
Just because they're sober after AA doens't mean it's because of AA. Also, since they left AA I find it hard to believe they were every really into AA at all, since AA holds itself to be a "lifelong program of recovery" for a "progressive" and "incurable" disease without with results in "death, insanity, or institutions". (now why does that sound familar)
There's also quite a bit of research providing evidence for it's effectiveness. i'm not pro-aa, but i think there's an overselling of its ineffectiveness here.
Here’s an abstract about how AA works better then cognitive behavioral therapy (50% sobriety rate vs 37%:)
http://www.jointogether.org/news/resear ... by-30.html (http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2007/aa-boosts-sobriety-by-30.html)
As one researcher/commenter pointed out on that article, the woman botched the numbers. In the study the "researcher" also cites "spirituality" as what makes as "work". So essentially, she's arguing the flying spaghetti monster is what helped the people quit. LOL. Hardly a neutral researcher. She was also only comparing it to ONE alternative. If you want a true study, you have to compare it to no treament at all. That study has already been done multiple times...
Example:
A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease.
...
Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling.
and
In table 8.2, the results of the Clinic sample at eight years are compared with five rather disparate follow-up studies in the literature which are of similar duration but which looked at very different patient populations. Once again, our results were no better than the natural history of the disorder.
Source: The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to Recovery, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, pages 283-286.
It works if you work it my ass.
This is like the scientologist scientists who wanted to prove dianetics worked, and ended up accidentally proving it to be bullshit (and getting labeled suppressive persons as a result).
AA also teaches "nobody can do it alone". LOL. Well despite that claim a Harvard study states that most people quit on their own:
There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated. When a group of these self-treated alcoholics was interviewed, 57% said they simply decided that alcohol was bad for them. Twenty-nine percent said health problems, frightening experiences, accidents, or blackouts persuaded them to quit. Others used such phrases as "Things were building up" or "I was sick and tired of it." Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the resolution.
Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction — Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.
(See Aug. (Part I), Sept. (Part II), Oct. 1995 (Part III).)
Your second study you quoted here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118520076/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Here’s a study showing that “Individuals who obtain help for a drinking problem,[aa or other] especially relatively quickly, do somewhat better on drinking outcomes over 8 years than those who do not receive help, but there is little difference between types of help on long-term drinking outcomes.” http://recoveryissexy.com/12-step-treat ... lternative (http://recoveryissexy.com/12-step-treatment-more-effective-than-alternative).
Same study as the first one you quoted above.
I think its helpful because of the "support" and "sponser" element. aa was revolutionary because it actually alleviated the alchohlic from shame and gave the alchoholic hope.
That's one way of putting it. The way I view it is that AA gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions were outside their control (powerlessness concept). Let go and let god! Yes! Works about as well with a steering wheel. People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless, resulting in a 5 fold increase in binging over no treatment at all , as found in:
Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.
In Your Opinion, do you really feel that going to meetings was like being in CEDU? my friend defined CEDU as the place he learned "the meaning of terror and suffering." I know you don't intend it, but i actually feel pain at the comparison because it minimizes my friend's suffering. Maybe you were there in an easy year? Maybe you made freinds with a helpful staff/peer leader?
I was in a cedu clone so I can chime in here from personal experience. There is no question that there is no comparison in terms of how bad things were. There are, however, similarities in the philosophies and practices. Programs are like AA plus a lot more stuff.
The way I look at it, AA is like manure. Pure horse shit. Not extremely harmful on it's own depending on how it's used but if you swallow too much of it... it's probably not going to be very good for you (as is shown by the above studies). Now the program... the program is the gasoline. Add that to the horse shit and you have yourself a volitile situation waiting to explode. Add horse shit fundamentalist cult-like philosophy to an institutional setting where it is seen as necessary to break people down to accept "powerlessness" to save their lives and BOOM!
It also leaves people quite bitter towards those beliefs as well, as i'm sure you'll notice around fornits. Think about it. How many ex-members of bible based cults go to church? Not many. Why? Because it reminds them of the cult. Similarly, AA reminds me of the cult I was in to such a way that I feel real anger around AA members (and god help them if they preach at or around me). Does this bias me against AA? Maybe it does... but I try to grind my axes fairly. I DO feel that AA does a lot more harm than good and would like to think i'd feel the same way if I hadn't been in the program.
I know this girl I was in program with. Before the program, she never drank, never smoked cigarettes (much less pot), never did drugs. She was there for issues unrelated to substances. Well. Very shortly after leaving the program, she was shooting meth. Was it the program's abusive nature or the concept of powerlessness instilled by the program that caused that? Don't know for sure, but it's probably a combination of both. Like I said. Horse shit and gasoline.
Either way... Even if AA worked, it would still be illegal and unethical to force people to attend. It's religious for one, so it violates the establishment clause in the constitution, and it's forced treatment, which, regardless of what anybody says, is re-education. You might say that people aren't "forced" to participate, even though they were forced to attend, but if you've read studies on social influence, you'd realize that, like it or not, people adapt to the perception groups around them, people generally listen to authority, etc etc...
Read work by Cialdini (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#Six_.E2.80.9CWeapons_of_Influence.22), Milgram (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), or check out this thread on how group perception can influence yours to the point where you disbelieve your own objectively correct perceptions:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470#p322195 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470#p322195)
-
Explain that one to Teen Challenge will you?
They know, they just don't give a shit because they think they're right. These types of people believe that the end justifies the means. Always. Teen Challenge, specifically, would like to convert the entire world. They can't, so they do their level best to indoctrinate their court ordered charges. Why wouldn't they? They've got a captive audience and federal dollars. Don't forget that. Y'know.....faith-based 'n all. Treatment, adolescent or adult, is a booming and very profitable business. With W's faith based crap, religious organizations can now legally profit from convincing people they're addicts, whether they actually have a problem or not. The abuse is astounding.
And how many people have been to meetings where someone actually does have the nads to question Bill W. or the AA doctrine, what happens? Seriously. How is that generally handled? In my experience it's usually some form of the deadinsaneorinjail lecture (remember, they're "surely signing their own death warrant") accompanied by the self-assured snickers of the 'old timers' reassuring themselves with comments of how so-and-so will be back when he "hits bottom". And they do it with such dripping, condescending "support" (like the 'love yas' in group). Basic tactics of thought reform and behavior modification. Scare the shit out of them, create an environment of 'groupthink', then bring it on home with the 'love-bombing'. It's a brilliant strategy. And it works, unfortunately.
-
This is like the scientologist scientists who wanted to prove dianetics worked, and ended up accidentally proving it to be bullshit (and getting labeled suppressive persons as a result).
AA also teaches "nobody can do it alone". LOL. Well despite that claim a Harvard study states that most people quit on their own
The irony, of course, in your impassioned plea against AA, is you sound just like a Scientologist going on about the dangers of psychiatric medicine and medications. They believe the same things as you. Only directed at the psychiatric illness theory, instead of the addiction theory. You both believe that instead of biological reasons, these disorders are caused solely by a character flaw, that can be overcome by will power alone. Scientology believes that cure for mental illness doesn't work, and harms people. You believe the same about AA.
Maybe you can explain why the disease model of addiction is any different than say, the disease model of depression. They are both subjective to only what the patient has to say to the doctor, there is no blood test for addiction or depression. Both are treated with medication, and therapy, usually by the same doctors even. So what really is the difference?
I've taken anti-depressants before. In my opinion, they do absolutely nothing. They are placebos as far as I am concerned. Studies show only a small portion of people get better taking psychiatric meds. This is the same claim made against AA in this thread.
I will never again waste my time going to a psychiatrist and ask for meds. I believe they are more fraudulent than AA is, and they can diagnose just about anyone with a mental illness. The difference between psychiatry and AA is one of them has built a multi-billion dollar industry based on their psuedo-science, while the other remains a grass-roots, community oriented non-profit.
If you go to a psychiatrist and are completely honest with them, they will diagnose you with something. According to them it would seem that being a human being with passionate feelings is a mental illness in of itself. They will prescribe hundreds of dollars per month worth of medications that do nothing (other than inducing horrible side effects). All of this based on a theory that your "brain chemicals" are "unbalanced" and their medication had a 30% success rate in trials. They give you a prescription, send you on your way, and expect everything to magically get better. Or maybe they are just trying to medicate everyone into a walking zombie, so nobody really cares what is going on anymore.
Take a look at this paragraph. All I had to do was change a couple words around, and I could use Psy's statement to criticize psychiatry:
That's one way of putting it. The way I view it is that Psychiatry gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions and feelings were outside their control (powerlessness concept). Let go and let the meds work! Yes! Works about as well with a steering wheel. People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless
By claiming AA is tainted because a bastardized version of it is used in programs, you open yourself up to the argument that therapy, and psychiatry are also tainted, because they are also utilized services within programs. I saw a "therapist" in the program, but it's not what one would experience if paying for therapy as a free person. I received "psychiatric treatment" while locked up, but again, this is not the same as it would be if I went as a free person and voluntarily sought out a trusted psychiatrist I felt comfortable with. We can go on and on about how dangerous AA is because programs use it, but then we will also have to include any and all services provided in programs as similarly tainted. I cannot make that leap myself, and having experienced these various organizations and treatments as a prisoner, and free person, I know how different they are.
I find it hard to understand how someone who has put their faith in psychiatry can be so anti-AA. Psy, I read that you taking medication for depression a while back. That means you must be seeing a psychiatrist. What if I were to say how outraged I am that a survivor would dare return to treatment and defend a pseudo-science such as medication therapy. That's what it sounds like when you say you are saddened anyone would dare defend AA. You have accepted the mental illness biological argument, but refuse the addiction biological argument. That makes absolutely no sense to me. If you reject AA for being anecdotally based psuedo-science, and tainted for having been used in a program, you must also reject psychiatry for the very same reasons.
Both the anti-AA and anti-psychiatry people want people to accept their disorders as personal, self-induced, character flaws. Like an earlier posters said, alcoholics were once treated this way and ashamed to ask for help. It also used to be this way with mental illness. Now both are recognized for the medical disorders they are, and proper treatment can be provided. People with serious addiction problems don't just go to AA, they go to medically based rehab centers. Guess what? AA is in those places, run by doctors and psychiatrists and professionals too. If your mental problems are serious enough, the same treatment is available. If it were up to the anti-AA and anti-psychiatrist people, no help would be provided, these people would be stigmatized to the point where suffering in the dark is the only option. Well that, or suicide. I think we have made progress as a society addressing these issues. Even though I didn't have the best of luck with psychiatry, it seems to work for other people,and I can leave well enough alone. Why not respect AA in the same way?
-
I find both AA and a good bit of the psychiatric industry harmful. Depression is not a disease, nor is addiction. If you go to an AA meeting and are completely honest with them, they WILL dx you as an alcoholic. And if you, ahem, deny it then you are what........? C'mon....say it with me now........IN DENIAL and it's a 'symptom of your disease'. What complete and utter bullshit.
-
That's one way of putting it. The way I view it is that Psychiatry gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions and feelings were outside their control (powerlessness concept). Let go and let the meds work! Yes! Works about as well with a steering wheel. People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless
Wrong. Psychiatry and CBT actually do attempt to 'get to the root' of the problem. Very often this is a combination of dealing with nature AND nurture AND our own selfish, immature actions.
-
Look, I don't have a problem with people thinking AA works for them. That's obviously their right. What chaps my ass is the original poster having the fucking BALLS to insist that we not even discuss the similarities. For fear of preventing someone from seeking help. I have no problem with people seeking help. I just think they have a right to informed consent. And I hope this conversation DOES steer people away from AA, as I believe it to be harmful.
-
Opie,
I never said charachter flaws (though AA does say "defects of charachter"), I never said "sin". I never said anything like that. I said that people choose to put what they want in their bodies. They shouldn't be condemned for those choices any more than they are absolved for their actions under the influence of substances.
Quit trying to change the subject to psychiatry since you don't' want to discuss AA's dismal rate of failure. Did the place I was in employ therapy? No. Lots of ex-con junkies with "real world experience", yes, but no therapists. They called it therapy, yes, but it wasn't therapy. I have been to a shrink. I used to talk to one fairly regularly on a weekly basis until earlier this year when I tired of it. Did he diagnose me with anything? No. Not at all.
In AA, on the other hand, or in a program, Denial, as the above guest notes is a symptom of the "disease". So basically if you accept you're an alcholic, you're an alcoholic and if you deny it, that's further evidence you're an alcoholic. LOL. It's witch dunking all over again. If the woman drowns, she wasn't a witch. If she lives, she's a witch, so burn her. Either way, if you get accused of being a witch, you're fucked. It would be comical if the groupers didn't truly believe the shit they were shoveling.
Sure some of that exists in psychiatry as well. Is our society over-medicated? For sure it is. Does psychiatric medicine also help some? Yup, it does, but that's besides the point. I am against forced drugging just as much as I am against forced treatment of any kind. I believe a person owns his own body and NOBODY has a right to infringe on that sovereignty, no matter how well meaning. Do I take Prozac? Yes. It's my personal choice. So what. Do I put faith in it? Not necessarily at all. If I could take back the clock I would have probably never gone on it at all. Now I am in a situation where if I go off it I have severe withdraws (been on since 13).
All that being said, Psychiatry and Psychology is based on science. AA is not and it does not work. It has been proven not to work by it's own supporters (see the Vaillant study at Harvard). In fact, it causes more harm than no treatment at all (binge increasing). If I know somebody who has a drinking / drug problem who asks for help I tell them to choose anything but AA (and why). Statistically, they're better off on their own. If they need support, "suffering in the dark" is not necessary. There are many other support groups, and therapists who deal with addictions (who do not subscribe to AA's disease concept). The AA concept that "only an X knows an X" is just to sucker more people into meetings. Often talking to a friend, finding new activities, etc, can help to break existing habits (not diseases). If Alcholism were truly an incurable progressive disease as AA holds, people would not recovery without it, yet that happens every day. AA is full of lies, mistruths, and fundamentist assertions of having the "only way", "inspired by god", etc... As penn and teller said (about AA too), it's BULLSHIT.
Here. Read a book by stanton peele (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html).
Diseasing of America - How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
Read that chapter. It might enlighten your viewpoint on this a little.
-
Here's an alternative to AA that might be interesting to those that feel they need help. I like that they teach self-reliance, rather than learned powerlessness.
http://www.smartrecovery.org/intro/index.htm (http://www.smartrecovery.org/intro/index.htm)
Our Approach
* Teaches self-empowerment and self-reliance. as opposed to self doubt and powerlessness
* Works on addictions/compulsions as complex maladaptive behaviors with possible physiological factors. as opposed to an undiagnosable 'disease'
* Teaches tools and techniques for self-directed change. as opposed to turning your will over or groupthink or living according to the Bibl.....I mean Big Book/12 & 12
* Encourages individuals to recover and live satisfying lives. as opposed to being sentenced to a lifetime of meetings that for some take over their entire lives. (90 meetings/90 days; keep coming back; old-timers there for 20+ years)
* Meetings are educational and include open discussions. as opposed to the rejection of critical thinking in AA (let go and let god; your best thinking got you here; etc.)
* Advocates the appropriate use of prescribed medications and psychological treatments. as opposed to many meetings and sponsors that encourage subjects to reject their medications.
* Evolves as scientific knowledge evolves. do I really need to say anything here?
* Differs from Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and traditional 12-step programs. Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!
-
Another.
http://www.rational.org/faq.html (http://www.rational.org/faq.html)
What is Rational Recovery®?
Rational Recovery® is the exclusive, worldwide source of counseling, guidance, and direct instruction on self-recovery from addiction to alcohol and other drugs through planned, permanent abstinence. We use an exclusive method, AVRT®, which is by far the most cost-effective, dignified approach of all.
What is AVRT®?
Addictive Voice Recognition Technique® (AVRT®), is the lore of self-recovery from addiction to alcohol and other drugs, without the use of groups, shrinks, or rehabs. Many visitors to this website have recovered using The Crash Course on AVRT. In fact, AVRT is based upon the common thread of success as described to us by thousands of self-recovered people.
It is a comprehensive remedy for addiction, allowing addicted people to fully recover in as short a time as they like, without regard to age of onset, the substance of choice, previous unsuccessful attempts at recovery, and the existence of other personal problems. AVRT-based recovery is nothing more or less than secure, permanent abstinence.
AVRT is simple, quick, and easy so much so, that it may seem "too good to be true." That objection, of course, is an example of the Addictive Voice, because it supports continued addiction. The definition of the Addictive Voice is, any thinking that supports or suggests the possible future use of alcohol and other drugs. Any contradiction of a personal commitment to permanent abstinence is the Addictive Voice. Simple, isn't it? AVRT is powerfully simple!
Where is the nearest Rational Recovery meeting?
Be glad there are no Rational Recovery groups, anywhere! In AVRT-based recovery, you are on your own. AVRT is incompatible with the group format, and contradicts practically every concept presented in recovery groups. We believe strongly that your desire to attend recovery groups is couched in the belief that you will relapse if you do not attend meetings. In AVRT-based recovery, you will quickly recognize that self-doubt as an example of your Addictive Voice. Then, you will not want to congregate with others who would reinforce that crippling, dependent belief.
Meet Your Rational Recovery Sponsor,
who will never let you down...
http://www.rational.org/img/sitemap_pages/sponsor.gif (http://www.rational.org/img/sitemap_pages/sponsor.gif)
-
Opie,
I never said charachter flaws (though AA does say "defects of charachter"), I never said "sin". I never said anything like that. I said that people choose to put what they want in their bodies. They shouldn't be condemned for those choices any more than they are absolved for their actions under the influence of substances.
People get physically addicted to the chemicals they are putting in their bodies. In the beginning it might be a choice, but after a while it is no longer a choice. If you think depression is bad, try withdrawing from opiates and it's derivatives. Try withdrawing from a serious alcohol addiction, that can kill you, if not done with the help of medical professionals. Not everybody has health insurance, or can afford to go to a medical rehab. That's where AA comes in. All it is, is a meeting place for like minded people. The only thing they have in common, is they want to stop using alcohol or drugs. People who have been through it want to help others do it too. I mean, it's not that complicated. I don't need to read books and studies to know what's going on. I've been through it all myself and form my opinions based on that.
