RIP - Michael Joshua Reuben

[Anonymous]

i was in a # of programs. The only program i really "care" about is CEDU because "it" (the staff and peer staff) murdered a little kid that i love. So i just get offended when it's equated with some touchy-feely group. I notice the similar terminology though "make ammends" "newcomer" so i understand instinctual disttaste for it..but when you've actually been there or research it..there is really NO comparison. I am also posting on this cause i have extra time again this week.
Happy MLK day!!!

[Anonymous]

JSYK, Schafer also doesn’t believe thought reform or brainwashing exists, nor any mental illness.

He may have some connection to the scientologists
http://209.85.129.132/custom?q=cache:aZ ... =clnk&cd=1

“Today, it is as fashionable to criticize Scientologists and Scientology as it was to criticize Jews and Judaism in 1930s and 1940s Germany. Scientology is recognized by our federal government as a religion and demands the same respect and tolerance we show any other religion. Instead of asking why Scientology endorses Thomas Szasz’s ideas, we should be asking why other religions do not.”

 Shame and stigma shame is the way to stop symptoms of what is called mental illness and drug addictions, he says:

“Supporters of parity(forcing insurance to cover mental disability as well as physical_  celebrate the new law as signaling the end of "stigma," but they fail to consider that stigmatization is a marvelous negative reinforcer for undesired behavior, some of which is called "mental illness."

http://209.85.129.132/custom?q=cache:mS ... =clnk&cd=1

Yay shame!

[Anonymous]

JSYK, Schafer also doesn’t believe thought reform or brainwashing exists, nor any mental illness.

Yup.  I know that (though that is an oversimplification of his views).  But his area of expertise is addiction treatment, not cults or brainwashing.  It's possible to be right on one thing and wrong on another at the same time.  I am also not sure if your claim that he doesn't believe brainwashing / thought reform exists is accurate.  I know his stance on mental illness, but I'd like to see some evidence for his stance on brainwashing.

He may have some connection to the scientologists
http://209.85.129.132/custom?q=cache:aZ ... =clnk&cd=1

“Today, it is as fashionable to criticize Scientologists and Scientology as it was to criticize Jews and Judaism in 1930s and 1940s Germany. Scientology is recognized by our federal government as a religion and demands the same respect and tolerance we show any other religion. Instead of asking why Scientology endorses Thomas Szasz’s ideas, we should be asking why other religions do not.”

I know his stance on that, yes.  But he's neither a scientologist or a member of CCHR (though he has recieved one of their awards).  Techincally, a lot of his views and opinions are quite contrary to what Scientologists believe.  Even if he was a scientologist, his views on addiction would still be valid if supported by science.  What you're doing is ad hominem and guilt by association.

Shame and stigma shame is the way to stop symptoms of what is called mental illness and drug addictions, he says:

“Supporters of parity(forcing insurance to cover mental disability as well as physical_  celebrate the new law as signaling the end of "stigma," but they fail to consider that stigmatization is a marvelous negative reinforcer for undesired behavior, some of which is called "mental illness."

http://209.85.129.132/custom?q=cache:mS ... =clnk&cd=1

Yay shame!

And to a certain extent he has a point.  Take for instance, a drunk driver who kills somebody.  Now more than ever people are likely to say "oh poor you.. you have a disease".  And so the drunk driver, instead of learning that he murdered somebody, learns that it was just his disease (it's not my fault.  The devil drink made me do it!  I'm an alkie-holic, and that's a disease).  My opinion is that if somebody, through reckess driving (what substance was in the system should matter) kills somebody, they should be throw in jail for life.  Problem solved.  I have absolutely zero compassion towards people who recklessly kill others and then blame it on some fictitious disease.  It's a cop out.

While real diseases exist, Alcoholism ain't one

smoking is a behavior.  Lung cancer is a disease
alcohol use is a behavior.  cirrhosis of the liver is a disease.
heroin use is a behavior.  aids is a disease.
eating is a behavior.  clogged arteries is a disease.

etc. etc. etc.

[FemanonFatal2.0]

While real diseases exist, Alcoholism ain't one

smoking is a behavior.  Lung cancer is a disease
alcohol use is a behavior.  cirrhosis of the liver is a disease.
heroin use is a behavior.  aids is a disease.
eating is a behavior.  clogged arteries is a disease.

etc. etc. etc.

