Author Topic: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????  (Read 7585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« on: March 21, 2010, 11:51:00 PM »
What is fascinating me now is this TC and AA Vine. 1st question..Who started this connection/introduced AA. 2nd question..Why they (originators) felt it would work. 3rd question..Why it went so wrong.

 This is a partial post but I believe dives right into the point folks have been making and what I would like to delve into more.

http://www.national-drug-rehab-treatment-centers.org/

Since the 1970's we have experienced a much greater need for drug rehab and addiction treatment in the United States and Canada. This increase in demand for drug rehab and/or alcohol and drug treatment centers comes from an addicted public that dramatically increased in numbers, and continues to do so with the introduction of more pharmaceuticals into the general marketplace. But the more important cause for the rapid rise in the establishment of drug rehab and addiction treatment centers evolved due to the money that was invested into the drug rehab and treatment industry.

In the beginning, most of this money came from health insurance companies that had added a provision for drug rehab or addiction treatment in an overwhelming majority of their health plans. This started with Nixon's War on Drugs and was enhanced by Reagon's War on Drugs and the passing of laws regarding drugs in the workplace.

The problem lies in the fact that drug rehab and addiction treatment centers were established well before there was any workable science to deliver a technology that would handle addiction successfully - and the reputation of addiction treatment has suffered because of the need to quickly establish drug rehab centers without doing the due diligence necessary to find out what clinical actions work and what doesn't. Once these drug rehab and addiction treatment facilities were opened and "serving" the public, they have continued to do their same ineffective treatment without questioning their methods or outcomes. Insurance companies brought in Managed Care consultants to limit the amount they were spending on inpatient and residential drug rehabs or addiction treatment centers, so many of the beginning centers were not able to survive a fee-for-service atmosphere. Most business would work on creating a lasting and real product in order to say competetive, but in drug rehab and addiction treatment, most have yet to question their basic tenants, but rest comfortably on the idea that drugs are becoming more addicting and addiction is a disease of relapse.

 :shamrock:  
There is that disease word. Thanks to are wonderful Insurance Industry they needed to keep there cost down so you can forget about any quality care. Counseling that Femanon and Anne talked about they would like to see forget it. Ship them off to TC's or whatever.  
 :shamrock:

Rather than question their approach to treatment, these ineffective drug rehab and addiction treatment centers have redefined the "disease" and the behaviors of the clients, but most of this name changing actually justified the facts that addicts were not getting well. Because it has been labeled a "disease" that is supposedly chronic... meaning it last forever, and progressive, meaning that even if you stop taking drugs, the "disease" progresses with time. Just imagine being a young adult and being caught up in a drug addiction that is ruling your life, and you finally go to addiction treatment, with the idea that you can now begin to be sane and productive, but they sell you the "disease model of addiction".

 :shamrock:  
This is exactly why I do not like the classification disease, there is no accountability. I agree with you Femanon. AA idea is to explain that you will never be able to drink normal. Now I believe there is some truth to that because I have tried after not drinking for a while and I ended up drinking abusively again. No is this pre-conditioned I'm not sure but my guess would be yes.
 :shamrock:    

Drug addicts are already depressed about their plight, but they are holding on to some hope that they can turn their lives around. Then they are told by authorities who are supposed to know addiction, that they have a chronic and progressive disease. It is no wonder that many drug addicts go through treatment counting the days until they can go to their dealer for more of the same. Our counselors have talked to numerous drug addicts that have related this thinking when they were attending drug rehab.

 :shamrock:
Hmmmmm.....Sad.
 :shamrock:

These early drug rehab centers were basing their treatment on the twelve steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, which was a marginally successful approach to helping alcoholics recover from their addictions, but was not intended to be an institutionalized form of therapy within a drug rehab center, and by altering its basic tenets, these centers did not deliver the results that one would anticipate if they were seeking a cure to their addiction. For about ten years, this didn’t seem to be a problem as drug rehabilitation was finding clients and making money. This pattern declined in the late 80s and into the 90s and tough drug laws resulted in a skyrocketing jail and prison population full of drug-related offenders.

 :shamrock:
This is what I have been trying to say although not intellectually so I could be understood. These TC's, Straight and others changed the basic tenants/principles of AA and tried to teach principles that were based on a suggestive idea not forced.
 :shamrock:

In time, the insurance companies and other financial sources became disaffected with these poor results and measures were taken that limited the amount any individual insurance company would pay for addiction treatment and the number of treatment episodes anyone could have within a given year and/or the life of the policy. Most of these drug addiction treatment centers had less than 10% of their graduates leaving their care and being free of their addiction. This meant that over 90% returned to their destructive behavior and, it was just a matter of a short while before these graduates were looking for help again. It wasn’t uncommon to find addicted persons that had attended these types of treatment multiple times, with many going through more than five episodes of treatment and using up all of the money that family could dedicate to their recovery.