By saying addicts and alcoholics are choosing to be that way is the same thing as saying people choose the way they feel. You are choosing to be depressed. You are choosing to be anxious. You are choosing to have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Nobody would ever choose to be an alcoholic or an addict. It can happen to anyone. I know that makes some people feel uncomfortable. They want to think they are fully in control. Well, if you abstain from additive drugs altogether you might avoid it. But it's clear, out of the majority of people who can drink and use without being addicted, a certain portion will become addicted. That's a fact.
Quit trying to change the subject to psychiatry since you don't' want to discuss AA's dismal rate of failure.
If anything, the failure rate proves the biological disease model of addiction. Some people seem to have more problems than others with alcohol and drugs. Consider yourself lucky, you are in the large majority who are able to handle drugs and alcohol responsibly. It doesn't give you the right, however, to tell those who do have a problem with it how they should handle themselves. By telling them it's a choice, you are telling them they are a stupid person, because they make bad choices every day. It's a horrible way of dealing with addiction. The person who explained why AA came about in the first place described it best, how alcoholics were marginalized and shamed in the past. You want to return to that old way, I think that's a mistake.
Did the place I was in employ therapy? No. Lots of ex-con junkies with "real world experience", yes, but no therapists. They called it therapy, yes, but it wasn't therapy.
Just like AA in programs, is not the AA a free person would see. Why don't you hold therapy accountable for the program version of therapy? This is something I do not understand.
I have been to a shrink. I used to talk to one fairly regularly on a weekly basis until earlier this year when I tired of it. Did he diagnose me with anything? No. Not at all.
In AA, on the other hand, or in a program, Denial, as the above guest notes is a symptom of the "disease". So basically if you accept you're an alcholic, you're an alcoholic and if you deny it, that's further evidence you're an alcoholic. LOL. It's witch dunking all over again. If the woman drowns, she wasn't a witch. If she lives, she's a witch, so burn her. Either way, if you get accused of being a witch, you're fucked. It would be comical if the groupers didn't truly believe the shit they were shoveling.
I think it's natural for people to assume people in an AA meeting are alcoholics. If you aren't an alcoholic or addict, then walk out of the AA meeting. If it makes you uncomfortable in any way, leave. If you want to, try going to another meeting. Or don't, nobody else will try to stop you. I've never seen bars on the windows of AA meetings. I've never seen anyone restrained in an AA meeting. I've never seen thugs standing at the door watching guard. I've never seen people forced to share in an AA meeting. I've never anything remotely program like in an AA meeting, as a matter of fact. This is why when you claim AA and programs are the same, I shake my head in confusion. I wish I was in a program in some way similar to AA, what an easy time that would of been. Free coffee and donuts, cigarettes, nice people, free will to go as I please, optional group sharing. Please, sign me up for that program.
Sure some of that exists in psychiatry as well. Is our society over-medicated? For sure it is. Does psychiatric medicine also help some? Yup, it does, but that's besides the point.
This is also true of AA. You just can't see that for some reason. Anyone who suggests this same fact as you just did in relation to AA, is uneducated, brainwashed sheep, and need to read a chapter of a book and studies to enlighten them. Scientologists will quote studies about how dismal the rate of success is with medication, and ask you to read their literature. I wish you could see how similar you sound to them, it's scary almost. Why can't you acknowledge that AA helps some people, usually the people who need it most?
I am against forced drugging just as much as I am against forced treatment of any kind. I believe a person owns his own body and NOBODY has a right to infringe on that sovereignty, no matter how well meaning.
Nobody has ever been forced to attend AA in the history of the organization. If you are talking about the slim portion of attendees who are court ordered, well that is also an option. They are not dragged into a meeting in handcuffs and forced to sit there. If that were true, then yes I would say it was program like. People are offered this as an alternative to other forms of punishment. Take it up with the justice system if you don't like their way of doing business. It has nothing to do with AA. AA did not lobby the criminal justice system to force people to attend, they do not get paid by how many people attend.
Do I take Prozac? Yes. It's my personal choice. So what. Do I put faith in it? Not necessarily at all. If I could take back the clock I would have probably never gone on it at all. Now I am in a situation where if I go off it I have severe withdraws (been on since 13).
Going to AA is a personal choice. Going to meetings might help people, just like some people think medication helps them. It's no different. If you think medication helps you that's great. Imagine if I was some scientologist who quoted you my literature, and suggested you are ignorant to what you are doing to yourself, and said how sad it is that a survivor would use psychiatry since programs use it (remember kids are abused in psychiatric hospitals too). I would sound like an arrogant extremist, unwilling to even acknowledge that some people might, in fact, be helped by taking medication. I am able to acknowledge that the abusive, coercive psychiatry that goes on in some hospitals is not the same as voluntary, individualized treatment as a free person. Why cannot you acknowledge the same about AA?
All that being said, Psychiatry and Psychology is based on science. AA is not and it does not work. It has been proven not to work by it's own supporters (see the Vaillant study at Harvard). In fact, it causes more harm than no treatment at all (binge increasing). If I know somebody who has a drinking / drug problem who asks for help I tell them to choose anything but AA (and why). Statistically, they're better off on their own. If they need support, "suffering in the dark" is not necessary.
Do you really believe that AA helps no people at all, and actually makes 100% of it's attendees addiction's worse? If you do believe that, then go to a few AA meetings and you can see with your own eyes that is not true. I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it. I'm sure it doesn't work for everyone. They can leave, and search for an alternative that will help them.
There are many other support groups, and therapists who deal with addictions (who do not subscribe to AA's disease concept). The AA concept that "only an X knows an X" is just to sucker more people into meetings. Often talking to a friend, finding new activities, etc, can help to break existing habits (not diseases).
If those meetings worked so well, why is AA so much more popular? People are free to choose what type of support they want. Bad mouthing one option, and propping up another is not the business I am in. I think people are intelligent enough for themselves to figure it out. If they don't like it, they can leave after 30 seconds. I don't see what the big deal is. Not everybody can afford to go to therapists.
If Alcholism were truly an incurable progressive disease as AA holds, people would not recovery without it, yet that happens every day.
Good for them. If they want they don't have to attend AA meetings. It's a free choice. They can go to the AA alternatives you describe. The whole point is to help people get sober. Some people are tempted for the rest of their lives to pick up the bottle when times are tough, so they feel the need to stay in recovery. I would say it's more like going into remission, than a cure, since it's always possible to relapse and become fully addicted again. People that know they have the potential to become addicted again want to try and avoid it, I don't see what's wrong with that. People relapse, get worse and sometimes die of alcoholism or drug overdose. I don't see the point of opposing a self help group made of people who want to avoid this result. What's the point of opposing it?
AA is full of lies, mistruths, and fundamentist assertions of having the "only way", "inspired by god", etc... As penn and teller said (about AA too), it's BULLSHIT.
Well if a couple of magicians say something, it's got to be true then. Have you read the AA and NA big books? All it is, is stories by people who were addicted to alcohol and drugs and what helped them recover. What is so offensive about the concept of God? They don't even call it God, they call it a Higher Power. I think that term is inclusive, and the meetings I've been to always make sure to add "and those who don't believe in a God". It's not a religious organization. It has one purpose, to help people get sober and stay sober.
Here. Read a book by stanton peele (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html).
Diseasing of America - How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
Read that chapter. It might enlighten your viewpoint on this a little.
I'm not going to read this, I have no reason to.
My viewpoints are very simple actually. I think AA helps some people get sober and stay sober. I also think that AA is nothing like abusive programs. I think by comparing the two, it minimizes what really goes inside of abusive programs, to an offensive degree. That's it, I don't hold a very complicated set of beliefs here. I think it's common sense, based on what I've seen. Blurring the lines between the coercion and abuse inside of programs, with organizations such as AA, is dishonest, and I cannot take part in it. Nothing I have ever experienced in the "free world" compares to what goes on inside of a program. Nothing.
-
If you outright refuse to read what I have to offer (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html), there is really no point in continuing a debate with you. Your mind is not open at all. The chapter of the book I linked you to addresses most, if not all of your arguments. It would be redundant of me to go around in circles with you arguing what Peele and other researchers already have. I have read everything you have had to offer me. If you're not going to offer me the same courtousy, there is no point continuing this discussion.
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but I kept an open mind, read Peele, read schaler, etc... and I changed my mind. All you're demonstrating here is that you will fanatically defend a point without considering evidence to contradict your faith.
I will answer a few points that aren't in the above article, however. First off. I'm not equating programs and AA. I'm comparing the two. Even Peele talks about Synanon confrontational therapy in relation to institutional AA (he also discusses it's harm). Is he nuts too? (he addresses that point also, noting that those who critize AA or it's disease concept are... attacked, for lack of a better term).
Does AA help people? Statistically, no. You say some people are helped by AA. What you're really saying is that some people are better after joining AA. The part you're leaving out is whether or not they wouldn't have improved with no treatment at all (post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this because of this). Statistically, the odds are about even, even by Vaillant's studies (AA World services trustee). You're leaving out the control group and relying exclusively on anecdotal evidence. I will not acknowledge what is not backed up by fact or hard evidence or what is flat out bullshit. Let me offer you the same ultimatum I offer the program reps: you say it works? Prove it!
"Nobody has ever been forced to attend AA in the history of the organization. If you are talking about the slim portion of attendees who are court ordered, well that is also an option."
LOLOLOOLOLOLOLL!O!L!
Slim portion? Try over 60% of AA's current membership who are either introduced to AA by either the health care or criminal justice systems. (AA Grapevine newsletter, November 2002)
"AA did not lobby the criminal justice system to force people to attend,"
LOL! Oh yes they fuckin did! Hazelden's little red book states this specifically, in ways AA members can "carry the message":
"By telling the A.A. story to clergy members, doctors, judges, educators, employers, or police officials if we know them well enough to further the A.A. cause, or to help out a fellow member.
The Little Red Book, Hazelden, page 128."
Do you really believe that AA helps no people at all, and actually makes 100% of it's attendees addiction's worse? If you do believe that, then go to a few AA meetings and you can see with your own eyes that is not true.
Been there, seen that, got the t-shirt.
I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it.
That speaks volumes ("FUCK THE EVIDENCE.. I KNOW WHAT IS THE TRUTH. BILL WILSON'S WRITINGS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD! AWAY SATAN! AWAY STINKING THINKING! AWAY DEVIL DRINK!")
Now you've finally admitted you're a grouper, I can understand why you won't consider any evidence contradicting your faith. Well... Faith without reason is blind. If you choose to ignore any evidence other than what you want to see, you're not living in reality and that's very clear to anybody viewing this discussion from a neutral standpoint.
-
Not having experienced AA, I don't have the same feeling some people here have for it (not to downplay anyone else's take on it or anything).
That being said, i have grown to hate these "AA debates"; I find them tiresome and repetitive.....and rather pointless.
Perhaps these discussions are worse than AA itself? :D
-
This is like the scientologist scientists who wanted to prove dianetics worked, and ended up accidentally proving it to be bullshit (and getting labeled suppressive persons as a result).
AA also teaches "nobody can do it alone". LOL. Well despite that claim a Harvard study states that most people quit on their own
The irony, of course, in your impassioned plea against AA, is you sound just like a Scientologist going on about the dangers of psychiatric medicine and medications. They believe the same things as you. Only directed at the psychiatric illness theory, instead of the addiction theory. You both believe that instead of biological reasons, these disorders are caused solely by a character flaw, that can be overcome by will power alone. Scientology believes that cure for mental illness doesn't work, and harms people. You believe the same about AA.
Maybe you can explain why the disease model of addiction is any different than say, the disease model of depression. They are both subjective to only what the patient has to say to the doctor, there is no blood test for addiction or depression. Both are treated with medication, and therapy, usually by the same doctors even. So what really is the difference?
I've taken anti-depressants before. In my opinion, they do absolutely nothing. They are placebos as far as I am concerned. Studies show only a small portion of people get better taking psychiatric meds. This is the same claim made against AA in this thread.
I will never again waste my time going to a psychiatrist and ask for meds. I believe they are more fraudulent than AA is, and they can diagnose just about anyone with a mental illness. The difference between psychiatry and AA is one of them has built a multi-billion dollar industry based on their psuedo-science, while the other remains a grass-roots, community oriented non-profit.
If you go to a psychiatrist and are completely honest with them, they will diagnose you with something. According to them it would seem that being a human being with passionate feelings is a mental illness in of itself. They will prescribe hundreds of dollars per month worth of medications that do nothing (other than inducing horrible side effects). All of this based on a theory that your "brain chemicals" are "unbalanced" and their medication had a 30% success rate in trials. They give you a prescription, send you on your way, and expect everything to magically get better. Or maybe they are just trying to medicate everyone into a walking zombie, so nobody really cares what is going on anymore.
Take a look at this paragraph. All I had to do was change a couple words around, and I could use Psy's statement to criticize psychiatry:
That's one way of putting it. The way I view it is that Psychiatry gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions and feelings were outside their control (powerlessness concept). Let go and let the meds work! Yes! Works about as well with a steering wheel. People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless
By claiming AA is tainted because a bastardized version of it is used in programs, you open yourself up to the argument that therapy, and psychiatry are also tainted, because they are also utilized services within programs. I saw a "therapist" in the program, but it's not what one would experience if paying for therapy as a free person. I received "psychiatric treatment" while locked up, but again, this is not the same as it would be if I went as a free person and voluntarily sought out a trusted psychiatrist I felt comfortable with. We can go on and on about how dangerous AA is because programs use it, but then we will also have to include any and all services provided in programs as similarly tainted. I cannot make that leap myself, and having experienced these various organizations and treatments as a prisoner, and free person, I know how different they are.
I find it hard to understand how someone who has put their faith in psychiatry can be so anti-AA. Psy, I read that you taking medication for depression a while back. That means you must be seeing a psychiatrist. What if I were to say how outraged I am that a survivor would dare return to treatment and defend a pseudo-science such as medication therapy. That's what it sounds like when you say you are saddened anyone would dare defend AA. You have accepted the mental illness biological argument, but refuse the addiction biological argument. That makes absolutely no sense to me. If you reject AA for being anecdotally based psuedo-science, and tainted for having been used in a program, you must also reject psychiatry for the very same reasons.
Both the anti-AA and anti-psychiatry people want people to accept their disorders as personal, self-induced, character flaws. Like an earlier posters said, alcoholics were once treated this way and ashamed to ask for help. It also used to be this way with mental illness. Now both are recognized for the medical disorders they are, and proper treatment can be provided. People with serious addiction problems don't just go to AA, they go to medically based rehab centers. Guess what? AA is in those places, run by doctors and psychiatrists and professionals too. If your mental problems are serious enough, the same treatment is available. If it were up to the anti-AA and anti-psychiatrist people, no help would be provided, these people would be stigmatized to the point where suffering in the dark is the only option. Well that, or suicide. I think we have made progress as a society addressing these issues. Even though I didn't have the best of luck with psychiatry, it seems to work for other people,and I can leave well enough alone. Why not respect AA in the same way?
i agree. its quite ridiculous. i don't like the selective acceptance of scientific studies on A.A, either.
Scientifically, at most, you can fairly say there is evidence for and against A.A., you cannot say there is no evidence it works. There is.
And programs use a "bastardized version of A.A." therefore A.A's a cult? Programs use a bastardized form of human interaction, excersize, clenlieness therapy...therefore all of these things are bad, and a cult? that black/white absurdity here is hard to take. Thank you for defending common sense.
-
A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
Here is a "neutral" take on Valient's work, from wiki:
George Vaillant
[6] In the sample of 100 severe alcoholics from his clinic, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who eventually achieved sobriety attended 300 or more AA meetings,[7] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[8] In the sample of 465 men who grew up in Boston's inner city, the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed[9] Vaillant's research and literature surveys revealed growing indirect evidence that AA is an effective treatment for alcohol abuse, partly because it is a cheap, community-based fellowship with easy access.[10] Although AA is not a magic bullet for every alcoholic, in that there were a few men who attended AA for scores of meetings without improvement, good clinical outcomes correlated with frequency of AA attendance, having a sponsor, engaging in a Twelve-Step work, and leading meetings. Vaillant concluded that AA appears equal or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism and that skepticism of some professionals regarding AA as an effective treatment for alcoholism is unwarranted.[11] However, he also notes that the “effectiveness of AA has not been adequately assessed”[12] and that “direct evidence for the efficacy of AA... remains as elusive as ever.[13] For example, if an alcoholic achieves sobriety during AA attendance, who is to say if AA helped or if he merely went to AA when he was ready to heal?[14][15]
-
>YAWN<
-
Fuck you castle..
I thought you meant potato chips..
ASSHOLE!
:tup:
Speaking of words that mean many types of stuff...
I personally think that anniversary chips at gamblers anonymous meetings should be casino chips... real casino chips. the longer you've been "sober", the higher the value. (Kinda like "letting it ride") When you're ready to go back to your nefarious gambling ways, you literally "cash out".
-
A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
Here is a "neutral" take on Valient's work, from wiki:
George Vaillant
[6] In the sample of 100 severe alcoholics from his clinic, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who eventually achieved sobriety attended 300 or more AA meetings,[7] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[8] In the sample of 465 men who grew up in Boston's inner city, the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed[9] Vaillant's research and literature surveys revealed growing indirect evidence that AA is an effective treatment for alcohol abuse, partly because it is a cheap, community-based fellowship with easy access.[10] Although AA is not a magic bullet for every alcoholic, in that there were a few men who attended AA for scores of meetings without improvement, good clinical outcomes correlated with frequency of AA attendance, having a sponsor, engaging in a Twelve-Step work, and leading meetings. Vaillant concluded that AA appears equal or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism and that skepticism of some professionals regarding AA as an effective treatment for alcoholism is unwarranted.[11] However, he also notes that the “effectiveness of AA has not been adequately assessed”[12] and that “direct evidence for the efficacy of AA... remains as elusive as ever.[13] For example, if an alcoholic achieves sobriety during AA attendance, who is to say if AA helped or if he merely went to AA when he was ready to heal?[14][15]
Admit it. You're afraid to read Peele's work (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html). You're frightened your perspective of what is "true" will be shattered. Maybe in your view your "sobriety" depends on it. In that case you are a slave and you don't even know it. Maybe if you admitted it wasn't the disease, you would have to take responsibility for all those bad things you did. Could you handle the guilt? Can you face what is true or are you content to live a lie. Who is in denial now? You think you're free? You're afraid to read a chapter out of a book (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html), picking and choosing what you want to see.