I can agree with this but I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the issue of Behavior vs Disease.

I think we all have tendencies and personality flaws, and not everyone is so unique in these factors, so we tend to analyze the similarities and call them diseases or more so disorders. I personally agree that mental disorders exist and an addictive personality is very similar both in brain chemistry and behavioral tendencies. However the presence of a pre-existing chemical imbalance is usually the cause for a person to feel "addicted" to any particular substance and that is because they are self medicating. In these cases I think the "addiction" is simply a symptom of the real disorders they are struggling with and cannot and will not be cured or maintained by AA or any social, religious, or behavior modification program. The symptom itself is not a disorder and certainly not a disease, however considering the great deal of the population of addicts who are struggling with other different disorders it makes sense that they would assume they are all showing symptoms of the same disorder.

Then there is the issue of Cravings vs Willpower, this is often when people who are not struggling with pre-existing disorders can usually attain their lack of willpower to the "disease" of addiction. Usually this is when a habit is formed for a drug and its corresponding lifestyle and the subject has tried many drugs but found a preference for one that they use for any number of years and this creates a tolerance which leads them to abuse the drug. There are many drugs that are proven to cause a physical addiction, these are mostly those that cause enough problems in a persons life that they would feel the need (or be forced) to go to AA, these drugs also cause withdrawls and cravings after the drug has left their body and therefore it is easy for these people to subscribe to the "disease" of addiction. Even if addiction was an actual disorder why is it that addiction is the only one that you dont have to go to a doctor to be diagnosed? Instead you walk into a meeting of a bunch of uneducated ex-drug users and they are the ones who convince you that you have a disease. That doesnt really make sense to me. Furthermore why are there no legal drug treatments for addiction (as in the "disease" of addiction, not lets say the physical addiction to a specific drug) and why is personal therapy not usually the recommended treatment of addiction? Why is it only this very confrontational, war story sharing, guilt laden program the ONLY accepted solution for this so-called wide spread disease? and why is it that christian churches are usually the places these meetings are held?

I have to agree that convincing someone that they are powerless in a situation that ultimately requires a considerable amount of willpower to be quite a ridiculous concept. Futhermore, hiding under the pretense that not only do the drugs have the power and you must simply avoid them but also that you have to put every bit of hope into a "higher power" in order to do so really only reminds me of a technique that a cult would use to make sure the victim stayed dependent on them. I think that is exactly what sets these people up to fail, because as soon as they get busy and stop going to meetings its always in the back of their minds that they will fail, (ie: go back to the drugs) without the program. So they do, under the guise that they really cant help themselves. I think this whole system is far more psychologically detrimental than it is helpful in anyway, I think it has the same ability to brainwash its members as the program does, and thats why its no surprise that the program often uses the AA system as a base when creating the program. It works only to keep people off drugs while they are committed to isolating themselves and depending on the program to protect them from the outside world however its completely lacking in teaching its subjects how to really go about supporting their sobriety on their own, that they have the willpower to overcome addiction and that their life and family and success should be what keeps them from using again, not the program.

Ive gone on enough, just felt I might share my 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

Ad hominem or not, this jeffrey person is a complete idiot. He doesn't even beleive that schizophrenia "exists," even in people who are clearly delusional. And he seems to be connected to Scientology is some really intense way.

"Why would you put somebody like him in the hands of psychiatry, that admits it doesn't know how to actually solve the problems, and the only solution is to drug the person?" asks Jan Eastgate, who investigates psychiatric abuse for the Church of Scientology and aligns herself with other critics of institutional psychiatry, like Professor Jeffrey Schaler of American University, who say schizophrenia shouldn’t even be called a disease.

“There is no disease that Jeremy had called schizophrenia. This is an attempt by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to explain why he did what he did,” says Schaler."

Asked if he believes that drugs can treat mental illness, Schaler says, "Since there’s not such thing as mental illness, there’s no such thing as a medicine for mental illness. Now, can certain drugs change the way a person feels? Of course. But does that mean the person needed that drug?"