 :shamrock:
Under Bill Clinton I believe this changed.
 :shamrock:

The pendulum has recently begun to swing back in the other direction, though, and legislative and advocacy efforts are once again turning toward drug rehab centers and addiction treatment centers as opposed to incarceration. The money to pay for the drug rehab centers is still being figured out, as insurance companies don't offer as much coverage and there is only a relatively small amount of government dollars available for addiction treatment, especially quality drug rehab centers that get results.

 :shamrock:
As usual.....
 :shamrock:


Danny
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2010, 12:19:23 AM »
The Disease Theory Evolution......How it is destroying AA in my opinion.


http://www.national-drug-rehab-treatment-centers.org/
Wilson eventually came under the care of Dr. William Silkworth, a doctor who specialised in the treatment of alcoholics based on a disease concept of alcoholism.

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:
 
http://www.search.com/reference/William ... _Silkworth
William Duncan Silkworth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Duncan Silkworth, M.D., (1873?-1951) was an American medical doctor and specialist in the treatment of alcoholism. He was Director of the Charles B. Towns Hospital for Drug and Alcohol Addictions in New York City in the 1930s, during which time Bill Wilson, a future co-founder of the mutual-help movement Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.), was admitted on three separate occasions for alcoholism. Silkworth had a profound influence on Wilson and encouraged him to realize that alcoholism was more than just an issue of moral weakness. He introduced Wilson to the idea that alcoholism had a pathological, disease-like basis.
William Silkworth wrote the chapter titled "The Doctor's Opinion" in the book Alcoholics Anonymous

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:
 
http://www.search.com/reference/Disease ... alcoholism
Disease theory of alcoholism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Disease theory of alcoholism states that alcoholism is a disease process. The disease theory is generally accepted by the medical community[citation needed]. Outside the medical community, there is considerable debate over whether or not alcoholism should be considered a disease. Proponents argue that genetic, neurological and behavioral studies distinguish those with alcohol dependence from problem drinkers. Opponents cite the inability to pin down the behavioral issues to a physical cause as a reason for avoiding classification.

Most medical clinicians consider alcoholism a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors and characterized by compulsive drinking with impaired control and preoccupation with and use of alcohol despite adverse consequences[citation needed]. However, the disease theory is still controversial among the public at large. US Supreme Court decisions, books, and scientific journal articles demonstrate this lack of consensus.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Contents

    * 1 Theory
          o 1.1 Controversy
    * 2 History
          o 2.1 Current acceptance
    * 3 Medical evidence
          o 3.1 Supporting evidence
          o 3.2 Dissenting evidence
    * 4 References
    * 5 External links

The term "disease" refers to a disorder of structure or function. The term can refer to a physical disorder, such as diabetes, or to a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia. Diseases can be short-lived, such as the common cold, or life long, as in sickle cell anemia.

In the case of alcoholism, research has demonstrated both genetic and environmental contributors to the development of a condition that carries significant physical morbidity. Such factors as a typical course and well-described epidemiology (the incidence and prevalence of the condition) also contribute to the establishment of a disease entity.

Some argue that the disease concept is promoted by those with a vested interest: If alcoholism is not considered a disease, third-party payments to physicians and hospitals for its treatment might cease.

The disease theory of alcoholism was first proposed in the early 1800s by Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia, and independently by Thomas Trotter[10]. The modern theory of alcoholism as a disease was put forth by E. Morton Jellinek. Controversy over Jellinek's claim that he received a doctoral degree [11] has contributed to criticisms of the disease theory.

The first challenge to the disease model came with the publication of D.L. Davies' (1962)[12] follow up of seven alcohol abusers which found that some of them were able to revert to "controlled drinking." Although the data has subsequently been challenged, it caused a storm at the time by asking how someone suffering a disease which reputedly leads to uncontrollable drinking can manage to drink controllably. Subsequent studies also found similar results[citation needed].

Between 1980 and 1991, medical organizations worked together to establish policies regarding their positions on the disease theory. These policies were developed in 1987 in part due to the lack of parity between addictive disease and other chronic disease states with respect to third-party reimbursement. The policies of the American Medical Association, formed through consensus of the federation of state and specialty medical societies within their House of Delegates, state, in part: "The AMA endorses the proposition that drug dependencies, including alcoholism, are diseases and that their treatment is a legitimate part of medical practice." In 1991, The AMA further endorsed the dual classification of alcoholism by the International Classification of Diseases under both psychiatric and medical sections. In 1980, the AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs (now the Council on Science and Public Health) noted that "alcoholism is in and of itself a disabling and handicapping condition."