-
A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
Here is a "neutral" take on Valient's work, from wiki:
George Vaillant
[6] In the sample of 100 severe alcoholics from his clinic, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who eventually achieved sobriety attended 300 or more AA meetings,[7] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[8] In the sample of 465 men who grew up in Boston's inner city, the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed[9] Vaillant's research and literature surveys revealed growing indirect evidence that AA is an effective treatment for alcohol abuse, partly because it is a cheap, community-based fellowship with easy access.[10] Although AA is not a magic bullet for every alcoholic, in that there were a few men who attended AA for scores of meetings without improvement, good clinical outcomes correlated with frequency of AA attendance, having a sponsor, engaging in a Twelve-Step work, and leading meetings. Vaillant concluded that AA appears equal or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism and that skepticism of some professionals regarding AA as an effective treatment for alcoholism is unwarranted.[11] However, he also notes that the “effectiveness of AA has not been adequately assessed”[12] and that “direct evidence for the efficacy of AA... remains as elusive as ever.[13] For example, if an alcoholic achieves sobriety during AA attendance, who is to say if AA helped or if he merely went to AA when he was ready to heal?[14][15]
Admit it. You're afraid to read Peele's work (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html). You're frightened your perspective of what is "true" will be shattered. Maybe in your view your "sobriety" depends on it. In that case you are a slave and you don't even know it. Maybe if you admitted it wasn't the disease, you would have to take responsibility for all those bad things you did. Could you handle the guilt? Can you face what is true or are you content to live a lie. Who is in denial now? You think you're free? You're afraid to read a chapter out of a book (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html), picking and choosing what you want to see.
lol. I assume that's a joke? or a "trolling"? What program were you in, friend?
-
Does AA help people? Statistically, no. You say some people are helped by AA. What you're really saying is that some people are better after joining AA. The part you're leaving out is whether or not they wouldn't have improved with no treatment at all (post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this because of this). Statistically, the odds are about even, even by Vaillant's studies (AA World services trustee). You're leaving out the control group and relying exclusively on anecdotal evidence. I will not acknowledge what is not backed up by fact or hard evidence or what is flat out bullshit. Let me offer you the same ultimatum I offer the program reps: you say it works? Prove it!
You can quote me all the studies and websites you want. I formed my opinions based on my own real life experiences. Nothing I read about it is going to change this. To me AA is not a theoretical statistic, it's a group of people. Regular people that you make friends with and get to know and care about.
You refuse to admit that some people are helped by AA. I don't know how you can reconcile the sheer size and magnitude of AA, and claim that it has not helped a single person get sober and stay sober. It obviously works for some people, it seems to work for a lot of people. You seem unable to admit this for some reason. You think everyone involved is somehow deluded, or brainwashed.
You ask for proof, well what comes into my mind is people I've known who said it helped them. I've seen them sober, and when they are not sober, and yes it is a huge improvement for them to get their lives together. If they want to attribute it to AA, who am I to tell them otherwise. You want to discount real people's experiences because you disagree with their choice. The proof is the fact they continue to exist, and people still go to meetings. AA could end tomorrow if people stopped going, but they continue to grow and attract people. Many other addictive groups like gambling anonymous have taken the AA model because they think it works.
Tell me psy, are you going to claim that not one person in any "anonymous" self help group, has ever been helped?
You really have crossed the line into extremism at this point, in your inability to empathize with opposing viewpoints is striking.
I found psychiatry and medication therapy to be a very unpleasant experience. I would even say abusive. Yet I can also freely admit that it helps some people, usually the people who need it the most. It doesn't help me, that's why I don't take medication or go to a psychiatrist. To the people who find it helpful, I'm happy for them. I'm glad they found something that works for them. As of now, there is no pill to solve the self destructive impulse of drug and alcohol addiction. Until then, some people find it useful to talk to others in a similar situation, and who have gone through what they are going through. I don't see why anybody would have a problem with that.
If you're only issue with AA is that it isn't effective, well then you are going to have to start opposing a lot of various organizations. Try religion, corporations, government and social causes for a start. Lots of ineffectiveness to go around in all aspects of life.If people that struggle with alcohol or drug addiction want to congregate, help each other the best way they can, what's the harm in that. I really fail to understand the passionate opposition to AA here. It just doesn't make sense, from a logical point of view.
That speaks volumes ("FUCK THE EVIDENCE.. I KNOW WHAT IS THE TRUTH. BILL WILSON'S WRITINGS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD! AWAY SATAN! AWAY STINKING THINKING! AWAY DEVIL DRINK!")
Now you've finally admitted you're a grouper, I can understand why you won't consider any evidence contradicting your faith. Well... Faith without reason is blind. If you choose to ignore any evidence other than what you want to see, you're not living in reality and that's very clear to anybody viewing this discussion from a neutral standpoint.
Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with the term grouper. Is that some sort of slang to refer to people who have attended AA meetings? Yes, God strike me down, I have attended AA meetings. But I don't go anymore. I have no membership card, pay any dues, or display the bumper sticker. I am no longer addicted to anything and have no reason to go. But at least I know, if I became that desperate again and needed to reach out to somebody, I know where to go.
I choose not to read your links and studies because I already know everything I need to know. I've been to AA, and know many others who have been too. I've been through a program and psychiatric treatment. I base my views on my own experiences with these organizations, not what I read on the internet. To me AA is real people, not statistics.
AA is not for everyone, and it should never be forced upon anyone. I'm sure many people find it non-helpful. But may also find it helpful. But there are some people who do find it helpful, and I'm surprised that you cannot admit this basic fact.
"AA works for some people" is not a radical statement. It's freakin' common sense. Psy, you have seriously lost touch.
-
People get physically addicted to the chemicals they are putting in their bodies. In the beginning it might be a choice, but after a while it is no longer a choice.
For some yes, but not all.
If you think depression is bad, try withdrawing from opiates and it's derivatives.
I have
. Not everybody has health insurance, or can afford to go to a medical rehab. That's where AA comes in. All it is, is a meeting place for like minded people. The only thing they have in common, is they want to stop using alcohol or drugs. People who have been through it want to help others do it too. I mean, it's not that complicated.
Yes, but AA is not "the" solution. It breeds dependence and self doubt. Most AAers will tell you that to maintain their sobriety the must continually attend meetings. Again, they're "signing their own death warrant" if they leave. That's simply not true and a dangerous set-up.
I don't need to read books and studies to know what's going on. I've been through it all myself and form my opinions based on that.
That's very telling.
By saying addicts and alcoholics are choosing to be that way is the same thing as saying people choose the way they feel. You are choosing to be depressed. You are choosing to be anxious. You are choosing to have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
No, we're not. Not at all. We're saying its not a disease.
I know that makes some people feel uncomfortable. They want to think they are fully in control.
No, its not. But that's typical AA speak. It allows YOU to feel comfortable in your submission to groupthink. We used to get told that in the program too, remember?
Well, if you abstain from additive drugs altogether you might avoid it. But it's clear, out of the majority of people who can drink and use without being addicted, a certain portion will become addicted. That's a fact.
Well, yes but I'm not really sure what your point is. Re-read that sentence.
If anything, the failure rate proves the biological disease model of addiction.
Really? How do you figure that?
Some people seem to have more problems than others with alcohol and drugs. Consider yourself lucky, you are in the large majority who are able to handle drugs and alcohol responsibly. It doesn't give you the right, however, to tell those who do have a problem with it how they should handle themselves.
I don't believe any of us did. That's how AA operates. We are pointing out the dangers of AA and providing alternatives.
By telling them it's a choice, you are telling them they are a stupid person, because they make bad choices every day. It's a horrible way of dealing with addiction. The person who explained why AA came about in the first place described it best, how alcoholics were marginalized and shamed in the past. You want to return to that old way, I think that's a mistake.
You sure do read a lot into things that simply aren't there. No one is saying that.
Just like AA in programs, is not the AA a free person would see. Why don't you hold therapy accountable for the program version of therapy? This is something I do not understand.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you said up there.
I think it's natural for people to assume people in an AA meeting are alcoholics. If you aren't an alcoholic or addict, then walk out of the AA meeting.
You can't be serious. What if someone is questioning themselves or their drinking. That in itself is ALSO considered a symptom, according to every AA meeting I've ever attended. It's a no win situation, just like the denial issue.
If it makes you uncomfortable in any way, leave. If you want to, try going to another meeting. Or don't, nobody else will try to stop you.
Yes, they will. They'll tell you to just "keep coming back, it works if you work it".
I've never seen bars on the windows of AA meetings. I've never seen anyone restrained in an AA meeting. I've never seen thugs standing at the door watching guard. I've never seen people forced to share in an AA meeting.
Coercion and force isn't done just physically. Be honest here. There's a ton of coercion in AA.
I've never anything remotely program like in an AA meeting,
Then you are truly blind.
as a matter of fact. This is why when you claim AA and programs are the same, I shake my head in confusion.
I'm sure you do. We're not saying they're the same. We ARE saying that they're very similar and use similar mental and emotional tactics.
I wish you could see how similar you sound to them, it's scary almost.
I wish you could see how similar you sound to program parents. It IS scary.
Why can't you acknowledge that AA helps some people, usually the people who need it most?
We did. Several times. Why can't you acknowledge that there are, in fact, similarities?
Nobody has ever been forced to attend AA in the history of the organization.
Now that's just a bald (bold? I never did know) faced lie.
If you are talking about the slim portion of attendees who are court ordered, well that is also an option. They are not dragged into a meeting in handcuffs and forced to sit there. If that were true, then yes I would say it was program like. People are offered this as an alternative to other forms of punishment. Take it up with the justice system if you don't like their way of doing business.
And if you can't see the emotional or mental blackmail in that then you are most assuredly the sheep in this scenario.
It has nothing to do with AA. AA did not lobby the criminal justice system to force people to attend, they do not get paid by how many people attend.
My, you are a naive one aren't you?
Going to AA is a personal choice. Going to meetings might help people, just like some people think medication helps them. It's no different. If you think medication helps you that's great.
A lot of medication IS harmful. That's why they come with warning labels. That's what we're doing here. Informed consent. Buyer beware.
I would sound like an arrogant extremist,
You do.
unwilling to even acknowledge that some people might, in fact, be helped by taking medication.
Again, you read a lot into things that aren't there. No one ever said it helped no one. Why do you keep insisting we have?
I am able to acknowledge that the abusive, coercive psychiatry that goes on in some hospitals is not the same as voluntary, individualized treatment as a free person. Why cannot you acknowledge the same about AA?
We haven't said it's the same. We've said they use a lot of the same tactics. Please read for comprehension from now on. This is getting tiresome to have to continually go over this.
Do you really believe that AA helps no people at all, and actually makes 100% of it's attendees addiction's worse?
Where did ANYone say that?
I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it
I know, I know. Why educate yourself? Why look at an opposing point of view? Stick to the groupthink. It seems to be working out well for you.
What critical thinking skills?? :ftard:
. I'm sure it doesn't work for everyone.
Yep, according to Valliant, 95% of them.
They can leave, and search for an alternative that will help them.
But they'll "surely be signing their own death warrant", right? ::)
If those meetings worked so well, why is AA so much more popular?
They've been the only game in town until recently. No one dared question the Great and Powerful Oz until recently.
People are free to choose what type of support they want. Bad mouthing one option, and propping up another is not the business I am in. I think people are intelligent enough for themselves to figure it out. If they don't like it, they can leave after 30 seconds. I don't see what the big deal is. Not everybody can afford to go to therapists.
I am in the business of informed consent. I want people to be aware of the dangers. There are plenty of AA defenders out there. We're but a small, but growing voice of critical thought and reason against tide. Why do AAers gets so angry when anyone levels ANY form of criticism of their beloved program and how familiar does that sound and feel to us all?
Well if a couple of magicians say something, it's got to be true then.
Jeez, it's an opinion. And presented in a hilarious light. All we're saying is to 'question authority' basically. Why are you so worked up about this?
Have you read the AA and NA big books?
Yes, and if you'd really like to we can cite passages. Although I'd suggest moving it to a different thread cuz that would get really boring, but I'll go toe to toe with you. Ready?
All it is, is stories by people who were addicted to alcohol and drugs and what helped them recover.
Ok, now you clearly have NOT read them.
What is so offensive about the concept of God? They don't even call it God, they call it a Higher Power.
It's not offensive. Open your closed mind dear. What's offensive is forcing or coercing the concept on anyone.
It's not a religious organization.
It most certainly is and the courts have ruled so.
I'm not going to read this, I have no reason to.
It absolutely astounds me that people refuse to educate themselves. It's just someone's opinion. Why are you so afraid of hearing opposing points of view?
My viewpoints are very simple actually.
You said it, I didn't. :seg:
I think AA helps some people get sober and stay sober.
So do I.
I also think that AA is nothing like abusive programs. I think by comparing the two, it minimizes what really goes inside of abusive programs, to an offensive degree. That's it, I don't hold a very complicated set of beliefs here.
Oh yes you do.
I think it's common sense, based on what I've seen. Blurring the lines between the coercion and abuse inside of programs, with organizations such as AA, is dishonest, and I cannot take part in it. Nothing I have ever experienced in the "free world" compares to what goes on inside of a program. Nothing.
Ok......some of see it differently.
-
Not having experienced AA, I don't have the same feeling some people here have for it (not to downplay anyone else's take on it or anything).
That being said, i have grown to hate these "AA debates"; I find them tiresome and repetitive.....and rather pointless.
Perhaps these discussions are worse than AA itself? :D
Then skip the thread. It spells out what the subject is right in the title fer crissakes.
;)
-
You can quote me all the studies and websites you want. I formed my opinions based on my own real life experiences. Nothing I read about it is going to change this.
Then I guess there's really no point in continuing to discuss anything, right? That's fine if you can't, just don't tell us that we shouldn't be talking about it or voicing our opinions.
-
You can quote me all the studies and websites you want. I formed my opinions based on my own real life experiences. Nothing I read about it is going to change this.
Then I guess there's really no point in continuing to discuss anything, right? That's fine if you can't, just don't tell us that we shouldn't be talking about it or voicing our opinions.
According to the studies quoted, just a few, easily googled, A.A. has been scientifically corroberated as being helpful. According to project Match, it worked better than all other forms of therapy. Not saying A.A. works. I'm just saying scientifically, A.A. has support for its effectiveness.
I think guest's point is that people can use "statistics" to prove anything they want.
In this case, statistics are selctively dismissed if they that show A.A. is effective, and trumpeted if they show its not. In the G.V. case, his very honest, mixed appraisal of A.A., is misrepresented as being conclusive evidence of A.A.'s ineffectiveness.
-
According to the studies quoted, just a few, easily googled, A.A. has been scientifically corroberated as being helpful. According to project Match, it worked better than all other forms of therapy. Not saying A.A. works. I'm just saying scientifically, A.A. has support for its effectiveness.
I think guest's point is that people can use "statistics" to prove anything they want.
In this case, statistics are selctively dismissed if they that show A.A. is effective, and trumpeted if they show its not. In the G.V. case, his very honest, mixed appraisal of A.A., is misrepresented as being conclusive evidence of A.A.'s ineffectiveness.
So, then what's the problem with reading Peele's site? What are AAers so goddamned afraid of that they can't even entertain an opposing viewpoint? Isn't more information better? ALL sides of it? Knowing the pros AND the cons??
-
But there are some people who do find it helpful, and I'm surprised that you cannot admit this basic fact.
"AA works for some people" is not a radical statement. It's freakin' common sense. Psy, you have seriously lost touch.
I freely admit that some people find it helpful. I can even admit that it might actually have helped some people if you can admit that statistically people are better off without AA. If you want to ignore those inconvenient studies, even those done by AA's supporters, refusing outright to read alternate viewpoints (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html), then... well as Bill W's conscience said, there really is no point to continuing this discussion. You are willfully blind and proud of it. You have your god-revealed truth and damn anybody and anything that contradicts what you "know" to be true.
I'll leave you with this quote by George Vaillant of AA's board of trustees (yes these are his words):
It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic. . ., by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added)53
Source (which you have refused to read since you know the truth):
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
Ps: I <3 you, Bill W.'s Conscience. Love your posting!
-
A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
Here is a "neutral" take on Valient's work, from wiki:
George Vaillant
[6] In the sample of 100 severe alcoholics from his clinic, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who eventually achieved sobriety attended 300 or more AA meetings,[7] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[8] In the sample of 465 men who grew up in Boston's inner city, the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed[9] Vaillant's research and literature surveys revealed growing indirect evidence that AA is an effective treatment for alcohol abuse, partly because it is a cheap, community-based fellowship with easy access.[10] Although AA is not a magic bullet for every alcoholic, in that there were a few men who attended AA for scores of meetings without improvement, good clinical outcomes correlated with frequency of AA attendance, having a sponsor, engaging in a Twelve-Step work, and leading meetings. Vaillant concluded that AA appears equal or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism and that skepticism of some professionals regarding AA as an effective treatment for alcoholism is unwarranted.[11] However, he also notes that the “effectiveness of AA has not been adequately assessed”[12] and that “direct evidence for the efficacy of AA... remains as elusive as ever.[13] For example, if an alcoholic achieves sobriety during AA attendance, who is to say if AA helped or if he merely went to AA when he was ready to heal?[14][15]
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mt5 ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mt5FM0kI_YAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous+wiki+effectiveness+of+alcoholics+anonymous+vaillant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
You are talking to many guests, psy. The above source is wiki, not peele, who has an alternative FOR PROFIT treatment program he is advocating, and quotes Valient out of context, with the FULL findings of his studies omitted. Wiki's abreviation of them is above.
here's some more on Stanton
Yep, Stanton Peele, hates the 12 steps. He wants you to use his “7 tools” instead. http://www.peele.net/7tools/ (http://www.peele.net/7tools/)
• Values
• Motivation
• Rewards
• Resources
• Support
• Maturity
• Higher Goals
http://www.stgregoryctr.com/ (http://www.stgregoryctr.com/)
You can stay at his state of his state of the art Residential Program. Stanton believes that Residential Treatment is an “important part of recovery”
http://www.stgregoryctr.com/ (http://www.stgregoryctr.com/)
“”THE LIFE PROCESS PROGRAM ©
Stanton has now created a pioneering version of the Life Process Program ©, in conjunction solely with the St. Gregory Retreat Center, of Iowa. It is the first nationwide program based on skills, values, self-motivation, and life-long learning. The two-month residential program includes dietary, exercise, meditational-spiritual components as well as the most advanced cognitive-behavioral training in the addiction field.””