I'm gonna say, since Jeremy was expereincing hallucinations, then, yeah. He needed that drug.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/scien ... try27.html



Also , he denigratingly accuses people  of simply "appealing to authority." But guess what he considers "appealing to authority"? Answer: citing scientific research!

[psy]

Just because the Scientologists tend to like his view on that one issue doesn't mean Schaler is a Scientologist.  Do I agree with Schaler that mental illness does not exist at all?  Of course not.  But I do agree with him that addiction is not a disease and there is a tendency of society to over-diagnose and over-label people as "mentally ill" that aren't in reality.

Ever read about the Rosenhan experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

[Anonymous]

ok. I know I sound like an aa booster, but don’t believe everything you hear on this website about them.

For one thing, A.A is NOT confrontational. Confrontation falls under the classification “crosstalk” which is banned by A.A.(as far as they can ban things)

Alcoholics Anonymous cross talk refers to a specific kind of behavior that is strongly discouraged among Alcoholics Anonymous.  More precisely, "cross talk" during an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting usually means telling another member what to think or how to act, speaking directly to another person rather than to the group, questioning or interrupting the person who is currently sharing and speaking, or giving direct advice to others who have already shared.
Alcoholics Anonymous, Cross Talk, and Meetings

Avoidance of cross talk is considered a safety feature of the meetings.  Unlike group therapy, Alcoholics Anonymous members share their own experience, strength, and hope with one another, rather than telling others what to do or what they should think.
In the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, members refrain from cross talk. The idea is for members to speak only about their own feelings and experiences and accept without comment what others say because whatever they say is true for them.
Alcoholics Anonymous members work toward taking responsibility in their own lives, rather than giving advice to others.

The following represents examples of what Alcoholics Anonymous calls "cross talk":
•   dominating
•   Unsolicited feedback
•   debating
•   advice-giving
•   criticizing
•   "you" and "we" statements
•   interrogating
•   controlling
•   self avoidance
•   answering
•   talking directly to others
Alcoholics Anonymous cross talk during AA meetings is frowned upon Alcoholics Anonymous for a reason:  AA members believe that they should take responsibility for their own behaviors, beliefs, and actions instead of giving advice to others.

http://209.85.129.132/custom?q=cache:_H ... =clnk&cd=2

[psy]

ok. I know I sound like an aa booster

Ya do.  So you were in CEDU which was light on the AA dogma.  Ok deal.  I was in Benchmark which was CEDU/Synanon blended with AA blended with LGATs blended with something a bit worse than WWASP's exit plan.  So yeah.  You'd be right if you were to say that I have a personal resentment or knee-jerk reaction against anything AA, but I would like to think that i'd feel the same way if the particular shitpit I was in was a little less heavy on the stepper dogma.

That being said, i'd be willing to wager that your family members are steppers who have pressured you to attend meetings.  You did and got sucked in... er...  admitted your problem you didn't actually... er... took the first step.  Amirite?

For one thing, A.A is NOT confrontational. Confrontation falls under the classification “crosstalk” which is banned by A.A.(as far as they can ban things)

And that's one of the most widely ignored (and selectively applied) rules in all of AA.  Sure during meetings in most places that is respected, but not during all forms of meetings and certainly not while outside meetings.  A sponsor is more than free to judge you for your actions, words, and even acquaintances ("that person/place/thing is bad for your sobriety", etc...).  All "no cross talk" ensures is that the cross-talk will happen at some other point in time (after the meeting, etc)... that is considering your local chapter doesn't completely ignore the rule.  There are other ways to confront than in a group setting.  "quit your stinking thinking" and so on and so forth are common.

I would agree that there are some AA meetings that are far from cult-like, but the ones I've experienced... not so much.  Your result may vary.  Now let me quote from the holy website of Peele:

When an individual comes to AA, he/she knows some things are required for fundamental membership. Chief of these is to declare yourself an alcoholic. It may be friendly (although I have observed great hostility towards individuals who refused to declare themselves this way) but there is no backing out, and many people (especially the DWIs who quit as soon as they can) experience great anxiety around it. When people are compelled to take on a self-identification with which they disagree or about which they are unsure, when great group pressure is placed on this identification, what do you call it? Again, these tales are described in detail and at length in David Rudy's Becoming Alcoholic and Ken Ragge's More Revealed. (Room also recommended that I read Charles Bufe's book, Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure, which decided AA is not a cult. I replied: I know Bufe's book and I believe I am writing a preface to his new edition. Not being a cult -- for example not having a charismatic [living] leader or using physical coercion -- takes one out of one category, like Nazism, but leaves much room for mind control and psychological coercion.)