In a 1988 US Supreme Court decision on whether alcohol dependence is a condition for which the US Veterans Administration should provide benefits,[13] Justice Byron R. White's statement echoed the District of Columbia Circuit's finding that "a substantial body of medical literature that even contests the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, much less that it is a disease for which the victim bears no responsibility." He also wrote, "Indeed, even among many who consider alcoholism a "disease" to which its victims are genetically predisposed, the consumption of alcohol is not regarded as wholly involuntary."[13]

The American Society of Addiction Medicine and the American Medical Association both maintain extensive policy regarding alcoholism. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes the existence of "alcoholism" as the equivalent of alcohol dependence. The American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American College of Physicians classify "alcoholism" as a disease.

Programs such as Rational Recovery reject the "disease model" and Stanton Peele has devoted a significant portion of his web site to disputing many assertions made by many in the alcoholism treatment community including the AMA, APA, and NIAAA.[14]

The US Social Security Administration no longer makes disability payments to individuals for whom substance use disorders are a material aspect of their disability.

Disease theory of alcoholism was referenced in the South Park episode "Bloody Mary", with the character Stan Marsh saying "No, cancer is a disease. My dad needs to drink less." The episode had a lot of controversy, however that was all regarding the episode's portrayal of the Virgin Mary.

The results of medical research have been used both in support of and against the disease theory of alcoholism.

Medication has been developed to assist in the treatment of alcoholism, although research has not yet demonstrated long-term efficacy.[citation needed]

Research[9] shows that frequency and quantity of alcohol use are not related to the presence of the condition; that is, people can drink a great deal without necessarily being alcoholic and alcoholics may drink minimally and/or infrequently.

Research[12] has shown that some recovered alcohol abusers can resume "controlled drinking." However, the data in this study has been challenged[citation needed].

   1. ^ Maltzman I Is alcoholism a disease? A critical review of a controversy Integr Physiol Behav Sci 1991 Jul-Sep;26(3):200-10
   2. ^ Levy MS The disease controversy and psychotherapy with alcoholics J Psychoactive Drugs 1992 Jul-Sep;24(3):251-6
   3. ^ Schaler, Jeffrey A. Thinking About Drinking: The Power of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies The International Journal of Drug Policy Volume 7, No. 3, 1996, pp. 187-192
   4. ^ Thomas R. Hobbs Managing alcoholism as a disease Physician’s News Digest, February 1998
   5. ^ Roger E. Meyer The disease called addiction: emerging evidence in a 200-year debate
   6. ^ Gina Kolata Alcoholic genes or misbehavior? The Supreme Court is due to decide on whether alcoholism is a disease or a character flaw Psychology Today May 1988
   7. ^ Nackerud, Larry The disease model of alcoholism: a Kuhnian paradigm Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 6/1/2002
   8. ^ Doug Kelley Understanding the Nature of Alcoholism November 2001
   9. ^ a b Article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, by the Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine. 1992.
  10. ^ Trotter T An Essay, Medical, Philosophical, and Chemical, on Drunkenness and Its Effects on the Human Body (1804) Tavistock Classics in the History of Psychiatry Edited by Porter R. London, Routledge, 1988
  11. ^ Jellinek's Phantom Doctorate
  12. ^ a b Davies, D.L. (1962). Normal drinking in recovered alcohol addicts. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 23, 94 - 104.
  13. ^ a b TRAYNOR v. TURNAGE, 485 U.S. 535 (1988)
  14. ^ The Stanton Peele Addiction Website

    * American Public Health Association - APHA
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2010, 12:35:49 AM »
Thought this was interesting....

http://www.soberforever.net/hazelden-tr ... -rates.cfm
 Hazelden Treatment Center and AA Statistics
Hazelden Treatment Center and AA Statistics
Belief versus Fact: What is the truth about AA’s success rate?