The Life Process Program© shows you how to touch base with your values and inventory your resources and assets – the positive things you come with…. This is accomplished through behavior modification training, life-skills exercises and Cognitive Behavior Training (CBT) - all of which I have written exclusively for the St Gregory Retreat Center. That is why I believe that the Life Process Program© is the most advanced addiction-prevention program now available in the U.S."
Peel's services will cost you a lot of money unlike A.A., which is free.
-
And AA has treatment programs too (Hazelden, for example). You could make the same argument of AA. In any case, whether Peele endorses a treatment center is irrelevant to his words on the subject of addiction (which he was writing LONG before he wrote the Life Process program).
Peele also has some interesting things to say on teen treatment, for example, in that article I linked to (which opie refuses to read). We can discuss peele's affiliations in another thread, and most of those questions are answered in his faq:
http://www.peele.net/faq/index.html (http://www.peele.net/faq/index.html)
A good one about a "troubled teen" program:
http://www.peele.net/faq/aasuicide.html (http://www.peele.net/faq/aasuicide.html)
Or the answer to "is my son an alcoholic" question:
http://www.peele.net/faq/son.html (http://www.peele.net/faq/son.html)
-
I freely admit that some people find it helpful. I can even admit that it might actually have helped some people
Don't force yourself. If you don't believe it, don't say it. I think saying "AA helps some people" is true, and can say it without reservation as easily as saying "the sun sets in the west." To me it's common sense, having met these people and seen it.
if you can admit that statistically people are better off without AA.
I don't think that's been proven one way or the other. AA is anonymous and is specifically hard to know how many people attend. I never got a survey asking me questions about it, and people can create statistics to prove any point. I wouldn't tell anyone "you're better off without AA based on statistics I found on the net", because how would I know that's true, or even applicable to them. If they want to, they should try it, and see if it helps them. If not, they can walk out. It's not up to me to decide what works and what doesn't on behalf of others.
If you want to ignore those inconvenient studies, even those done by AA's supporters, refusing outright to read alternate viewpoints (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html), then... well as Bill W's conscience said, there really is no point to continuing this discussion.
That's assuming the one and only reason you post is to change my mind. If that's your reason for posting here, then yes, you are wasting your time. But I doubt that's the reason why people post on this topic. Reading studies and statistics is not going to effect my memories and relationships with real people, and basic things I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears. I am not here trying to change any minds, I'm just speaking up about what I've seen and experienced in my own life in relation to AA and programs. I don't care if people go to AA or not. But I know some people are helped by it, many people I've known. Also, I know comparing AA to programs is completely and utterly disingenuous.
You are willfully blind and proud of it. You have your god-revealed truth and damn anybody and anything that contradicts what you "know" to be true.
It wasn't God given, its just living your life and relating those experience to others. If I judged AA based on your studies and statistics and theories, then I would be willfully blind to what AA really is. The reality of AA is it's just a group of people who share a similar problem, and want to help each other out. If you don't like it, then don't go. I still don't see what the fuss is all about.
I'll leave you with this quote by George Vaillant of AA's board of trustees (yes these are his words):
It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic. . ., by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added)53
I don't claim there aren't people opposed to AA such as yourself. You can quote them all day and night, I already told you I base my opinions on what I experience in my own life, not based on what others have to say about it. I don't see what is so wrong about that.
Source (which you have refused to read since you know the truth):
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
I have opinions based on my own experiences. You can disparage that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that reading someone else's opinion is not going to effect my own. You seem to put a lot of faith in the opinions of others, people you don't even know. I choose to trust myself.
-
When all is said and done, I think it's pretty silly that someone needs god to do something as worldly as keep them sober.
god used to do my laundry, but he always mixed colors and whites and now all of my underwear is pink.
-
I'll leave you with this quote by George Vaillant of AA's board of trustees (yes these are his words):
It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic. . ., by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added)53
Just to chime in here with reality for a moment: psy is misrepresenting Vaillant's findings. More specifcically, he is presenting other people's misrepresentations of his findings.
Unfortunely, there are two websites, A.O and More Revealed that seem to be ivolved with competitor for-profit addiction services. More Revealed actually has a section run by Smart Recovery@ IMO, while there are valid critisms of A.A. in these sites, there is a lot of info that is just not true, or worse.
-
When all is said and done, I think it's pretty silly that someone needs god to do something as worldly as keep them sober.
god used to do my laundry, but he always mixed colors and whites and now all of my underwear is pink.
The majority of AA members believe that we have found the solution to our drinking problem not through individual willpower, but through a power greater than ourselves. However, everyone defines this power as he or she wishes. Many people call it God, others think it is the AA group, still others don’t believe in it at all. There is room in AA for people of all shades of belief and non-belief. The official beliefs of AA as expressed in AA literature and on the official Alcoholics Anonymous web sites are non-religious in nature and open to free interpretation of the terms "God" and "Higher Power".
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TNc ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TNc6--essBQJ:www.westal.net/aaalanondemop/aboutaa.htm+%22There+is+room+in+AA+for+people+of+all+%22+WESTAL&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
-
When all is said and done, I think it's pretty silly that someone needs god to do something as worldly as keep them sober.
god used to do my laundry, but he always mixed colors and whites and now all of my underwear is pink.
"The majority of AA members believe that we have found the solution to our drinking problem not through individual willpower, but through a power greater than ourselves. However, everyone defines this power as he or she wishes. Many people call it God, others think it is the AA group, still others don’t believe in it at all. There is room in AA for people of all shades of belief and non-belief. The official beliefs of AA as expressed in AA literature and on the official Alcoholics Anonymous web sites are non-religious in nature and open to free interpretation of the terms "God" and "Higher Power".
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TNc ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TNc6--essBQJ:www.westal.net/aaalanondemop/aboutaa.htm+%22There+is+room+in+AA+for+people+of+all+%22+WESTAL&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
-
And the courts found that distinction was bullshit and that AA was playing with words.
In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:
Alcoholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
— Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz
All of these courts have ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion or engages in religious activities:
* the Federal 7th Circuit Court in Wisconsin, 1984.
* the Federal District Court for Southern New York, 1994.
* the New York Court of Appeals, 1996.
* the New York State Supreme Court, 1996.
* the U.S. Supreme Court, 1997.
* the Tennessee State Supreme Court.
* the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, 1996.
* the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
* the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, 1996.
* the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, 1996.
* The Federal Appeals Court in Hawaii, September 7, 2007, in the Inouye v. Kemna case.
-
I'll leave you with this quote by George Vaillant of AA's board of trustees (yes these are his words):
It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic. . ., by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added)53
Just to chime in here with reality for a moment: psy is misrepresenting Vaillant's findings. More specifcically, he is presenting other people's misrepresentations of his findings.
You truly are batshit insane. I quoted Vailant DIRECTLY. Those are HIS WORDS... NOT interpretations of his words. HIS words... not that you would ever read enough to know that. Can't you get it through your thick 12 steppign scull that even AA's defenders admit it doesnt' work! Vaillant has been trying in futility to prove his faith to be true for some time now and all he's managed to do is prove the critics of AA right.
You wont' even READ the links (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html). You outright REFUSE ("I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it." <-- your words), and yet you have the arrogance to claim that the information on there is somehow false or that the writers have ulterior motives (even if that were true, you're STILL not adressing their research or arguments). LOL. All you're proving to everybody here is just how batshit fucking insane you 12 steppers are and just how terrified you are of having your god-inspired truth shat on by the cold hard facts.
-
And AA has treatment programs too (Hazelden, for example). You could make the same argument of AA
A.A. does not have its own residential treatment centers, nor Hazeldon.
“A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes.”
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TWs ... cd=3&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TWsVbeoKGa4J:www.vancouveraa.ca/+%22aa%22+institution+controversy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
A.A. is not a for-profit business so the same argument could not be made (I wasn’t really trying to make an argument, though)
Hazeldon is not “owned” by A.A.
http://www.hazelden.org/ (http://www.hazelden.org/)
It also offers other treatment options then one adapted from A.A. including the matrix model
http://www.hazelden.org/OA_HTML/ibeCCtp ... ?item=6882 (http://www.hazelden.org/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?item=6882)
Its own “model” that it has developed, isn’t even A.A. proper, it’s adapted from A.A. and called the Minnesota Model
http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/clin ... earch.page (http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/clinicalresearch.page)
-
The majority of AA members believe that we have found the solution to our drinking problem not through individual willpower, but through a power greater than ourselves.
How sad for you guys.
I've posted this here before, but here it is again:
12 Steps To Hell: By Jim Goad
1. We admitted that our addictions were fucking us up.
2. Came to believe that since we started them, only we could stop them.
3. Made a decision to follow our gut instincts as we understood them.
4. Didn't bullshit ourselves about our many flaws.
5. Having admitted our flaws, we kept them to ourselves - they're nobody else's business.
6. Were entirely ready to argue with anyone who disagreed.
7. Filled with self-respect, we did nothing humbly.
8. Made a list of all the persons we had harmed and realized that most of them deserved it.
9. Paid all our police fines, then burned all our bridges.
10. Continued to be ruthlessly honest with ourselves and admitted all our wrongs - to ourselves.
11. Trusted ourselves and only ourselves with what's best for us.
12. Having assumed full responsibility for our lives, we weren't foolish enough to try to change everyone else - first, it's a losing proposition, and second, we couldn't care less.
Can't you get it through your thick 12 steppign scull that even AA's defenders admit it doesnt' work!
This is entirely true. I remember many meetings where members said that most of us "wouldn't make it", and if we did, we were one of the "lucky ones".
How much do you want to bet that the only reason AA membership is so high is because of the large percentage of people who are made to go, by the state or simply by outside pressure unrelated to the law. As far as this dude is concerned, the only people who truly kick are the ones who truly want to. So you take a bunch of junkies who aren't ready to quit and put them in a room together with crappy coffee, a convoluted program that teaches then to be powerless and that they have a lifetime disease, and that the only thing that can help is something outside of themselves? (god, higher power, a group of junkies who don't want to quit)
And they wonder why people don't stick around?
-
I'll leave you with this quote by George Vaillant of AA's board of trustees (yes these are his words):
It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic. . ., by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added)53
Just to chime in here with reality for a moment: psy is misrepresenting Vaillant's findings. More specifcically, he is presenting other people's misrepresentations of his findings.
You truly are batshit insane. I quoted Vailant DIRECTLY. Those are HIS WORDS... NOT interpretations of his words. HIS words... not that you would ever read enough to know that. Can't you get it through your thick 12 steppign scull that even AA's defenders admit it doesnt' work! Vaillant has been trying in futility to prove his faith to be true for some time now and all he's managed to do is prove the critics of AA right.
You wont' even READ the links (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html). You outright REFUSE ("I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it." <-- your words), and yet you have the arrogance to claim that the information on there is somehow false or that the writers have ulterior motives (even if that were true, you're STILL not adressing their research or arguments). LOL. All you're proving to everybody here is just how batshit fucking insane you 12 steppers are and just how terrified you are of having your god-inspired truth shat on by the cold hard facts.[/quote]
First of all, you are talking to different guests, i have no problem reading anything. I've never been helped by A.A.
I know you are quoting his words...but out of context with his ACTUAL, complete evaluation of his studies ommitted. Because you are not doing your own research, but simply restating the opinions of others, which they "back up" by selectively quoting and misrepresenting Vaillient's work, that is a predicable problem.
-
It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic. . ., by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added)53
Just to chime in here with reality for a moment: psy is misrepresenting Vaillant's findings. More specifcically, he is presenting other people's misrepresentations of his findings.
You truly are batshit insane. I quoted Vailant DIRECTLY. Those are HIS WORDS... NOT interpretations of his words. HIS words... not that you would ever read enough to know that. Can't you get it through your thick 12 steppign scull that even AA's defenders admit it doesnt' work! Vaillant has been trying in futility to prove his faith to be true for some time now and all he's managed to do is prove the critics of AA right.
You wont' even READ the links (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html). You outright REFUSE ("I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it." <-- your words), and yet you have the arrogance to claim that the information on there is somehow false or that the writers have ulterior motives (even if that were true, you're STILL not adressing their research or arguments). LOL. All you're proving to everybody here is just how batshit fucking insane you 12 steppers are and just how terrified you are of having your god-inspired truth shat on by the cold hard facts.
First of all, you are talking to different guests, i have no problem reading anything. I've never been helped by A.A.
I know you are quoting his words...but out of context with his ACTUAL, complete evaluation of his studies ommitted. Because you are not doing your own research, but simply restating the opinions of others, which they "back up" by selectively quoting and misrepresenting Vaillient's work, that is a predicable problem.[/quote]
-
And AA has treatment programs too (Hazelden, for example). You could make the same argument of AA
A.A. does not have its own residential treatment centers, nor Hazeldon.
“A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes.”
LOL. Bullshit. Even when Bill Wilson was alive he was breaking that rule, taking stipends from John D. Rockefeller Jr. (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cleve1944.html#wilson_income). I don't have time right now to go into all of it, but suffice it to say, that particular tradition just just CYA. AA has it's hands in many pots and vica versa.
A.A. is not a for-profit business so the same argument could not be made (I wasn’t really trying to make an argument, though)
Hazeldon is not “owned” by A.A.
http://www.hazelden.org/ (http://www.hazelden.org/)
FIrst question: Who publishes AA's textbooks?
Second question: If AA is so "not for profit" why do they go around SUING people who give away their work for free:
http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blmitch12.htm (http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blmitch12.htm)
or google AAWS germany lawsuit
See this pamphlet put out by AAgso.org, an AA "back to basics" group:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pamphlet2.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pamphlet2.html)
Or visit their website here:
http://aagso.org/ (http://aagso.org/) <- Pro AA, but anti centralized AA website.
Anyway. All this is besides the point of AA's efficacy. you STILL won't address that, refusing to read what I posted.
I know you are quoting his words...but out of context with his ACTUAL, complete evaluation of his studies ommitted. Because you are not doing your own research, but simply restating the opinions of others, which they "back up" by selectively quoting and misrepresenting Vaillient's work, that is a predicable problem.
How is it misrepresented, and what is your source for stating that?
-
Two years prior to AA I went to all the anti AA websites like silly Secret Agent Orange or Orange Papers. I love the anti AA websites because they told me what I wanted to hear at the time. I dreaded the idea of going to AA. The thought of being brainwashed, controlled, or I was powerless made me sick. Then, in 2003, I was drinking mouthwash to feel better but, I wasn't powerless not me. I woke up in my own vomit, getting kicked out of peoples homes because of fighting while drunk. Then in May of 03 I woke up and didn't know what day it was. I was alone, the Alternative recovery centers like SOS, were too far away. Rational Recover was now charging for help and the Orange Papers just filled the web with complaints of AA but had no solution nor offered help. I was desperate, I didn't care, I was dieing inside and afraid to live. There is a meeting just about every hour on the hour in California. I walked into my first meeting and said I was an alcoholic. I saw men and woman professionals, lawyers, doctors, salesmen, teacher, and mothers, looking clean, happy, and healthy. I didn't care about the God thing I would worry about that later. I wanted to look and feel like them. I decided to put my prejudice aside a try it for a year. I have 3 and 1/2 years sober, I fought every step but, I did them. I was afraid to mention the anti AA websites when I did, everyone laughed. when I said I hate Bill W, they laughed and said cool. I kept trying to share all the stuff I had learned from the anti AA folks. No one pushed me away like they said they would, no one said I wasn't welcome, like they said they would. My sponsor said think all you want but, take action. Donald Trump didn't think his way to success. So, I did, I love my life, I pay my bills, I go to baseball games, concerts in the park, movies, I speak in front of hundreds of people without fear. I don't walk in fear, I have bought a new Jeep, received raises, I moved into the apartment of my dreams, I am more independent because I am not lead by fear. I have more friends than I can imagine. I used the steps to stop drinking, to lose weight, when I am nervous. Listen there are bad people in any group. ban lawyers, doctors, priest who will molests, teachers who will sleep with students. There are bad people in AA but the program that I have followed has given me purpose when I had none, friends that are genuine, I laugh so hard I pee my pants. I help other woman by giving to them what was freely giving to me. I have never been held against my will. Ok I had to do the phone list once. It sucked. Not much of a cult if you ask me. We are way to undisciplined to keep others against there will. The Big book tells me that if one doesn’t want it then please try something else. If AA were a cult then why does the big book say not to bother with a person who is not interested. Not a very good cult if you ask me. If your sponsor is abusive then get a new sponsor. Go to a new meeting. I know I will look high and low to find what I want to hear rather than what I need to hear. If AA doesn’t work then find something that does. That is the truth I was given. Try AA for a year if it doesn’t work then we will gladly refund your misery. Good luck gang.
-
A.A. does not have its own residential treatment centers, nor Hazeldon.
This is simply not true. Hazelden has several programs, and has been operating them for well over half a century. In fact, Hazelden credits itself with being the progenitor of all residential 12-Step programs.
Joe Gauld (founder of Hyde School) attended one of Hazelden's inpatient programs in 1975, when Halzelden was implementing their most Synanon-inspired methodology (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26291), that is, hot seats, group rap, and all... Hazelden had sent reps down to Eagleville Hospital in Pennsylvania to study the trade, Eagleville having had learned said methodology directly from Synanon itself. I personally think Joe had some prior exposure to that methodology, since I attended Hyde prior to that time, and he was already dishing it out then.