 I can only marvel at the lack of psychological insight Robin's comments reveal -- that AA is not coercive because the rule is "no cross-talk."

One experience I have which may be unique for a "social-behaviorist" is the time I spent lecturing to AA grads going through counseling programs and attending conferences for counselors. (I did this at the UC Berkeley alcoholism counseling certificate granting program when Room was at Berkeley.) These experiences were surreal, particularly at a University, as people reviled me for even suggesting any alternative approaches to AA. Robin, you ought to try it some time. Moreover, did the regular Berkeley faculty have any obligation, do you think, to pay attention to official support UC gave to people emerging from programs like these endorsing know-nothingness?

In these programs, people showed what was either a totalitarian mind set/or a hyper psychological sensitivity to any challenge to their philosophy of sobriety for which the only previous equivalents in my experience occurred in clinical settings. At one "meeting," a woman asked me if she could could join my "group." Another walked out, saying she would have to kill me if she stayed.

Meanwhile, the horrible blood letting around controlled drinking, culminating in the Sobells' persecution, is a chapter yet to be fully plumbed in America. Of course, what is amazing vis-a-vis Room's Olympiad detachment is that Pendery et al. sharpened their teeth on the Alcohol Research Group and Cahalan and Room before turning to the Sobells.

I describe these experiences in: Denial - of Reality and of Freedom - in Addiction Research and Treatment

Of course, this has colossal policy implications, and is why American treatment remains stalled in AA and 12 steps. But it is also a commentary on the AA experience, the kind of thing for which the sociological study of brainwashing was my best academic preparation.

Kerry Heffner clarified his position:

    Stanton: There may be less of a difference between us than it appears. I'm NOT suggesting that AA is this harmless little social organization where there is open expression and rational thinking -- I haven't come across one of those since the commune and--even there--there were strong pressures to conform. You characterize AA as "a mnd bending experience along the lines of a cult....with major group directed influences on changing the individual's mind set and self-conception."

    As if it could be anything else! I'd argue that growing up (in a family, community, society, and culture) is an experience with major group-directed influences on changing individual mind sets and identities. I think there are much better--and more productive--criticisms of AA than that it is "cult-like." The cult argument serves to distance and pathologize and I think there are more useful conversations to be had about AA.

    You are free to quote me on anything I say in public. My real concern is that the context of the argument doesn't get lost or distorted. I'd hate to be known in public as being 100%, gung-ho supportive of AA--I'm not. AA serves some useful functions for some people some of the time. For the majority of problem drinkers, it is inappropriate. And for a small minority it may be harmful. (I suppose this is where we'd disagree the most--on the harmfulness of the program.)

source: http://www.peele.net/debate/cultlite.html

The title of the article is "Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult Lite"  .. heh ... heh... heheh...

Also of interest:
Denial — of Reality and of Freedom — in Addiction Research and Treatment:
http://www.peele.net/lib/denial.html

[Oscar]

He is listed on the victims page as a survivor from Academy of Swift River.

[Anonymous]

He is listed on the victims page as a survivor from Academy of Swift River.

please get the kid from elan who was beaten to death during "teenagers coerced into or forced into beating other teenagers therapy" in 1994 or 5, mid 90s.

[Anonymous]

Wow. This goes deep

I am also not sure if your claim that he doesn't believe brainwashing / thought reform exists is accurate.

 Yes, Schaler claims brainwashing doesn’t exist. This is from a “scholarly article” he wrote, which is a long-winded defense of Scientology.