In the process of living we all develop opinions about everything with which we come in contact. It is an integral part of our being.  That is to say that we “can’t not” have an opinion.  Opinions are interesting things because opinions can be developed through empirical data or by way of tradition with no supporting evidence, or from misinformation, or out of thin air.   Regardless of the basis for any one particular opinion, what each individual believes, like everything else in life, is merely a choice.  Beliefs, however, are not the same as opinions. Opinions arrived at by way of empirical data tend to be factual. Thus, belief is not required to hold a proven opinion. To believe in something is to accept something as truth in the absence of proof, even if it isn't true. For example, there exists today an organization that goes by the name "The Flat Earth Society." (To get to their homepage go to www.alaska.net)
   
Alcoholism Treatment Alternative

drug rehab class

The people that belong to and/or support The Flat Earth Society are not absurd, nor are they stupid, simply because they have chosen to believe that the Earth is flat, not round. Members of the Flat Earth Society, to believe as they do, must ignore numerous facts that refute the most fundamental basis for their belief (e.g. time zones, the Prime Meridian and the International Date Line, airplane flights from Moscow, Russia to Seattle, Washington over the North Pole, etc.) The point is that there are many instances where people accept certain ideas as fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Many Fundamentalist Christians believe that God made the world approximately 4000 years ago putting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Before that time, they contend, there was nothing except God, Himself. In support of their beliefs, they argue that the dinosaurs are mythical creatures that never actually existed. They contend that the skeletons of these creatures which have been found on all seven continents are a world-wide hoax created by the "evil-one" to lure people away from God’s truth in the Book of Genesis.

In the extreme (and in some not so extreme) these belief systems that fly in the face of common sense and scientific evidence are horribly destructive. Consider the belief system of Heaven's Gate.  When the Hale-Bop Comet came close to the earth most of the members of Heaven's Gate, 39 out of 41, committed suicide. I, of course, cannot know for sure whether or not the souls of the members got picked up by the comet. But what I am sure of is this: the members of Heaven's Gate must have believed that their souls would be picked up by the extraterrestrials who, according to the beliefs of Heaven's Gate, were accompanying the Hale-Bop comet.
With that brief explanation of belief systems, you may be able to take an introspective look at your beliefs. You may say, "I still believe that alcoholism...is a disease..." And if you do think that, you would be absolutely correct. Specifically, you did not say "alcoholism is a disease;" you said that you "believe" alcoholism is a disease. Your statement is correct because you are stating a fact about yourself and not about whether alcoholism is or is not a disease. You, of course, are free to believe whatever pleases you as an individual. And, like the Flat Earth Society, and others, you have chosen a belief which is contrary to the empirical evidence and scientific method. To wit, you have chosen to ignore the facts in favor of a belief that better fits your personal wants or needs.  A personal choice such as this needs no justification unless it in some way affects another negatively. By you and others around you buying into the absurd notion that drinking or drugging is a disease, you are constantly reinforcing the idea in your mind that you have this disease for which you are no longer responsible. If you have been "brainwashed" to the extent that the "disease of alcoholism" is firmly implanted in your psyche, then your chances of moderating or stopping drinking or drugging forever is minimal.  Conversely, if you become willing to take full responsibility for your behavior, then your chances of stopping forever go up dramatically.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2010, 12:38:02 AM »
*****
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:11:30 PM by Anonymous »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2010, 12:38:27 AM »
*****
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:11:50 PM by Anonymous »

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2010, 12:47:01 AM »
:shamrock:
Helps to explain the long term affects of drugs.....Cravings..ect.

1. Biophysical Drug Rehab
Biophysical treatment methods get the residue of the drugs out of the body. Through research, it has been found that the human body will store a residue, called a metabolite of the drug, in the dormant fat tissue for 5 – 7 years after drug use/abuse. When a person stops using drugs, this residue of the fat-soluble drugs begins to be released back into the blood stream which causes cravings, anxiety, and depression in the addict who may be trying desperately to curtail his use.
This can go on for literally years and is the major reason why many programs claim that addiction is a life-long disease. As these toxins are released back into the blood stream, it causes the struggling drug affected person to experience some of the original drug effect and causes depression and mental health problems that lead many to see advice from psychiatrist who will then prescribe a psychiatric medication, which leads to more toxins in the body to add to the emotional roller coaster that most recovering people experience daily.
Drugs like heroin, oxycontin, cocaine, and meth are more powerful than the natural chemicals the brain produces to be happy, so these "flash-back" type experiences overpower ones natural chemistry. It takes at least a year for this natural chemical balance to be restored and most "recovering" addicts cannot take the anxiety and depression they are causing for any length of time without relapsing back to their drug of choice or drug of availability.
The Biophysical method uses a purification technology in conjunction with vitamins and minerals to release these toxic residues stored in fat tissue, back into the blood stream where they are then forced out of the body, leaving the person free of this contamination and free of the cravings, anxiety or depression caused by the side effects of these drugs. This enables a return to a natural chemical balance, which is why these types of programs don't subscribe to the expression, "Once and Addict, Always and Addict". This type of drug rehabilitation center uses a social educational model to restore ethics and build life-skills to ensure their graduates are drug free and productive members of society. Drug Rehab Programs with this method are having a success rate of over 78%. This is why Biophysical drug treatment centers are the most highly recommended and fastest growing form of treatment.