For nearly 60 years, Hazelden has been in the business of helping people recover from alcohol and other drug addictions. Hazelden's work in the 1950s and 1960s set the standard and defined the model for all Twelve-Step-based, interdisciplinary treatment programs in operation today. It was Hazelden staff who began teaching the Twelve Steps in a residential setting, and whose ground-breaking work in incorporating psychology and psychiatry, physical health and fitness, emotional and family systems therapies and other approaches, define the "interdisciplinary model" of care.
http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page (http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page)
Hazelden's current programs (some have opened or closed or splintered off during the years; in particular, there was one notorious split in Florida):
- Center City, MN
- Center for Youth and Families, Plymouth, MN
- Newberg, OR
- New York City, NY
- Chicago, IL
- Fellowship Club - St. Paul, MN
Some of these are inpatient, some are out patient; there are also "retreats," etc. at their Renewal Center.
-
I have more friends than I can imagine
Then you must have about four hundred friends, or you're just not that imaginative.
lol.. This isn't a slam on you. I just always chuckle at that term when it is used inaccurately. People underestimate how much they can really imagine.
-
A.A. does not have its own residential treatment centers, nor Hazeldon.
This is simply not true. Hazelden has several programs, and has been operating them for well over half a century. In fact, Hazelden credits itself with being the progenitor of all residential 12-Step programs.
Joe Gauld (founder of Hyde School) attended one of Hazelden's inpatient programs in 1975, when Halzelden was implementing their most Synanon-inspired methodology (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26291), that is, hot seats, group rap, and all... Hazelden had sent reps down to Eagleville Hospital in Pennsylvania to study the trade, Eagleville having had learned said methodology directly from Synanon itself. I personally think Joe had some prior exposure to that methodology, since I attended Hyde prior to that time, and he was already dishing it out then.
For nearly 60 years, Hazelden has been in the business of helping people recover from alcohol and other drug addictions. Hazelden's work in the 1950s and 1960s set the standard and defined the model for all Twelve-Step-based, interdisciplinary treatment programs in operation today. It was Hazelden staff who began teaching the Twelve Steps in a residential setting, and whose ground-breaking work in incorporating psychology and psychiatry, physical health and fitness, emotional and family systems therapies and other approaches, define the "interdisciplinary model" of care.
http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page (http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page)
Hazelden's current programs (some have opened or closed or splintered off during the years; in particular, there was one notorious split in Florida):
- Center City, MN
- Center for Youth and Families, Plymouth, MN
- Newberg, OR
- New York City, NY
- Chicago, IL
- Fellowship Club - St. Paul, MN
Some of these are inpatient, some are out patient; there are also "retreats," etc. at their Renewal Center.
No A.A. does not A.A. does not own Hazeldon. A.A. is a not for profit organization. All of its holdings must be publicly disclosed. Hazeldon is not listed. Asses its assets and finacial information yourself
Are you implying that A.A. secretly owns Hazeldon? That it is profiting off of Hazeldon? Do you realize that A.A. doesn’t earn any profits because it is a not-for profit org.? Do you understand what a not for profit org is?
If you feel A.A. is profiting off of Hazelton, then inform the IRS. They tend to be fussy about that sort of tax fraud.
Who opened H., or what modalities it has or has not been influenced by is a separate issue.
On the other hand, Stanton Peel’s makes a profit off of his center, personally.
http://www.stgregoryctr.com/ (http://www.stgregoryctr.com/)
-
Two years prior to AA I went to all the anti AA websites like silly Secret Agent Orange or Orange Papers. I love the anti AA websites because they told me what I wanted to hear at the time. I dreaded the idea of going to AA. The thought of being brainwashed, controlled, or I was powerless made me sick. Then, in 2003, I was drinking mouthwash to feel better but, I wasn't powerless not me. I woke up in my own vomit, getting kicked out of peoples homes because of fighting while drunk. Then in May of 03 I woke up and didn't know what day it was. I was alone, the Alternative recovery centers like SOS, were too far away. Rational Recover was now charging for help and the Orange Papers just filled the web with complaints of AA but had no solution nor offered help. I was desperate, I didn't care, I was dieing inside and afraid to live. There is a meeting just about every hour on the hour in California. I walked into my first meeting and said I was an alcoholic. I saw men and woman professionals, lawyers, doctors, salesmen, teacher, and mothers, looking clean, happy, and healthy. I didn't care about the God thing I would worry about that later. I wanted to look and feel like them. I decided to put my prejudice aside a try it for a year. I have 3 and 1/2 years sober, I fought every step but, I did them. I was afraid to mention the anti AA websites when I did, everyone laughed. when I said I hate Bill W, they laughed and said cool. I kept trying to share all the stuff I had learned from the anti AA folks. No one pushed me away like they said they would, no one said I wasn't welcome, like they said they would. My sponsor said think all you want but, take action. Donald Trump didn't think his way to success. So, I did, I love my life, I pay my bills, I go to baseball games, concerts in the park, movies, I speak in front of hundreds of people without fear. I don't walk in fear, I have bought a new Jeep, received raises, I moved into the apartment of my dreams, I am more independent because I am not lead by fear. I have more friends than I can imagine. I used the steps to stop drinking, to lose weight, when I am nervous. Listen there are bad people in any group. ban lawyers, doctors, priest who will molests, teachers who will sleep with students. There are bad people in AA but the program that I have followed has given me purpose when I had none, friends that are genuine, I laugh so hard I pee my pants. I help other woman by giving to them what was freely giving to me. I have never been held against my will. Ok I had to do the phone list once. It sucked. Not much of a cult if you ask me. We are way to undisciplined to keep others against there will. The Big book tells me that if one doesn’t want it then please try something else. If AA were a cult then why does the big book say not to bother with a person who is not interested. Not a very good cult if you ask me. If your sponsor is abusive then get a new sponsor. Go to a new meeting. I know I will look high and low to find what I want to hear rather than what I need to hear. If AA doesn’t work then find something that does. That is the truth I was given. Try AA for a year if it doesn’t work then we will gladly refund your misery. Good luck gang.
No one is really saying that a.a. is a cult at this point, i hope. Now people seem to be arguing over whether or not it works. I'm glad you received help. Are you a program survivor?
-
The point is, nothing is going to work if you don't want to quit. As such, the state or whomever, shouldn't be forcing people to quit. Drinking and using is a right, whether it's legal or not.
-
A.A. does not have its own residential treatment centers, nor Hazeldon.
This is simply not true. Hazelden has several programs, and has been operating them for well over half a century. In fact, Hazelden credits itself with being the progenitor of all residential 12-Step programs.
Joe Gauld (founder of Hyde School) attended one of Hazelden's inpatient programs in 1975, when Halzelden was implementing their most Synanon-inspired methodology (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26291), that is, hot seats, group rap, and all... Hazelden had sent reps down to Eagleville Hospital in Pennsylvania to study the trade, Eagleville having had learned said methodology directly from Synanon itself. I personally think Joe had some prior exposure to that methodology, since I attended Hyde prior to that time, and he was already dishing it out then.
For nearly 60 years, Hazelden has been in the business of helping people recover from alcohol and other drug addictions. Hazelden's work in the 1950s and 1960s set the standard and defined the model for all Twelve-Step-based, interdisciplinary treatment programs in operation today. It was Hazelden staff who began teaching the Twelve Steps in a residential setting, and whose ground-breaking work in incorporating psychology and psychiatry, physical health and fitness, emotional and family systems therapies and other approaches, define the "interdisciplinary model" of care.
http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page (http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page)
Hazelden's current programs (some have opened or closed or splintered off during the years; in particular, there was one notorious split in Florida):
- Center City, MN
- Center for Youth and Families, Plymouth, MN
- Newberg, OR
- New York City, NY
- Chicago, IL
- Fellowship Club - St. Paul, MN
Some of these are inpatient, some are out patient; there are also "retreats," etc. at their Renewal Center.
No A.A. does not A.A. does not own Hazeldon. A.A. is a not for profit organization. All of its holdings must be publicly disclosed. Hazeldon is not listed. Asses its assets and finacial information yourself
Ownership was never discussed in my post. Nor did I mention A.A. even once in my entire post.
I was responding to your statement that Hazelden does not own or operate residential treatment centers. Please reread the post more carefully.
Are you implying that A.A. secretly owns Hazeldon? That it is profiting off of Hazeldon? Do you realize that A.A. doesn’t earn any profits because it is a not-for profit org.? Do you understand what a not for profit org is?
Again, this was never discussed in my post, nor anyone else's in the past page or two. Your condescension is misplaced and inappropriate.
If you feel A.A. is profiting off of Hazelton, then inform the IRS. They tend to be fussy about that sort of tax fraud.
Who opened H., or what modalities it has or has not been influenced by is a separate issue.
The modalities that Hazelden operates was brought up by you and addressed by me, in fact, I addressed it more or less throughout the entirety of my post. Hence, it is not a separate issue, it was the only issue. Please read more carefully.
-
A.A. does not have its own residential treatment centers, nor Hazeldon.
This is simply not true. Hazelden has several programs, and has been operating them for well over half a century. In fact, Hazelden credits itself with being the progenitor of all residential 12-Step programs.
Joe Gauld (founder of Hyde School) attended one of Hazelden's inpatient programs in 1975, when Halzelden was implementing their most Synanon-inspired methodology (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26291), that is, hot seats, group rap, and all... Hazelden had sent reps down to Eagleville Hospital in Pennsylvania to study the trade, Eagleville having had learned said methodology directly from Synanon itself. I personally think Joe had some prior exposure to that methodology, since I attended Hyde prior to that time, and he was already dishing it out then.
For nearly 60 years, Hazelden has been in the business of helping people recover from alcohol and other drug addictions. Hazelden's work in the 1950s and 1960s set the standard and defined the model for all Twelve-Step-based, interdisciplinary treatment programs in operation today. It was Hazelden staff who began teaching the Twelve Steps in a residential setting, and whose ground-breaking work in incorporating psychology and psychiatry, physical health and fitness, emotional and family systems therapies and other approaches, define the "interdisciplinary model" of care.
http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page (http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/whyhazelden.page)
Hazelden's current programs (some have opened or closed or splintered off during the years; in particular, there was one notorious split in Florida):
- Center City, MN
- Center for Youth and Families, Plymouth, MN
- Newberg, OR
- New York City, NY
- Chicago, IL
- Fellowship Club - St. Paul, MN
Some of these are inpatient, some are out patient; there are also "retreats," etc. at their Renewal Center.
No A.A. does not A.A. does not own Hazeldon. A.A. is a not for profit organization. All of its holdings must be publicly disclosed. Hazeldon is not listed. Asses its assets and finacial information yourself
Ownership was never discussed in my post. Nor did I mention A.A. even once in my entire post.
I was responding to your statement that Hazelden does not own or operate residential treatment centers. Please reread the post more carefully.
Are you implying that A.A. secretly owns Hazeldon? That it is profiting off of Hazeldon? Do you realize that A.A. doesn’t earn any profits because it is a not-for profit org.? Do you understand what a not for profit org is?
Again, this was never discussed in my post, nor anyone else's in the past page or two. Your condescension is misplaced and inappropriate.
If you feel A.A. is profiting off of Hazelton, then inform the IRS. They tend to be fussy about that sort of tax fraud.
Who opened H., or what modalities it has or has not been influenced by is a separate issue.
The modalities that Hazelden operates was brought up by you and addressed by me, in fact, I addressed it more or less throughout the entirety of my post. Hence, it is not a separate issue, it was the only issue. Please read more carefully.
Ok, you misread me. I said that A.A. doesn’t own or profit off of Hazeldon or residential treatment centers....
-
Source (which you have refused to read since you know the truth):
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
Ps: I <3 you, Bill W.'s Conscience. Love your posting!
Back atchya babe! ;)
It never ceases to amaze me when these people just flat refuse to even READ something that differs from their POV. I can't imagine going through life like that.
-
Just to chime in here with reality for a moment: psy is misrepresenting Vaillant's findings. More specifcically, he is presenting other people's misrepresentations of his findings.
There's no misrepresentation. He's directly quoting the study that Valliant did.
Unfortunely, there are two websites, A.O and More Revealed that seem to be ivolved with competitor for-profit addiction services.
Please cite your source for Agent Orange making a dime off his site or any other.
More Revealed actually has a section run by Smart Recovery@ IMO, while there are valid critisms of A.A. in these sites, there is a lot of info that is just not true, or worse.
That's pretty much what we're saying. That there are valid criticisms of AA. Why is that so difficult for people to accept? I'll ask again since no one's answered. What are AAers so afraid of that they refuse to even entertain any criticism or opposing points of view? Why all the anger and defensiveness? Does this really not remind you even a bit of when people would criticize the programs? Has AA removed ALL your critical (stinking) thinking skills?
-
Ok, you misread me. I said that A.A. doesn’t own or profit off of Hazeldon or residential treatment centers....
AA makes millions off of the sales of it's literature. Don't be so naive. AA is raking in the cash just as the rest of the corrupt 'treatment' industry is.
-
Ownership was never discussed in my post. Nor did I mention A.A. even once in my entire post.
I was responding to your statement that Hazelden does not own or operate residential treatment centers. Please reread the post more carefully.
Again, this was never discussed in my post, nor anyone else's in the past page or two. Your condescension is misplaced and inappropriate.
The modalities that Hazelden operates was brought up by you and addressed by me, in fact, I addressed it more or less throughout the entirety of my post. Hence, it is not a separate issue, it was the only issue. Please read more carefully.
This seems to be a problem for them. They're reading things into posts that simply aren't there. I get that it's hard to hear the truth about something you hold dear, but WOW. Flat out willful ignorance and just making shit up is the only way they can deal with the conflict facts present, I guess.
-
Two years prior to AA I went to all the anti AA websites like silly Secret Agent Orange or Orange Papers. I love the anti AA websites because they told me what I wanted to hear at the time. I dreaded the idea of going to AA. The thought of being brainwashed, controlled, or I was powerless made me sick. Then, in 2003, I was drinking mouthwash to feel better but, I wasn't powerless not me. I woke up in my own vomit, getting kicked out of peoples homes because of fighting while drunk. Then in May of 03 I woke up and didn't know what day it was. I was alone, the Alternative recovery centers like SOS, were too far away. Rational Recover was now charging for help and the Orange Papers just filled the web with complaints of AA but had no solution nor offered help. I was desperate, I didn't care, I was dieing inside and afraid to live. There is a meeting just about every hour on the hour in California. I walked into my first meeting and said I was an alcoholic. I saw men and woman professionals, lawyers, doctors, salesmen, teacher, and mothers, looking clean, happy, and healthy. I didn't care about the God thing I would worry about that later. I wanted to look and feel like them. I decided to put my prejudice aside a try it for a year. I have 3 and 1/2 years sober, I fought every step but, I did them. I was afraid to mention the anti AA websites when I did, everyone laughed. when I said I hate Bill W, they laughed and said cool. I kept trying to share all the stuff I had learned from the anti AA folks. No one pushed me away like they said they would, no one said I wasn't welcome, like they said they would. My sponsor said think all you want but, take action. Donald Trump didn't think his way to success. So, I did, I love my life, I pay my bills, I go to baseball games, concerts in the park, movies, I speak in front of hundreds of people without fear. I don't walk in fear, I have bought a new Jeep, received raises, I moved into the apartment of my dreams, I am more independent because I am not lead by fear. I have more friends than I can imagine. I used the steps to stop drinking, to lose weight, when I am nervous. Listen there are bad people in any group. ban lawyers, doctors, priest who will molests, teachers who will sleep with students. There are bad people in AA but the program that I have followed has given me purpose when I had none, friends that are genuine, I laugh so hard I pee my pants. I help other woman by giving to them what was freely giving to me. I have never been held against my will. Ok I had to do the phone list once. It sucked. Not much of a cult if you ask me. We are way to undisciplined to keep others against there will. The Big book tells me that if one doesn’t want it then please try something else. If AA were a cult then why does the big book say not to bother with a person who is not interested. Not a very good cult if you ask me. If your sponsor is abusive then get a new sponsor. Go to a new meeting. I know I will look high and low to find what I want to hear rather than what I need to hear. If AA doesn’t work then find something that does. That is the truth I was given. Try AA for a year if it doesn’t work then we will gladly refund your misery. Good luck gang.
No one is really saying that a.a. is a cult at this point, i hope. Now people seem to be arguing over whether or not it works. I'm glad you received help. Are you a program survivor?
No. our super honest AA defenders here just copied and pasted that post from this page:
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc. ... 9527&cn=14 (http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9527&cn=14)
See comment at :
Andrea Morgan - Apr 25th 2007
-
Two years prior to AA I went to all the anti AA websites like silly Secret Agent Orange or Orange Papers. I love the anti AA websites because they told me what I wanted to hear at the time. I dreaded the idea of going to AA. The thought of being brainwashed, controlled, or I was powerless made me sick. Then, in 2003, I was drinking mouthwash to feel better but, I wasn't powerless not me. I woke up in my own vomit, getting kicked out of peoples homes because of fighting while drunk. Then in May of 03 I woke up and didn't know what day it was. I was alone, the Alternative recovery centers like SOS, were too far away. Rational Recover was now charging for help and the Orange Papers just filled the web with complaints of AA but had no solution nor offered help. I was desperate, I didn't care, I was dieing inside and afraid to live. There is a meeting just about every hour on the hour in California. I walked into my first meeting and said I was an alcoholic. I saw men and woman professionals, lawyers, doctors, salesmen, teacher, and mothers, looking clean, happy, and healthy. I didn't care about the God thing I would worry about that later. I wanted to look and feel like them. I decided to put my prejudice aside a try it for a year. I have 3 and 1/2 years sober, I fought every step but, I did them. I was afraid to mention the anti AA websites when I did, everyone laughed. when I said I hate Bill W, they laughed and said cool. I kept trying to share all the stuff I had learned from the anti AA folks. No one pushed me away like they said they would, no one said I wasn't welcome, like they said they would. My sponsor said think all you want but, take action. Donald Trump didn't think his way to success. So, I did, I love my life, I pay my bills, I go to baseball games, concerts in the park, movies, I speak in front of hundreds of people without fear. I don't walk in fear, I have bought a new Jeep, received raises, I moved into the apartment of my dreams, I am more independent because I am not lead by fear. I have more friends than I can imagine. I used the steps to stop drinking, to lose weight, when I am nervous. Listen there are bad people in any group. ban lawyers, doctors, priest who will molests, teachers who will sleep with students. There are bad people in AA but the program that I have followed has given me purpose when I had none, friends that are genuine, I laugh so hard I pee my pants. I help other woman by giving to them what was freely giving to me. I have never been held against my will. Ok I had to do the phone list once. It sucked. Not much of a cult if you ask me. We are way to undisciplined to keep others against there will. The Big book tells me that if one doesn’t want it then please try something else. If AA were a cult then why does the big book say not to bother with a person who is not interested. Not a very good cult if you ask me. If your sponsor is abusive then get a new sponsor. Go to a new meeting. I know I will look high and low to find what I want to hear rather than what I need to hear. If AA doesn’t work then find something that does. That is the truth I was given. Try AA for a year if it doesn’t work then we will gladly refund your misery. Good luck gang.