Behavior is a choice Contrary to conventional wisdom regarding cults, people are not put under a spell or held in some kind of hypnotic trance, where they do things they ordinarily wouldn’t do, or act in ways they do not want to act.... On a psychological level, no one can make another person feel guilty or feel any particular way in order to do or not do something, independent of their choosing.

i.e. Scientolgy doesn’t brainwash anyone
http://www.schaler.net/cults.pdf

 But, he claims “cults” do exist. He, like Buffe and Peele, has a personal definition of cult. What qualifies as a cult? Answer: Psychiatry.

what do we know about the cult of psychiatry?

The cult of psychiatry isn’t about science or medicine it’s about power

Psychiatry is a cult – its members severely criticize and ostracize others in the “mental health profession” who say that mental illness is a myth.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/jeffr ... 4157917779
http://www.schaler.net/cults.pdf

He’s also clearly a Scientologist Puppet. He’s on the CCHR. He’s their spokesman.

“PROFESSOR JEFFREY SCHALER, PSYCHOLOGIST, CCHR SPOKESMAN: I`m honored to speak to you today at this inauguration of the Psychiatry and Industry of Death Museum.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... bt.01.html

He claims mental illness can be physical illness, and vitamins and such will help it—in accordance with Scientology doctrine.  He mixes valid ideas with points which manipulatively serve Scientology’s double agenda. According to him, psychiatric abuses shouldn’t be stopped, psychiatry should be stopped, which is why people should remain Scientologists.

Accepting his CCHR award:

Alone on a desert island you can develop cancer, but you can’t develop mental illness

(yes you can)

 psychiatrists are the  Inquisitors of today

My father escaped Nazi Germany. Dad, I asked, how did people let the nazi’s get away with it?” He answered, “Because we never took them seriously.” Well I’m telling you to take Psychiatrists seriously. We are building a resistance to the psychiatric Gestapo! That is why we are here tonight and that is why we will be together tomorrow! (paraphrased) (roaring applause from the Scientologists]

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/jeffr ... 4157917779

He semi-literately wrote a long-winded defense of Scientology, that there’s no such thing as brainwashing, or “cults” (medical definition)
http://www.schaler.net/cults.pdf

Here are some of this thoughts on Scientology

No one is coerced into joining the Church of Scientology.

People claim they were pressured into staying in Scientology, bilked out of thousands of dollars if not life savings, threatened in all kinds of ways if they go against the group ideologies, are multitudinous. But evidence that the Church of Scientology committed crimes is sorely lacking.

A search on the Internet for opinions regarding the Church of Scientology brings thousands of hits. The vituperative attacks on Scientology, a group recognized as a religion by the Department of the Treasury, must be seen to be believed. People who claim [bad things] may bring civil litigation against the Church of Scientology. There may, of course, have been crimes that were committed, for which people were prosecuted; and crimes for which members of the Church of Scientology were not prosecuted, as is true with any religion or cult.

After years of fighting with the Department of the Treasury, the federal government recognized the Church of Scientology as a religion and granted it religious status. When such (attacks) are launched towards Jews we call it anti-Semitism. When criticism is leveled towards Scientology it is consideredgood and the right thing to do.

those critical of Scientology believe that people who choose to join the Church were coerced into doing so, as if they could exhibit involuntary behavior.The confusion regarding coercion in cults is undoubtedly because much of what people call coercion is in fact persuasion. No one is coerced into joiningthe Church of Scientology.

I didn’t expect this person to be a Scio Puppet..the levels of their con is remarkable .

[Troll Control]

Yes, this should never be forgotten.  Aspen killed this kid.  And his dad was Aspen's accomplice.

[TheWho]

Yes, this should never be forgotten.  Aspen killed this kid.  And his dad was Aspen's accomplice.

Ha,Ha,Ha  this is great.  Now we have the Nazis and the church of scientology involved.  This is going to be a huge case when it finally breaks...trial of the century!!!

so far:
The parents of this kid were "Nazi Scientologists Edcon Program Parents with a cult fetish"

Lets keep it going!!

[Troll Control]

Personally, Who, I don't see what's funny about a dead kid.  Laughing at this family's completely avoidable tragedy is disgusting.

[Troll Control]

Personally, Who, I don't see what's funny about a dead kid.  Laughing at this family's completely avoidable tragedy is disgusting.

Sadly, this is what many ASR parents do.  They laugh at the deaths of other people's kids.