 :shamrock:
Yeah this worked in Elan just great, one problem we were beat into submission so we couldn't ask for our M&M's.
 
2. Drug Rehab using behavior modification
Behavioral Modification gained popularity in the 1970's and is based on the Pavlovian idea that man is an animal and changes actions based on stimulus and response. It was popular during these early years for teachers to have bags of M&M's to reward children for proper responses. In drug treatment, the Therapeutic Community model was developed, which uses ridicule and shamming tactics rather than M&M's in an attempt to change thinking and behavior. These program are popular with criminal justice populations and have demonstrated less than a 10% long-term success rate. As long as the person is in the original group and has gained some privileges for being a "perfect client", the compliance is high, but for those that need support to make changes, it can be devastating and leads to many clients exiting the programs early to maintain some personal power and dignity.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2010, 05:43:55 AM »
*****
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:12:36 PM by Anonymous »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2010, 05:46:58 AM »
*****
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:13:02 PM by Anonymous »

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2010, 10:51:24 AM »
This was posted to get some intelligent feedback is this all you have. Seriously....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline Jeffery

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2010, 11:14:07 AM »
Quote from: "DannyB II"
This was posted to get some intelligent feedback is this all you have. Seriously....
how about this
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29840&p=359542#p359542 :notworthy:  :notworthy:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2010, 12:59:36 PM »
Quote from: "DannyB II"
This was posted to get some intelligent feedback is this all you have. Seriously....


Ok...seriously.  It all went so wrong because it's a friggin religious cult.  Ya can't really get anything 'right' out of something that starts off so wrong.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2010, 02:56:52 PM »
*****
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:16:51 PM by Anonymous »

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2010, 03:30:15 PM »
...
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 11:37:41 PM by DannyB II »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2010, 03:36:33 PM »
*****
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:13:47 PM by Anonymous »

Offline SEKTO

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 505
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
Re: AA and TC.s - How It Went So Wrong....????
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2010, 03:57:13 PM »
It's very very uncool in my sight to encourage somebody to kill him or her-self.  That's not a joking matter.

Personally, in my opinion AA is not a cult, but does have some cult-like attributes.  Any group can become abusive to its members, and AA is no exception.  But I see no charismatic authority figure for whom the group as a whole is a mirror of sorts, no coercive persuasion techniques being employed, and I also fail to see how your average AA member is being exploited in any way.  Now, I have seen AA fanatics who probably had some unhealthy and abusive relationships with their sponsors, but on the whole if somebody asked me if AA were a cult, I'd say no.  But I'd also caution that person to never let somebody else define reality for them, and to always reserve the right to have an independent opinion.  Again, any group can turn abusive.  That's my two cents' on the is-it-or-isn't-it-a-cult debate with respect to AA.  I do not see how AA is an intrinsically abusive group, or series of situational traps.  That's how I look at cults and other abusive groups: they are a sustained series of situational traps.

Here's a genius video on cults and thought reform/mind control. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E

What follows is a pertinent extract (pp. 20-21) from a book entitled Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults, by Janja Lalich. I recommend Bounded Choice for anyone seriously interested in understanding the psychological dynamics of the cult phenomenon.

http://books.google.com/books?id=p2Udi3 ... q=&f=false

Individuals in a cult context are constrained not only by a bounded reality-one product of the self-sealing system-but also by bounded choice. This occurs when the individual reaches what Lifton described as a state of personal closure. ("Closure" in this sense does not mean completion, as it is sometimes used, but a turning inward and refusal to look at other ideas, belifs, or options.) I suggest that a state of person closure should be considered the individualized version of the larger self-sealing system. Thus, as a person identifies and unites with the bounded reality of the group and its belief system, becoming a devotee by making that charismatic commitment to the self-sealing worldview, another process begins to take place. That is, individual perspective and personal decision making become limited and constrained, and that restritction comes as much from within as from without. In the context of closure and constraint, choices may exist, but they are severely limited. In such situations, the person can be described as being in a state of bounded choice.

http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookre ... choice.htm

The interaction between the individual and the charismatic system is the key to understanding bounded choice theory. The believer responds to the intellectual and emotional pull of the group with commitment that is renewed through ongoing interaction, and in the process develops a new self. The leader’s vision of the path to salvation has transformational power.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 04:03:32 PM by SEKTO »