No one is really saying that a.a. is a cult at this point, i hope. Now people seem to be arguing over whether or not it works. I'm glad you received help. Are you a program survivor?
.
No. our super honest AA defenders here just copied and pasted that post from this page:
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc. ... 9527&cn=14 (http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9527&cn=14)
See comment at :
Andrea Morgan - Apr 25th 2007
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :tup: :tup: :tup: :notworthy: :notworthy: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Excellent find my friend, excellent find!!! That's just too funny!
-
Ok, you misread me. I said that A.A. doesn’t own or profit off of Hazeldon or residential treatment centers....
And the IECA doesn't profit off NATSAP or it's residential treatment centers. Right. same realatinoship there. Whether it's offical or not is pretty much irrelevant. It's a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Hazeldon publishes AA's books, there is board member crossover, etc. Same as NATSAP and IECA. If AA disapproves of court referrals so much or forced treatment, why don't they come out and say it. It's like a snake being force-fed mice. You never see the snake complain. Fact of the matter is that they're complicit and, as such, guilty as the rest of the bunch.
-
Alright, two can play at that game and I'll tell ya what. I'll just use YOUR source, k?? I won't even go to the evil Orange Papers or More Revealed. OK? My turn.......
Dontwasteaway@gmail.com
A little about me: 14 years in and out of AA, trying to get their "spiritual experience". Finally got sober on Jan 15, 2006 with out the help of AA. That is when I realized that AA was wrong, because I was staying sober without it and without a god. I went back to meetings to share my true experience with people. I was shunned by group members and even some of my "so called" good friends. I want all the people currently in AA to know this: If there ever comes a time in your life where you feel like AA is not giving you what you need anymore, and you're ready to move on, you will lose a lot of people that you considered "good friends". This is one of the ways in which AA harms people. AA "true believers" will only accept you based on your acceptance of the program. And even worse: If you start to talk openly about your new "beliefs" in meetings, the true believers will look at you like you are killing innocent people. They claim what you are saying is bringing death to helpless alcoholics.
It's time to wake up people! Look at what calling things like "alcoholism" diseases has done to our country. This is the only so called disease where you can just change a behavior and get well. Are you serious? Thank God I woke up before it was too late. I truly believe that if I would of kept hanging on to the beliefs of AA that I would be dead. I really would of thought I was powerless and had no control over my life, and would of accepted that I was diseased. Wake up Dr. Dombeck. Like another poster said, "How can you sit here and say that something helps the masses after only sitting in a couple of meetings. I love the ignorance of the United States. People just go along with something because other people say it's good. What happened to all the freethinkers?
Michael T. McComb
-
LOL. Bullshit. Even when Bill Wilson was alive he was breaking that rule, taking stipends from John D. Rockefeller Jr. (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cleve1944.html#wilson_income). I don't have time right now to go into all of it, but suffice it to say, that particular tradition just just CYA. AA has it's hands in many pots and vica versa.
A.A. doesn’t own or profit from Hazeldon. A.A. is non-profit. It doesn’t profit, period. Its holdings and financial gains are publicly disclosed. Hazeldon and income from Hazeldon are not listed.
Second question: If AA is so "not for profit" why do they go around SUING people who give away their work for free:
http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blmitch12.htm (http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blmitch12.htm)
Whether German A.A. ever sued someone is irrelevant.
Clearly, you have no idea what a non-profit organization is. Here’s some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization)
“Whereas profit-making corporations exist under the premise of earning and distributing taxable business earnings to shareholders, the non-profit organization exists primarily to provide programs and services that are of benefit to others and might not be otherwise provided by local, state, or federal entities. While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings are retained by the organization for its future provision of programs and services, and are not owned by nor distributed to individuals or stake-holders. In the United States, the laws governing charitable non-profits are based around the Internal Revenue Code, Section 501(c)(3) and the tax-deductible contribution guidelines of Section 170. Corporations classified as such, with gross receipts over $25,000, must report financial activity annually to the IRS, by means of a Form 990.”
A.A is non-profit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:I ... anizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:International_non-profit_organizations)
Last year they generated 13, 582,554 and had operating expenses of $12, 563,967.
(and lost income for the period) http://www.aa.org/pics_gen/en_gso07_operresults.jpg (http://www.aa.org/pics_gen/en_gso07_operresults.jpg)
Saying A.A. owns or profits from Hazeldon, or is secretly profiting whatsoever despite their nonprofit status is a serious charge. What is your proof? Why don’t you contact the IRS with that proof They’re sticklers about this stuff.
Or wait. let me guess you have no evidence, just wild conspiracy theories. Such behavior (and ignorance ) detracts from your credibility and makes discussion seem pointless. There are valid criticisms to be made against A.A. without resorting to wild innuendos.
-
Anyway. All this is besides the point of AA's efficacy. you STILL won't address that, refusing to read what I posted.
I never “refused to read” anything. Why are you saying something untrue?
I get it. SP thinks V’s studies don’t prove A.A.’s effectiveness. He wants us to use his “7 tools” instead. So?
You don’t understand that attacking competing theories through studies is the format of contemporary medicine.
Other doctors argued that V’s findings supported the disease model but V failed to represent that. So, yes, interested parties with different viewpoints alleged V's data was incomplete or actually supported THEIR hypothesis. Obviously.
What I object to is your presentation of S.P’s viewpoint as the definitive, or only one. Yes, S.P. interprets V’s work one way, but recognize that V and the majority of scientists feel it means another. For what it’s worth,
"Vaillant’s academic peers saw the The Natural History of Alcoholism as “objective, scholarly, and factual,”[70]
“Vaillant concluded that AA appears equal or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited)
Here is the scientific majority's interpretation of V's work, from wiki:
In the sample of 100 severe alcoholics from his clinic, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who eventually achieved sobriety attended 300 or more AA meetings,[7] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[8] In the sample of 465 men who grew up in Boston's inner city, the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed[9] Vaillant's research and literature surveys revealed growing indirect evidence that AA is an effective treatment for alcohol abuse, partly because it is a cheap, community-based fellowship with easy access.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mt5 ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mt5FM0kI_YAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous+wiki+effectiveness+of+Alcoholics+anonymous+george+vailliant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
There’ve been many studies indicating A.A.’s effectiveness besides Vaillients. Have you noticed each time a study verifies its effectiveness you “lol” and dismiss it? Are you a scientist who scrupulously, objectively reviewed the original data, or are you a person with a emotionally charged viewpoint who reads others’ criticisms and reiterates them if they happen to support your pre-existing viewpoint because you’re not objectively interested in discovering A.A.’s effectiveness, just in “proving” (as far as repeating stuff on the net goes as proving) it doesn’t work?
You know, admitting some studies indicate its effectiveness doesn’t mean its effective or invalidate your criticisms. JMHO
-
Anyway. All this is besides the point of AA's efficacy. you STILL won't address that, refusing to read what I posted.
I never “refused to read” anything. Why are you saying something untrue?
I get it. SP thinks V’s studies don’t prove A.A.’s effectiveness. He wants us to use his “7 tools” instead. So?
You don’t understand that attacking competing theories through studies is the format of contemporary medicine.
Other doctors argued that V’s findings supported the disease model but V failed to represent that. So, yes, interested parties with different viewpoints alleged V's data was incomplete or actually supported THEIR hypothesis. Obviously.
What I object to is your presentation of S.P’s viewpoint as the definitive, or only one. Yes, S.P. interprets V’s work one way, but recognize that V and the majority of scientists feel it means another. For what it’s worth,
"Vaillant’s academic peers saw the The Natural History of Alcoholism as “objective, scholarly, and factual,”[70]
“Vaillant concluded that AA appears equal or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited)
Here is the scientific majority's interpretation of V's work, from wiki:
In the sample of 100 severe alcoholics from his clinic, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who eventually achieved sobriety attended 300 or more AA meetings,[7] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[8] In the sample of 465 men who grew up in Boston's inner city, the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed[9] Vaillant's research and literature surveys revealed growing indirect evidence that AA is an effective treatment for alcohol abuse, partly because it is a cheap, community-based fellowship with easy access.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mt5 ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mt5FM0kI_YAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous+wiki+effectiveness+of+Alcoholics+anonymous+george+vailliant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
-
By educating doctors, hospitals, ministers along this line, you will surely pick up some strong prospects after a bit.
PASS IT ON, The story of Bill Wilson and how the A.A. message reached the world, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., pages 225-226.
-
What I object to is your presentation of S.P’s viewpoint as the definitive, or only one. Yes, S.P. interprets V’s work one way, but recognize that V and the majority of scientists feel it means another.=us
Peele cites a lot more than Vaillant in that book chapter:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
In any case, it was Vaillant's own words saying "there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease." not somebody's interpretation of Vaillant's findings. Vaillant admitted AA does not work. His is hardly the only study finding that, but it is the most significant when speaking critically about AA since he was a true believer.
More from Peele:
Why does everyone believe AA and related treatments for alcoholism are so tremendously successful? The universal praise for AA focuses on its successes and disregards its failures, while we hear little about the successful recovery of those who don't attend AA. People who overcome drinking problems on their own, despite their numbers, are not an organized and visible group on the American alcoholism landscape. For example, George Vaillant found that many of his alcohol abusers cut back their drinking — nearly all without treatment. But even a solid majority of those among Vaillant's subjects who quit drinking altogether did not join AA. Yet not one of the successful cases of remission Vaillant highlights in his book involves a person who quit a drinking problem without AA or treatment — Vaillant simply ignores the bulk of his data when it comes to his case studies.
In order to evaluate a treatment's general effectiveness, research must assign patients randomly to different treatments and/or to a group that receives no treatment (called a control group). Two psychologists, William Miller and Reid Hester, reported every controlled study of alcoholism treatment — that is, studies that employed various treatment and no-treatment comparison groups.54 These researchers discovered only two controlled studies of AA's effectiveness. Keith Ditman, a physician and head of the Alcoholism Research Clinic at UCLA in the 1960s, studied outcomes for three groups of alcoholics — those assigned by a court either to AA, to an alcoholism clinic, or to an untreated control group.55 Forty-four percent of the control group were not rearrested in the follow-up period, compared with only 31 percent of AA clients and 32 percent of clinic clients. In the other controlled study of AA, Jeffrey Brandsma and his colleagues reported in 1980 that those randomly assigned to AA engaged in binge drinking significantly more frequently at three months than those assigned either to the nontreatment control group or to other therapies.
Another study is available here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322011 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322011)
Interestingly in that study of court offenders it was found that those who credited AA the most were re-arrested the most.
AA does not work. Plain and simple. Just because some people went to AA and got sober does not mean AA caused them to get sober. Statistically, they're better off with no treatment at all considering the increased likelyhood to relapse (Peele, et al) as well as the increased tendency to binge (Brandsma). All in all, AA is not helpful and not harmless. In point of fact, it's actually quite harmful when you consider it's prevalence in the treatment industry. I'm sure many of the members of this site would agree with peele when he concludes (partially on this basis) that it would be "abusive" to force teens into attendance.
Indeed, he cites instances (albeit anecdotal) that AA might lead to suicide (http://http://www.peele.net/faq/aasuicide.html). It would be interesting to have a study on this. Ever read Kurt Cobain's diaries or his suicide note? It seems that the primary reason he washed his mouth out with buckshot was because some fucking 12 stepper convinced him that he couldn't kick heroin on his own, was powerless, and needed to turn his life over to god as *A re-interprets. He basically decided that if that was true, he didn't want to live as a slave so... Now what if somebody had told him instead "you can quit heroin on your own, and here are some tips on how" or something to that effect... something to give him hope rather than to say "your only option is to submit your will over to us". I know I'd probably kill myself in that situation. Better a free man in the grave than living as a puppet or a slave.
Dear Stanton Peele,
I have spent the last two hours on your your web site, which I found from the Smart Recovery web site, and I am incredibly, gratefully, hopefully impressed. It's a sad world that does not make your name a household word.
Did you become a lawyer to get inside the legal battles in regards to addiction treatment and mandatory AA meetings? I have watched beautiful, vibrant, intelligent, yet addicted people become bland, reactionary, sober people due to forced involvement with 12 step groups.
My youngest brother, a 15 year old clinically depressed pot smoker, was required to attend 20 AA meetings in 30 days by an alternative high school for "troubled teenagers." One of the last things he said to his friends before he committed suicide was, "staying sober is too hard." AA had convinced him that smoking a joint was a fate worse than death, proved him powerless and addicted, and in his depressed state, he believed it. I wish I would have know about REBT, CBT, RR, MM, SMART or any of the other alternatives to 12 steps and "family systems therapy" back then...
Thanks for reading and best wishes,
Sonya Trejo
Source (as well as Peele's response):
http://www.peele.net/faq/aasuicide.html (http://www.peele.net/faq/aasuicide.html)
Note that I am quoting him, not because he is some guru, but because he has some good ideas, like many others. There is some truth in *A as well. I consider all options, and read both sides, unlike odie, for example, who wrote:
"I'm not going to read this, I have no reason to. "
and
"I don't need to read books and studies to know what's going on. I've been through it all myself and form my opinions based on that."
So are you, new guest a closed minded stepper, or are you willing to objectively consider both sides of the coin? Read Peele's chapter (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html) and see if it changes your mind a little.
-
I consider all options, and read both sides, unlike odie, for example, who wrote
Just want to point out that the person you quoted was "OPIE", not "odie," who is a registered fornits user, and may not appreciate the association with that POV.
Carry on...
-
I know you are quoting his words...but out of context with his ACTUAL, complete evaluation of his studies ommitted. Because you are not doing your own research, but simply restating the opinions of others, which they "back up" by selectively quoting and misrepresenting Vaillient's work, that is a predicable problem.
How is it misrepresented, and what is your source for stating that?
I’ve linked to, and said 7 times, my source is Wikipedia.
My other source is Vailent’s book.
You are misrepresenting Valient in a number of places.
Misrepresentation 1) A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease…Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling.
You say Vallient wrote A.A. is no more successful than no treatment at all.
In fact, in what you quote Vallient is referring to his experience working in a clinic, NOT A.A.
(BTW, He's not saying that his network was no more helpful than no help, but that there's evidence to sugest that)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited)
Misrepresentation 2)But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added”
By cutting and splicing GV, you allege he says only 5 percent of his A.A. clinical sample stopped abusing alcohol.
Wiki mentions that various websites (like the one you get your info from,) misrepresent GV’s data this way.
“Note that the figure of 95%—the number of clinical patients who relapsed at any time during the 8 year study—has been quoted on some personal websites as evidence that AA is ineffective.”
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Qmc ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Qmc0F0R0R0IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited+%22Note+that+the+figure+of+95%25%22+wiki+george+vaillent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
In FACT, in that quote GW refers to the study of a HEALTH NETWORK, not AA.
(BTW, he does NOT imply that 95 percent of his patients still abused alcohol after 8 years, just that they relapsed within that time frame.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited)
What he ACTUALLY writes is that after 8 years 34% percent reached stable sobriety, 29% had died, and 26% still were abusing. (3 times as many died as would have non-alcoholics) This sample was given unlimited access to a wide local array of mental health facilities/treatment options.
He ACTUALLY found that almost half of the alcoholics who ultimately stayed sober attended at least 300 A.A. meetings over 8 years (about once every 10 days) and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit. Conclusion: “AA attendance was associated with a higher success rate” as was having a stable home life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiven ... e_Vaillant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous#George_Vaillant).
-
You also might want to read this:
So if detoxification isn't the primary purpose of 12-step inpatient treat-ment, what is? One 12-step advocate lists the goals of treatment as follows:
(1) Treatment does not "cure" the disease—the expectation is that by instituting an achievable method of abstinence the disease will be put into remission. (2) All therapeutic efforts are directed at helping the patient reach a level of motivation that will enable him or her to commit to this abstinence program. (3) An educational program is developed to assist the patient in becoming familiar with the addictive process, insight into compulsive behaviors, medical complications, emotional insight, and maintenance of physical, mental, and spiritual health. (4) The patient's family and other significant persons are included in the therapeutic process with the understanding that the therapeutic process does not occur in a vacuum, but rather in interpersonal relationships. (5) The patient is indoctrinated into the AA program and instructed as to the content and application of the 12 steps of the program. [emphasis added] (6) Group and individual therapy are directed at selfunderstanding and acceptance with emphasis on how alcohol and drugs have affected their lives. (7) There is insistence on participation in a longitudinal support and follow-up program based on the belief that, as in the management of all chronic disease processes, maintenance is critically important to the ultimate outcome of any therapy. This follow-up usually consists of ongoing support provided by the treatment facility as well as participation in community self-help groups such as AA, Narcotics Anonymous (NA), Opiates Anonymous (OA), and the like.lv
Put in plain English, this means that the purpose of "the treatment process" is to "indoctrinate" the patient into "the AA program" and into the disease-concept-of-alcoholism belief system. That is, the purpose of 12-step treatment is to convince the patient that he has an incurable "disease" from which he will never recover; that he is "powerless" over his alcohol consumption; that he will inevitably lose control if he drinks; that should he return to drinking, he will inevitably drink in a progressively more destructive manner; that he is "in denial"; that he must not trust his own thoughts and perceptions; that he must abandon self-direction and turn his life and will over to God (or God's interpreter, AA); and that he must make a commitment to lifelong involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous, because the only alternative to such lifelong involvement is "jails, institutions, or death."
That is the purpose of 12-step "treatment." It really has very little to do with the problem of alcohol abuse. Rather, it's an indoctrination program designed to inculcate both distrust of self and learned helplessness ("powerlessness") in the patient, and to convince him that his only hope of salvation is to abandon self-direction and to plunge himself into lifelong participation in the religious program of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Never mind that every single premise upon which this indoctrination program is built is demonstrably false. As someone once pointed out, smoking is a behavior and lung cancer is a disease, just as drinking is a behavior and cirrhosis is a disease. Alcohol abuse (lifting bottles or glasses to one's lips and swallowing more alcohol than is healthy) is a behavior, not a "disease"—terming a behavior a "disease" broadens the term's definition so greatly as to render it almost meaningless. Thomas Szasz puts the matter thusly: "Excessive drinking is a habit. If we choose to call bad habits 'diseases,' there is no limit to what we may define as a disease."lvi
As well, drinkers are not "powerless" over their alcohol consumption—it isn't Satan controlling the muscles in the arm lifting the glass to the lips —and they can learn to control it."Loss of control" tends to occur only when individuals believe that it will occur.lvii
Progression of the "disease" is not inevitable, and a very high percentage of alcohol abusers (including those termed "alcohol dependent") eventually "mature out" and either achieve nonproblem drinking or abstinence without participation in AA or any treatment program.lviii
"Denial" is a Catch 22 concept, and as such is essentially useless except as a bludgeon in the indoctrination process—if you admit that you're an alcoholic, you're an alcoholic; and if you deny that you're an alcoholic, you're "in denial," which is evidence that you're an alcoholic. Either way, as with denials of witchcraft in the Middle Ages, you lose.
And, finally, participation in AA is hardly a ticket to salvation; the recovery rate in AA is no higher than the rate of spontaneous remission.lix
Because they've been thoroughly indoctrinated into the AA/diseaseconcept belief system, these facts matter not at all to those administering and conducting 12-step treatment programs. For them, having turned their lives and wills over to God, The Program has become a matter of religious faith; and even to question the premises of their belief system is blasphemous. They know The Truth—as revealed by Bill Wilson in the "inspired" Big Book. As well, they believe that their sobriety and their very lives depend on "carry[ing] this message" to those not yet saved, so they often carry that message with fearful zeal.
Source: http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter8.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter8.htm)
-
What I object to is your presentation of S.P’s viewpoint as the definitive, or only one. Yes, S.P. interprets V’s work one way, but recognize that V and the majority of scientists feel it means another.=us
Peele cites a lot more than Vaillant in that book chapter:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
In any case, it was Vaillant's own words saying "there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease." not somebody's interpretation of Vaillant's findings. Vaillant admitted AA does not work. His is hardly the only study finding that, but it is the most significant when speaking critically about AA since he was a true believer.
i don't really have time to get into this, but those words are taken out of context. In that quote from his book "Natural History of Alchoholism" G.W. is refferring to his time in a health network, not A.A.
That sort of misrepresentation is repeated through-out the web, unfortunetly, because of Agent Orange and Peele. I think Peele overstates his case by leaving out some info. For example, how sick were the alchoholics followed in the natural progression study, were they comparable to sickness levels of the alch's who sought treatment at Cambridge? Besides that I think he makes some very good points about alchoholism. He obviously knows nothing about cults, though.
The study you bring up was done in the 60s, which is almost anarchaic in medical terms. It also did not follow alchoholics, as far as I am aware of, but individuals caught up in the justice system who apparently had a "alchohol involved" offence. They were forced to attend A.A. or therapy, or allowed to do whatever they wanted. Those forced into any sort of theray were more likely to be rearested than those not forced into therapy.
To play devil's advocate, if anything, that shows that forcing people into therapy, any type, especially if they don't have the problem they are getting therapy for, is ineffective, not so much A.A. is ineffective. Basically, that "sample" is "compromised." That is the argument that would be made about that study.
I'm not saying I discount that study, I am just giving the other side of the coin. IMHO, there is evidence supporting and discrediting A.A. It's a mixed bag. Project Match indicates A.A.'s effectiveness, f.e., while the one you mention indicates it's not.
anyway, i spend way too much time here on fornits...its a nice break, but i should get back to the real world. I appreciate that you seem to have a sensible approach to this.
-
I’ve linked to, and said 7 times, my source is Wikipedia.
Which is only really good for topics that aren't controversial.
My other source is Vailent’s book.
That why you keep mispelling his name?
You are misrepresenting Valient in a number of places.
Misrepresentation 1) A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease…Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling.
You say Vallient wrote A.A. is no more successful than no treatment at all.
In fact, in what you quote Vallient is referring to his experience working in a clinic, NOT A.A.
Actually, it was aa. A study was done by a clinic yes, but the members were not in the clinic at the time of the study (though they were discharged from a 12 step treatment centr). It was an 8 year outpatient study. If you had read his book like you claim you would know that. Here is his quote in context. You can see he clearly says AA:
When I joined the staff at Cambridge Hospital, I learned about the disease of alcoholism for the first time. My prior training had been at a famous teaching hospital that from past despair had posted an unwritten sign over the door that read "alcoholic patients need not apply." ... At Cambridge Hospital I learned for the first time how to diagnose alcoholism as an illness and to think of abstinence in terms of "one day at a time." ... To me, alcoholism became a fascinating disease. It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic, by using multimodality therapy, by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics [A.A. members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of A.A., I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I and the director, William Clark, tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients, the Clinic sample described in Chapter 3, every year for the next 8 years.
...
Table 8.1 shows our treatment results. After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease.
Such "Rigorous honesty" from you, absolutely. Not a shred of misrepresentation there.
Misrepresentation 2)But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added”
By cutting and splicing GV, you allege he says only 5 percent of his A.A. clinical sample stopped abusing alcohol.
He did say that. He also said the results were no better than the natural history of the disease.
Wiki mentions that various websites (like the one you get your info from,) misrepresent GV’s data this way.
“Note that the figure of 95%—the number of clinical patients who relapsed at any time during the 8 year study—has been quoted on some personal websites as evidence that AA is ineffective.”
I don't see the word misrepresent. Also, keep in mind that anybody can edit a Wiki. Wikipedia doesn't exactly have accurate information on many cults and cult like organizations (not to mention programs). Their fanatical devotees tend to edit stuff. Please cite your sources directly rather than wiki. It's not seen as credible in an academic setting and it's not credible to me. You allege his data is misrepresented. I get that. You say some wiki editor implied (but did not state) his data has been misrepresented. I get that. What you haven't done is stated precisely HOW the data was misinterpreted.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Qmc0F0R0R0IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited+%22Note+that+the+figure+of+95%25%22+wiki+george+vaillent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
In FACT, in that quote GW refers to the study of a HEALTH NETWORK, not AA.
(BTW, he does NOT imply that 95 percent of his patients still abused alcohol after 8 years, just that they relapsed within that time frame.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited)
What he ACTUALLY writes is that after 8 years 34% percent reached stable sobriety, 29% had died, and 26% still were abusing. (3 times as many died as would have non-alcoholics) This sample was given unlimited access to a wide local array of mental health facilities/treatment options.
He ACTUALLY found that almost half of the alcoholics who ultimately stayed sober attended at least 300 A.A. meetings over 8 years (about once every 10 days) and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit. Conclusion: “AA attendance was associated with a higher success rate” as was having a stable home life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/)Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous#George_Vaillant.
Wait. Now you're saying he did study AA's sucess rate? LOL. That's a switcharound right there. So you can cite that study to show AA works but I can't cite it to show AA doesn't work. I see. Makes sense!
The fact of the matter is this: Vaillant did a study on 100 people discharged from his 12 step treatment center. Out of these 100 people, 95% relapsed. That is just as good as the spontaneous rate of remission. So how, exactly can you say AA works? Because some who abstained went to AA? LOL. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the gap in logic is there.
Also consider that these folks were indoctrinated into AA in Vaillant's treatment center before they were sent into the wild.
But let's forget Vaillant, since you seem to say his data is misinterpreted. Let's go to another study, like the one "S A T A N" quoted:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26586&p=323624#p323618 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26586&p=323624#p323618)
And about Project Match:
http://www.peele.net/lib/projmach.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/projmach.html) <-- read that.
-
To play devil's advocate, if anything, that shows that forcing people into therapy, any type, especially if they don't have the problem they are getting therapy for, is ineffective
Now there we agree 100% However even with forced AA, you would think the outcome with the Brandsma would be slightly higher. I mean... Out of the court offenders for drunk driving you would figure a certain percentage would be alcoholics and a certain percentage would want to get help. How do you account for the increase in binge drinking for those who attended AA? Forced treatment or no, you wouldn't expect it to actually make people worse, now would you. Would that mean any forced treament makes people worse, or just AA? That's an interesting point. Maybe it's a bit of both, but I tend to believe that AA's concept of "one drink, one drunk" has a lot to do with it, telling people that they're powerless once they take even a sip.
Think about it. You tell people over and over "you cannot control yourself". They'll start to believe it even if it's not true. If you were in a program i'm sure you saw it happen.
-
Okay people, Bill and I got together last night at an undisclosed location and decided you all have too much time on your hands! We both agree that we were egomaniacs in our day. However, we DID find a way for US to stay sober. The Big Book of AA was never meant to be a bible, just a text of our collaboration and a collection of stories of people who found sobriety through "our program of recovery." To this day, it amazes us that this book EVER got published!
Most hardliners sponsors instruct their charges to read the first 164 pages of the famous Big Book. My story doesn’t even start until page 171; I found that insulting in the beginning, but eventually I got over it! I believe my personal story has more relevance in today’s day and age because MY addiction included drugs – as they are so prevalent in today’s society. Keep in mind that this book was written and compiled OVER 70 years ago! Times change people and life must change with the passage of time. It was never our intention to cause such controversy – we merely wanted to put something out there that helped US and we wanted others to find HOPE from our experiences. Hence, the creation of the AA Big Book – this was our way of spreading the word of something that helped us overcome OUR addictions.
Is AA the ONLY way??? NO, many have found sobriety through other ways and other programs. At the time of the creation of AA back in 1935, the life of an alcoholic invariably ended up with them being dead, insane, or in jail. We were not fond of THAT outcome and sought to find other ways to keep an alcoholic off the booze, and/or drugs in my case.
Can AA be compared to a religion or a program – YES! You can also compare apples to oranges. Does a comparison change anything? I think not. Do we say a person can find contentment through working the steps as outlined in the book? Again yes, but times have changed and we must change with the times. We had hope that our book would help others in the same way it helped us and freed us from our addiction.
However, you can also find the same peace of mind, or contentment, in other books such as “the Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz. This book also outlines a design for “living happy, joyous and free.” We both found this book to be much less controversial and a much more simple approach to life. Ruiz outlines just 4 simple steps or ideals – (1) Be impeccable with your WORD, (2) Do not take anything personally – good or bad, (3) Always do your best (understanding that your BEST might/will change from day to day, and lastly, (4) Don’t make assumptions. It appears to be easier to remember just 4 simple steps rather than 12 convoluted steps
One thing both Bob and I agree on is the fact that statistics can be used to support ANY point of view. Back in our day, the fate of the alcoholic was not good and those afflicted were considered people of little will power and alcoholism was not a disease – you were just considered mentally ill and destined to end up dead, insane, or in jail. It was our hope that an alcoholic could recover the same way we did. It really was not our intention to create a “one size fits all” program of recovery that would continue unchanged for 70+ years.
If people find comfort & solace in going to AA meetings, so be it. We are not happy that the courts try to interfere with a program that was created on the basis anonymity and a principle of attraction rather than promotion. Having the judicial system interfere with that anonymity is an atrocity in our opinion; forcing the program upon individuals was not something we foresaw at the point of creation.
Bottom line….
If going to AA meeting helps you stay sober, by all means, GO, if not, don’t go. We pass no judgments, but we cannot speak for the members of Alcoholics Anonymous in the 21st century. We CAN say that AA was not created to be a cult in any way shape or form, nor are we responsible for what happens in the meeting rooms of AA TODAY…or all the other A’s that have sprung from the original program.
-
Okay people, Bill and I got together last night at an undisclosed location and decided you all have too much time on your hands! We both agree that we were egomaniacs in our day. However, we DID find a way for US to stay sober. The Big Book of AA was never meant to be a bible, just a text of our collaboration and a collection of stories of people who found sobriety through "our program of recovery." To this day, it amazes us that this book EVER got published!
Ya... About that. How much do you know about the details of how the Big Book was published (outside of the "official" AA version):
Excerpt:
On top of all of this, Bill Wilson stole the copyright of the Big Book (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-bigbook.html) when he filed for the copyright, claiming sole authorship of the book (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-BB-cpyrite.gif), when the book really had at least 50 authors, thus breaking his promise to all of the co-authors that the book would belong to the group. And then Bill blackmailed AAWS (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-bigbook.html#royalties) into giving him and Dr. Bob royalties for life in trade for that copyright, thus breaking his promise that the profits would go to "The Alcoholic Foundation".
Source: http://orange-papers.org/orange-aacoa.html (http://orange-papers.org/orange-aacoa.html)
Bill died a very rich man. The reason nobody blew the whistle is because if the copyright was looked into, it would be revealed that the big book was accidentally first published into the public domain, meaning it couldn't be sold by anybody.
Most hardliners sponsors instruct their charges to read the first 164 pages of the famous Big Book. My story doesn’t even start until page 171; I found that insulting in the beginning, but eventually I got over it! I believe my personal story has more relevance in today’s day and age because MY addiction included drugs – as they are so prevalent in today’s society. Keep in mind that this book was written and compiled OVER 70 years ago!
Yup. Them drugs have been around for a very very long time. Not a new thing at all. Ever read "a drug war carol"?
http://www.adrugwarcarol.com/ (http://www.adrugwarcarol.com/)
It's a nice history lesson on the subject.
Times change people and life must change with the passage of time. It was never our intention to cause such controversy – we merely wanted to put something out there that helped US and we wanted others to find HOPE from our experiences. Hence, the creation of the AA Big Book – this was our way of spreading the word of something that helped us overcome OUR addictions.
Well. The actual motivations for the publication of the big book varies.
Is AA the ONLY way??? NO,
Well. While that's one thing the big book says, it contradicts itself several in several other places.
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. His drunkenness and dissolution are not penalties inflicted by people in authority; they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 174.
Some suggestion. Do this or you will DIE. It's more or less implied where not explicitly stated through various clichés that AA is the only way.
many have found sobriety through other ways and other programs. At the time of the creation of AA back in 1935, the life of an alcoholic invariably ended up with them being dead, insane, or in jail.
Well. Statistically that isn't quite true. Most alcoholics recover spontaneously (eventually), with an equal or greater rate than with AA. While there were no studies to that affect (that I know of) back then, there are now.
Again yes, but times have changed and we must change with the times.
That's heresy to most 12 steppers.
It was our hope that an alcoholic could recover the same way we did. It really was not our intention to create a “one size fits all” program of recovery that would continue unchanged for 70+ years.
Well. That's what happened, and I don't see AA complaining about it. Indeed, i've talked to steppers who insist that the 12 steps can be applied to cure anything. They're that deluded.
If people find comfort & solace in going to AA meetings, so be it. We are not happy that the courts try to interfere with a program that was created on the basis anonymity and a principle of attraction rather than promotion.
Who is we when you say not happy? Why is it that the Little Red Book encourages lobbying of the state, judges, and police officers, then? Again, I don't see AA as an institution opposing this practice.
Having the judicial system interfere with that anonymity is an atrocity in our opinion; forcing the program upon individuals was not something we foresaw at the point of creation.
Oh really?
... they thought it a good idea to have a preliminary talk with his wife. And this became part of the way things were done in the early days: Discuss it first with the wife; find out what you could; then plan your approach. It should be noted, as well, that the alcoholic himself didn't ask for help. He didn't have anything to say about it.
Dr. Bob and the Good Oldtimers, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 1980, pages 82-83.
And this approach or similar doesn't continue today? Are you aware of who started the practice of lobbying judges to sentence people to AA? Something you might want to look into.
Bottom line….
If going to AA meeting helps you stay sober, by all means, GO, if not, don’t go. We pass no judgments, but we cannot speak for the members of Alcoholics Anonymous in the 21st century. We CAN say that AA was not created to be a cult in any way shape or form, nor are we responsible for what happens in the meeting rooms of AA TODAY…or all the other A’s that have sprung from the original program.
AA's origins and that of the Big Book (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bigbook.html) are VERY debatable, especially what the founders intended.
In any case, If AA is to make progress, those who oppose such ideas such as forced treatment should take a stand on it. Right now it seems as if even though AA is being "force fed" referrals, they aren't exactly minding it (or at least not being vocal about it). Through silence, they're complicit in the practice. There needs to be more of this kind of thing:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pamphlet2.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pamphlet2.html)
-
S A t A N, were you ever in a program, and what program was it?
-
S A t A N, were you ever in a program, and what program was it?
One that smelled of AA. Does it matter to my arguments?
-
"Hey! What did you do last weekend?"
"I debated the merits of AA and Bill Wilson on the internet. It was great, you should try it sometime!"
"Um. OK. Yeah... sounds fun... I guess."
"Well it's because I was in a program, and so I don't like AA."
"What kind of program?"
"Program for troubled teens."
"Oh... seriously? That's rough, too bad for you."
"Yeah. Too bad for me...."
---awkward silence----
"Well. It's been great catching up."
Yeah, definitely. Hey, if you want to learn more about programs go to for-"
"Sure thing. Sorry but I gotta go"
"nits.com... Oh. Ok. See you later then."
-
"Hey! What did you do last weekend?"
"I debated the merits of AA and Bill Wilson on the internet. It was great, you should try it sometime!"
"Um. OK. Yeah... sounds fun... I guess."
"Well it's because I was in a program, and so I don't like AA."
"What kind of program?"
"Program for troubled teens."
"Oh... seriously? That's rough, too bad for you."
"Yeah. Too bad for me...."
---awkward silence----
"Well. It's been great catching up."
Yeah, definitely. Hey, if you want to learn more about programs go to for-"
"Sure thing. Sorry but I gotta go"
"nits.com... Oh. Ok. See you later then."
OMG that is so funny :tup: :tup: :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
I consider all options, and read both sides, unlike odie, for example, who wrote
Just want to point out that the person you quoted was "OPIE", not "odie," who is a registered fornits user, and may not appreciate the association with that POV.
Carry on...
I'm sure he would care deeply!! Who wouldn't?
-
"Hey! What did you do last weekend?"
"I debated the merits of AA and Bill Wilson on the internet. It was great, you should try it sometime!"
"Um. OK. Yeah... sounds fun... I guess."
"Well it's because I was in a program, and so I don't like AA."
"What kind of program?"
"Program for troubled teens."
"Oh... seriously? That's rough, too bad for you."
"Yeah. Too bad for me...."
---awkward silence----
"Well. It's been great catching up."
Yeah, definitely. Hey, if you want to learn more about programs go to for-"
"Sure thing. Sorry but I gotta go"
"nits.com... Oh. Ok. See you later then."
OMG that is so funny :tup: :tup: :roflmao: :roflmao:
No offense to anyone I hope, but that was some funny shit. :rofl:
-
Ok. Let’s look at your allegations and the study:
(Vallient worked in a) 12 step treatment centr (his patients were)indoctrinated into AA in Vaillant's treatment centre
The clinic was not “12 step based.” There was no “indoctrination.”
Description of Cambridge Hospital from GV, history of Alcholism:
(During their stay the patients spent much of their time in detox often requiring) “750 mg or more clohriazpoxide.” “All patients received individual counselling and two to three hours of films and group discussion a day. An internist educated patients about medical issues on alcohol and abuse” [Alcoholics anonymous style meetings] “were held twice a week.” (P191) [So, the clinic sample attended 1 meeting while at the hospital.]”CASPAR was designed on a medical model, was based in a general hospital and was directed by an internist. The program included round the clock walk in counselling to patients and relatives, “wet” and “dry” shelter, groups and immediate access to detoxification and to medical and psychiatric consultation (349)
He mentions his freind had success in A.A., a place so different than]“the acceptable medical environment of CASPAR” (p349)
He does not believe that the course of alcoholism in invariably death or abstinence, and wasn’t telling his patients that, as you imply.
“The third illusion (of alcoholism) is that alcoholism must end in death or abstinence.”(p197)
The clinic incorporated a variety of treatment approaches, according to V
It was an 8 year outpatient study of AA.
No, it was an 8 year study of alcoholism in general, CASPAR health network, a variety of treatment approaches, and clinical intervention.
Here is part of the description of the outpatient portion of the study:
After discharge, all patients knew they could return to the program as outpatients at no cost and without appointment.”(And have access to the treatment options described above) The patients were all encouraged to attend [conventional] groups; [at which they were referred to] A.A groups. Patients were also made aware of other treatment options …halfway houses, drop in centres, freestanding detoxification units and integrated mental health facilities Our sample when they relapsed continued to have multiple therapeutic contacts with our program. Multiple informants were used, and the records of four alcoholic counselling programs were reviewed [not A.A.] Over eight years, we could identify, for the average subject, 15 admissions for detoxification and at least as many visit to emergency rooms or counselling centres.”
Because many treatment options were available, G.V was able to say:
Overall, however, treatment “other than AA did not significantly improve the subjects’ outcome.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Qmc ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Qmc0F0R0R0IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited+%22overall,+however,treatment+other+than+AA+did+not+significantly+improve+the+subjects%27+outcome%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
-
So, let’s look at your misrepresentations:
Misrepresentation 1)
A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all. HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:
After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease…
Your quote is care of “Orange” who presents a paragraph and misrepresents its subject. The quote comes from “the doctor’s dilemma” chapter, where G.V. responds to the idea that since there is no known cure for alcoholism, it is pointless to provide care for alcoholics.
(My dilemma is should I) ignore a chronic malady as painful to the individual as damaging to his health, as destructive to his health at alcoholism?
You can take his quote in two ways: a referendum on his inpatient work with the Clinic sample, or as a referendum on the outcome of the Clinic sample as a whole, whose outpatient treatment is described below:
After discharge, all patients knew they could return to the program as outpatients at no cost and without appointment.”(And have access to the treatment options described above) The patients were all encouraged to attend [conventional] groups [at which they were referred to] A.A. groups. “Patients were also made aware of other treatment options “…halfway houses, drop in centres, freestanding detoxification units and integrated mental health facilities Our sample when they relapsed continued to have multiple therapeutic contacts with our program. Multiple informants were used, and the records of four alcoholic counselling programs were reviewed.[not A.A.] Over eight years, we could identify, for the average subject, 15 admissions for detoxification and many visits to emergency rooms or counselling centres.”
p189
Since he speaks of 95% having a temporary relapse (including those who never went to A.A,btw) AFTER discharge, I take that quote as a referendum on his “dilemma as a doctor” who provides perhaps fruitless, expensive emergency care intervention in his clinic, because his patients relapse afterwards, anyway.
That’s why his focus is on temporary relapsing after discharge, not, say, a steady sobriety level years into outpatient treatment—which you would focus on to assess success of outpatient treatment, right?.
If you want to take that as a referendum on the clinic Sample then you are examining the study of CASPAR health network, not A.A.
-
Misrepresentation 2)
(here's G.V. talking about A.A.) I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking].”
You allege he says only 5 percent of his A.A. clinical sample stopped abusing alcohol.
He did say that.
No, G.V NEVER said only 5% of his Clinical Sample(in which he studies a health network, not A.A.) stopped abusing alcohol
The results of his study of alcoholism and a health network are represented in his graph:
(http://http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/966/vallientka0.png)
Wiki restates them accurately:
At the end of the 8 years, 34% of subjects had achieved stable abstinence, 29% had died, and 26% were still abusing alcohol
Your misrepresentation comes from “Orange” & it is reproduced through –out the web.
-
Misrepresentation 2)
(here's G.V. talking about A.A.) I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking].”
You allege he says only 5 percent of his A.A. clinical sample stopped abusing alcohol.
He did say that.
No, G.V NEVER said only 5% of his Clinical Sample(in which he studies a health network, not A.A.) stopped abusing alcohol
The results of his study of alcoholism and a health network are represented in his graph:
(http://http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/966/vallientka0.png)
Wiki restates them accurately:
At the end of the 8 years, 34% of subjects had achieved stable abstinence, 29% had died, and 26% were still abusing alcohol
Your misrepresentation comes from “Orange” & it is reproduced through –out the web.
-
Wait. Now you're saying he did study AA's sucess rate? LOL. That's a switcharound right there. So you can cite that study to show AA works but I can't cite it to show AA doesn't work. I see. Makes sense!
The study was of alcholism, a health network, all the treatment options within the network and A.A. Because so many pateints were stil alchoholic at the end of 8 years, there is no ringing support in the study for any treatment plan, including A.A. However, of the people who got sober, half used A.A, No other treatment option ranked. That is why GV drew the conclusion
Alcoholics Anonymous appears equal to or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism
-
I never understood the logic of sitting around with a bunch of ex-drunks, talking about not drinking. It always made we want to go to the bar afterward.
-
I never understood the logic of sitting around with a bunch of ex-drunks, talking about not drinking. It always made we want to go to the bar afterward.
this
-
Having spent almost the last two years in outpatient and AA Recovery for Alcoholism, I've come to the conclusion that while AA has its Big Book, 12 and 12 and other Documentation, it really is very open ended. Meaning its like a ball of Clay.
You can take the clay and make out of it what you wish. Apparently there are many who post here that have a lot of Ism's
Well certainly they have a lot of resentments. I dont think the God thing should be as big a deal as everyone makes it.
The founders Bill W and Doctor Bob just happened to be Christians. But they wanted to keep it wide open for anyone to choose what their "Higher power was" It could be just the other people that you share with if you like.
I cant pick up my couch and move it without some help, and I couldn't stop Drinking without some help.
I do however think that AA CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS. Drug Addict/Alcoholics are very sick people. I am tired of hearing the stories about " My sponsor was a great guy he had 27 years then went out for six months then shot himself"
This means that these people are doing things inside there own heads that isn't very healthy.
I told my sponsor today, Please don't ever feel so bad over a slip, that you would kill yourself.
I would totally rather suck down a few Martinis once in a while rather than put a bullet in my head!
Sorry for rambling and good luck to everyone in their recovery.
By the Way there is another way out you could try the Regenerate Program from NIFAR (National institute for Alcohol Recovery) http://WWW.NIFAR.COM (http://WWW.NIFAR.COM) or ORG not sure, just check it out!
-
the minute you said "have a lot of isms" I stopped reading your post.
-
Great. I'm glad the thread that makes survivors look like unreliable, ignorant conspiracy mongers is on top of thread list.
I'm gonna start a "did the holocuast really happen?" thread to round everything out.
Rubber Neckers..the survivors who follow the AA=program line of thought are few and far between, last and least. Please recognize, they are NOTHING ALIKE. Programs are brainwashing, imprisonment and torture
-
While AA and programs are not exactly alike, there are some striking similarities that make quite a few of us extremely uncomfortable. I'll never understand this 'no dissent allowed' mindset though. The AAers (at least most that I've tried discussing this with, save a few exceptions) just cannot tolerate criticism of what they perceive to be their savior. Just that smacks of program to me. I don't see AA as a cult per se, but it has some very cult-like philosophies.
-
I once made a couch out of clay.
Often times I'd spend weekday mornings sipping pachoulli infused, lukewarm Pabst Blue Ribbons whilst watching my Scientology VHS tapes.
Those were the days.
I'm still hoping Tom Cruise and xenon can come over and do some narcissictic clay couch jumping before I have to move it back into my slingblade shed full of biscuits and mustard.
-
there are some striking similarities that make quite a few of us extremely uncomfortable.
Few is the keyword here everybody. There is like five survivors posting on fornits, most of whom were in programs years or even decades ago. If anything it shows that programs are safe, evident by the relatively dismal percentage of people who google "program abused me" and find this website. What's five out of 100,000 percentage wise?....
-
While AA and programs are not exactly alike,
wow, that's QUITE an understatment. I am sorry. I find this minimization of torment and the shocking ignorance /stupidity behind it offensive.
Maybe "all the AAers" don't want to talk about whether or not they are cult members for the same reason you don't want to talk about whether or not you are a druggie: Because the suggestion is rude, presumptuous and just idiotic.
And notice the troll is bumping this thread? yeah, he's doing that for a reason.
-
there is like
17thousand, hundred extra million reasons....
but there are about 3 or maybe 5 people actually here trapped in the goat corral of the online TBS petting zoo.
-
there are some striking similarities that make quite a few of us extremely uncomfortable.
Few is the keyword here everybody. There is like five survivors posting on fornits, most of whom were in programs years or even decades ago. If anything it shows that programs are safe, evident by the relatively dismal percentage of people who google "program abused me" and find this website. What's five out of 100,000 percentage wise?....
Hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself.
-
While AA and programs are not exactly alike,
wow, that's QUITE an understatment. I am sorry. I find this minimization of torment and the shocking ignorance /stupidity behind it offensive.
Maybe "all the AAers" don't want to talk about whether or not they are cult members for the same reason you don't want to talk about whether or not you are a druggie: Because the suggestion is rude, presumptuous and just idiotic.
And notice the troll is bumping this thread? yeah, he's doing that for a reason.
Again....whatever you gotta tell yourself. It ain't just a couple of people and it ain't just a few, benign similarities.
-
While AA and programs are not exactly alike,
wow, that's QUITE an understatment. I am sorry. I find this minimization of torment and the shocking ignorance /stupidity behind it offensive.
Maybe "all the AAers" don't want to talk about whether or not they are cult members for the same reason you don't want to talk about whether or not you are a druggie: Because the suggestion is rude, presumptuous and just idiotic.
(http://http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb47/K-tori/cult.jpg)
I can help you feel better about yourself
-
While AA and programs are not exactly alike,
wow, that's QUITE an understatment. I am sorry. I find this minimization of torment and the shocking ignorance /stupidity behind it offensive.
Maybe "all the AAers" don't want to talk about whether or not they are cult members for the same reason you don't want to talk about whether or not you are a druggie: Because the suggestion is rude, presumptuous and just idiotic.
(http://http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb47/K-tori/cult.jpg)
I can help you feel better about yourself
lol.
If a Program Parent who believes all anti-straight protesters are drug addicts is brainwashed, what are you for believing everyone who believes AA’s a benign, helpful group is a brainwashed AA member? An idiot? According to your rationale, every known cultic scholar is a brainwashed AA member. But, OK. The conspiracy goes pretty deep, right?
Wouldn't I actually have to be an alcoholic and feel benefited by AA to be part of its cult? Does it matter that I am not and I don’t? Or do you feel that I am lying about that as you “know” my personal history? Why are you comfortable behaving in a fashion that were a PP to imitate you’d feel proved their brainwashing or stupidity?
Never mind. It’s my bad for feeling offended by people who imply programs are consensual, 1 hour a week, group meetings where groups are advised not to instruct or yell at members, but are ultimately are free to do whatever they want as there is no authority dominating them. If only your beleif was correct. Then my arthritis wouldn't be so bad after being slaved so hard . Oh, le internet. le sigh.
-
Some early history on the Moral Re-Armament people:
Oxford Group: a program for alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous
In Akron, Ohio, Jim Newton an Oxford Group member knew that one of Firestone's sons, Russell, was a serious alcoholic. He took him first to a drying-out clinic and then on to an Oxford Group conference in Denver. The young man gave his life to God, and thereafter enjoyed extended periods of sobriety. The family doctor called it a ‘medical miracle’. Harvey Firestone Senior was so grateful that, in January 1933, he invited Buchman and a team of sixty to conduct a ten-day campaign in Akron. They left behind them a strong functioning group which met each week in the house of T. Henry Williams, amongst whom were an Akron surgeon, Bob Smith, and his wife Anne. Bob was a secret drinker.[101]
Rowland Hazard, claimed that it was Carl Jung who caused him to seek a spiritual solution to his alcoholism, which led to Rowland joining the Oxford group. He was introduced by Shep Cornell to Cornell's friend Ebby Thacher, Ebby had a serious drinking problem. Hazard introduced Ebby to Carl Jung's theory and then to the Oxford Group. For a time Ebby took up residence at Sam Shoemaker's Calvary Rescue Mission.[102] Reverend Sam Shoemaker ran the Calvary Rescue Mission that catered mainly to saving down-and-outs and drunks. Sam Shoemaker taught the concept of God being that of one's understanding to the new inductees. [103]
Ebby Thacher, in keeping with the Oxford Teachings, needed to keep his own conversion experience real by carrying the Oxford message of salvation to others. Ebby had heard of his old drinking buddy Bill Wilson was again drinking heavily. Thacher and Cornell visited Wilson at his home and introduced him to the Oxford Group's religious conversion cure. Wilson an agnostic, was "aghast" when Thacher told him he had "got religion".[104]
A few days later, in a drunken state, Wilson went to the Calvary Rescue Mission in search of Ebby Thacher. It was there that he attended his first Oxford Group meeting and would later describe the experience: "Penitents started marching forward to the rail. Unaccountably impelled, I started too.... Soon, I knelt among the sweating, stinking penitents... Afterward, Ebby... told me with relief that I had done all right and had given my life to God."[105]The Call to the Altar did little to curb Wilson's drinking. A couple of days later, he re-admitted himself to Charles B. Towns Hospital. Wilson had been admitted to Towns hospital three times earlier between 1933 and 1934. This would be his fourth and last stay. [106]
Wilson did not obtain his spiritual awakening by his attendance at the Oxford Group. He had his "hot flash" conversion at Town's Hospital. The hospital was set up and run by Charles B. Towns and his associate Dr. Alexander Lambert, who together had concocted up a drug cocktail for the treatment of alcoholism that bordered on quackery medicine known as the The Belladonna Cure. The formula cure consisted of the two deliriants Atropa belladonna and Hyoscyamus niger, which are were known to cause hallucinations. Wilson had his "hot flash" spiritual awakening, while being treated with these drugs. He claimed to have seen a white light and when he told his attending physician, Dr. William Silkworth about his experience, he was advised not to discount it. When Wilson left the hospital he never drank again. [107].
After his release from the Hospital, Wilson attended Oxford Group meetings and went on a mission to save other alcoholics. His prospects came through Towns Hospital and the Calvary Mission. Though he was not able to keep one alcoholic sober, he found that by engaging in the activity of trying to convert others he was able to keep himself sober. It was this realization, that he needed another alcoholic to work with, that brought him into contact with Dr. Bob Smith while on a business trip in Akron Ohio. Earlier Wilson had been advised by Dr. Silkworth to change his approach and tell the alcoholics they suffered from a disease, one that could kill them, and afterward apply the Oxford Practices. The idea that alcoholism was a disease not a moral failing was different from the Oxford concept that drinking was a sin. This is what he brought to Bob Smith on their first meeting. Smith was the first alcoholic Wilson helped to sobriety. Dr. Smith and Bill W.as he was later called went on to found Alcoholics Anonymous.
Wilson later acknowledged: "The early AA got its ideas of self-examination, acknowledgment of character defects, restitution for harm done, and working with others straight from the Oxford Group and directly from Sam Shoemaker, their former leader in America, and from nowhere else."
In 1939 James Houck joined the Oxford Group and became sober on Dec. 12, one day after Wilson did.[citation needed] AA was founded on June 10, 1935, the first day of Dr. Bob's sobriety. Houck was the last surviving person to have attended Oxford Group meetings with Wilson, who died in 1971. In September 2004, at the age of 98, Houck was still active in the group, now renamed Moral Re-armament, and it was his mission to restore the Oxford Group's spiritual methods through the Back to Basics program, a twelve step program similar to A.A. Houck believed the old Oxford spiritual methods were stronger and more effective than the ones currently practiced in A.A. Houck was trying to introduce the program into the prison systems.[108]
Houcks assessment of Wilson's time in the Oxford group: He was never interested in the things we were interested in; he only wanted to talk about alcoholism; he was not interested in giving up smoking; he was a ladies man and would brag of his sexual exploits with other members, and in Houck's opinion he remained an agnostic. [109]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Group)